Showing 25 of 882 results
This paper presents for the first time a precise measurement of the production properties of the Z boson in the full phase space of the decay leptons. The measurement is obtained from proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment in 2012 at $\sqrt s$ = 8 TeV at the LHC and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20.2 fb$^{-1}$. The results, based on a total of 15.3 million Z-boson decays to electron and muon pairs, extend and improve a previous measurement of the full set of angular coefficients describing Z-boson decay. The double-differential cross-section distributions in Z-boson transverse momentum p$_T$ and rapidity y are measured in the pole region, defined as 80 $<$ m $<$ 100 GeV, over the range $|y| <$ 3.6. The total uncertainty of the normalised cross-section measurements in the peak region of the p$_T$ distribution is dominated by statistical uncertainties over the full range and increases as a function of rapidity from 0.5-1.0% for $|y| <$ 2.0 to 2-7% at higher rapidities. The results for the rapidity-dependent transverse momentum distributions are compared to state-of-the-art QCD predictions, which combine in the best cases approximate N$^4$LL resummation with N$^3$LO fixed-order perturbative calculations. The differential rapidity distributions integrated over p$_T$ are even more precise, with accuracies from 0.2-0.3% for $|y| <$ 2.0 to 0.4-0.9% at higher rapidities, and are compared to fixed-order QCD predictions using the most recent parton distribution functions. The agreement between data and predictions is quite good in most cases.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for |y| < 0.4.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 0.4 < |y| < 0.8.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 0.8 < |y| < 1.2.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.2 < |y| < 1.6.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.6 < |y| < 2.0.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.0 < |y| < 2.4.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.4 < |y| < 2.8.
Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.8 < |y| < 3.2.
Measured cross sections in full-lepton phase space as a function of |y|.
Normalised measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for |y| < 1.6.
The observation of the production of four top quarks in proton-proton collisions is reported, based on a data sample collected by the CMS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV in 2016-2018 at the CERN LHC and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Events with two same-sign, three, or four charged leptons (electrons and muons) and additional jets are analyzed. Compared to previous results in these channels, updated identification techniques for charged leptons and jets originating from the hadronization of b quarks, as well as a revised multivariate analysis strategy to distinguish the signal process from the main backgrounds, lead to an improved expected signal significance of 4.9 standard deviations above the background-only hypothesis. Four top quark production is observed with a significance of 5.6 standard deviations, and its cross section is measured to be 17.7 $^{+3.7}_{-3.5}$ (stat) $^{+2.3}_{-1.9}$ (syst) fb, in agreement with the available standard model predictions.
Comparison of fit results in the channels individually and in their combination. The left panel shows the values of the measured cross section relative to the SM prediction from Ref. [6]. The right panel shows the expected and observed significance, with the printed values rounded to the first decimal.
Number of predicted and observed events in the SR-2$\ell$ and SR-3$\ell$ $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ classes, both before the fit to the data ("prefit") and with their best fit normalizations ("postfit"). The uncertainties in the predicted number of events include both the statistical and systematic components. The uncertainties in the total number of predicted background and background plus signal events are also given.
Quasireal photons exchanged in relativistic heavy ion interactions are powerful probes of the gluonic structure of nuclei. The coherent J/$\psi$ photoproduction cross section in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions is measured as a function of photon-nucleus center-of-mass energies per nucleon (W$^\text{Pb}_{\gamma\text{N}}$), over a wide range of 40 $\lt$ W$^\text{Pb}_{\gamma\text{N}}$$\lt$ 400 GeV. Results are obtained using data at the nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1.52 nb$^{-1}$. The cross section is observed to rise rapidly at low W$^\text{Pb}_{\gamma\text{N}}$, and plateau above W$^\text{Pb}_{\gamma\text{N}}$$\approx$ 40 GeV, up to 400 GeV, a new regime of small Bjorken-$x$ ($\approx$ 6 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$) gluons being probed in a heavy nucleus. The observed energy dependence is not predicted by current quantum chromodynamic models.
The differential coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction cross section as a function of rapidity, in different neutron multiplicity classes: 0n0n, 0nXn, XnXn , and AnAn.
The differential coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction cross section as a function of rapidity, in different neutron multiplicity classes: 0n0n, 0nXn, XnXn , and AnAn.
The total coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$, measured in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ values used correspond to the center of each rapidity range. The theoretical uncertainties is due to the uncertainties in the photon flux.
The total coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$, measured in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ values used correspond to the center of each rapidity range. The theoretical uncertainties is due to the uncertainties in the photon flux.
The nuclear gluon suppression factor $R_{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ as a function of Bjorken $x$ extracted from the CMS measurement of the coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux and the impulse approximation model.
The nuclear gluon suppression factor $R_{\mathrm{g}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ as a function of Bjorken $x$ extracted from the CMS measurement of the coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ photoproduction in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux and the impulse approximation model.
The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.
The photon flux values from STARLight as a function of rapidity, in different neutron multiplicity classes: 0n0n, 0nXn, and XnXn.
The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.
The covariance matrix for the flux in the 0n0n neutron multiplicity class.
The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.
The covariance matrix for the flux in the 0nXn neutron multiplicity class.
The covariance matrix for the flux in the XnXn neutron multiplicity class.
The total covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.
The experimental covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.
The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total coherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.
Measurements of differential cross sections are presented for inclusive isolated-photon production in $pp$ collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV provided by the LHC and using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of data recorded by the ATLAS experiment. The cross sections are measured as functions of the photon transverse energy in different regions of photon pseudorapidity. The photons are required to be isolated by means of a fixed-cone method with two different cone radii. The dependence of the inclusive-photon production on the photon isolation is investigated by measuring the fiducial cross sections as functions of the isolation-cone radius and the ratios of the differential cross sections with different radii in different regions of photon pseudorapidity. The results presented in this paper constitute an improvement with respect to those published by ATLAS earlier: the measurements are provided for different isolation radii and with a more granular segmentation in photon pseudorapidity that can be exploited in improving the determination of the proton parton distribution functions. These improvements provide a more in-depth test of the theoretical predictions. Next-to-leading-order QCD predictions from JETPHOX and SHERPA and next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD predictions from NNLOJET are compared to the measurements, using several parameterisations of the proton parton distribution functions. The measured cross sections are well described by the fixed-order QCD predictions within the experimental and theoretical uncertainties in most of the investigated phase-space region.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.
Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.
Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.
Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.
Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.
Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.
Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.
Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.
Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.
Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.
Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.
Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.
Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.
Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.
Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.
Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.
Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.
For the first time at LHC energies, the forward rapidity gap spectra from proton-lead collisions for both proton and lead dissociation processes are presented. The analysis is performed over 10.4 units of pseudorapidity at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV, almost 300 times higher than in previous measurements of diffractive production in proton-nucleus collisions. For lead dissociation processes, which correspond to the pomeron-lead event topology, the EPOS-LHC generator predictions are a factor of two below the data, but the model gives a reasonable description of the rapidity gap spectrum shape. For the pomeron-proton topology, the EPOS-LHC, QGSJET II, and HIJING predictions are all at least a factor of five lower than the data. The latter effect might be explained by a significant contribution of ultra-peripheral photoproduction events mimicking the signature of diffractive processes. These data may be of significant help in understanding the high energy limit of quantum chromodynamics and for modeling cosmic ray air showers.
Differential cross section for events with Pomeron-Lead ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{Pb}$) topology obtained at the reconstruction level for $|\eta| < 3$ region. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
Differential cross section for events with Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology obtained at the reconstruction level for $|\eta| < 3$ region. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
Reconstruction level differential cross section spectla, obtained for the central acceptance, $|\eta| < 3$, for events with Pomeron-Lead ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{Pb}$) topology compared to the to the EPOS-LHC predictions, broken down into the non-diffractive (ND), central diffractive (CD), single diffractive (SD) and double diffractive (DD) components. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
Reconstruction level differential cross section spectla, obtained for the central acceptance, $|\eta| < 3$, for events with Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology compared to the to the EPOS-LHC predictions, broken down into the non-diffractive (ND), central diffractive (CD), single diffractive (SD) and double diffractive (DD) components. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
The number of high purity tracksin the first $\eta$ bin after a gap of $4.5 \leq \Delta\eta^F < 5.0$ for events with the Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
The transeverse momentum of high purity tracksin the first $\eta$ bin after a gap of $4.5 \leq \Delta\eta^F < 5.0$ for events with the Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
The total energy of all Particle Flow candidatesin the first $\eta$ bin after a gap of $4.5 \leq \Delta\eta^F < 5.0$ for events with the Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV
Unfolded diffraction enhanced differential cross section for events with Pomeron-Lead ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{Pb}$) topology, defined on the region $|\eta| < 5.2$, compared to hadron level predictions of the MC generators. The data are corrected for the contribution from events with undetectable energy in the HF calorimeter adjacent to the rapidity gap. The corrections are obtained using the EPOS-LHC MC sample. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
Unfolded diffraction enhanced differential cross section for events with Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology, defined on the region $|\eta| < 5.2$, compared to hadron level predictions of the MC generators. The data are corrected for the contribution from events with undetectable energy in the HF calorimeter adjacent to the rapidity gap. The corrections are obtained using the EPOS-LHC MC sample. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
Unfolded diffractive enhanced differential cross section spectla for events with Pomeron-Lead ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{Pb}$) topology, compared to the to the hadron-level EPOS-LHC predictions, broken down into the non-diffractive (ND), central diffractive (CD), single diffractive (SD) and double diffractive (DD) components. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
Unfolded diffractive enhanced differential cross section spectla for events with Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology, compared to the to the hadron-level EPOS-LHC predictions, broken down into the non-diffractive (ND), central diffractive (CD), single diffractive (SD) and double diffractive (DD) components. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
Unfolded diffractive enhanced differential cross section spectla for events with Pomeron-Lead ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{Pb}$) topology, compared to the to the hadron-level QGSJET II predictions, broken down into the non-diffractive (ND), central diffractive (CD), single diffractive (SD) and double diffractive (DD) components. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
Unfolded diffractive enhanced differential cross section spectla for events with Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology, compared to the to the hadron-level QGSJET II predictions, broken down into the non-diffractive (ND), central diffractive (CD), single diffractive (SD) and double diffractive (DD) components. Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
Reconstruction level diffraction enhanced differential cross section spectrum for Pomeron-Proton ($\mathrm{I\!P}\mathrm{p} + \gamma \mathrm{p}$) topology corrected for the contribution from events with undetectable energy in the HF calorimeter adjacent to the rapidity gap, compared with the spectrum obtained with events satisfying the ZDC veto requirement $E_{ZDC−} < 1 \mathrm{~TeV}$ which selects only the events without lead nuclear break up (without correction for HF undetectable energy). Forward Rapidity Gap definition: $|\eta| < 2.5$: $p_{T}^{track} < 200$ MeV and $\sum \limits_{bin} E^{PF} < 6$ GeV $|\eta| \in [2.5,3.0]$: $\sum \limits_{bin} E_{neutral}^{PF} < 13.4$ GeV $|\eta| > 3.0$: No particles
The exclusive production of pion pairs in the process $pp\to pp\pi^+\pi^-$ has been measured at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, using 80 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ of low-luminosity data. The pion pairs were detected in the ATLAS central detector while outgoing protons were measured in the forward ATLAS ALFA detector system. This represents the first use of proton tagging to measure an exclusive hadronic final state at the LHC. A cross-section measurement is performed in two kinematic regions defined by the proton momenta, the pion rapidities and transverse momenta, and the pion-pion invariant mass. Cross section values of $4.8 \pm 1.0 \text{(stat.)} + {}^{+0.3}_{-0.2} \text{(syst.)}\mu$b and $9 \pm 6 \text{(stat.)} + {}^{+2}_{-2}\text{(syst.)}\mu$b are obtained in the two regions; they are compared with theoretical models and provide a demonstration of the feasibility of measurements of this type.
The measured fiducial cross sections. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second is the luminosity
Cross-sections for the production of a $Z$ boson in association with two photons are measured in proton$-$proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data used correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ recorded by the ATLAS experiment during Run 2 of the LHC. The measurements use the electron and muon decay channels of the $Z$ boson, and a fiducial phase-space region where the photons are not radiated from the leptons. The integrated $Z(\rightarrow\ell\ell)\gamma\gamma$ cross-section is measured with a precision of 12% and differential cross-sections are measured as a function of six kinematic variables of the $Z\gamma\gamma$ system. The data are compared with predictions from MC event generators which are accurate to up to next-to-leading order in QCD. The cross-section measurements are used to set limits on the coupling strengths of dimension-8 operators in the framework of an effective field theory.
Measured fiducial-level integrated cross-section. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the leading photon transverse energy $E^{\gamma1}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the subleading photon transverse energy $E^{\gamma2}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the dilepton transverse momentum $p^{ll}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the the four-body transverse momentum $p^{ll\gamma\gamma}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the four-body invariant mass $m_{ll\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).
Expected and observed $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameters $f_{T,j}/\Lambda^{4}$ of transverse dimension-8 operators. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level. No unitarity constraints are applied.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,8}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,0}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,1}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,2}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,5}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,6}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,7}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,9}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.
A measurement of the jet mass distribution in hadronic decays of Lorentz-boosted top quarks is presented. The measurement is performed in the lepton+jets channel of top quark pair production ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) events, where the lepton is an electron or muon. The products of the hadronic top quark decay are reconstructed using a single large-radius jet with transverse momentum greater than 400 GeV. The data were collected with the CMS detector at the LHC in proton-proton collisions and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The differential $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross section as a function of the jet mass is unfolded to the particle level and is used to extract the top quark mass. The jet mass scale is calibrated using the hadronic W boson decay within the large-radius jet. The uncertainties in the modelling of the final state radiation are reduced by studying angular correlations in the jet substructure. These developments lead to a significant increase in precision, and a top quark mass of 173.06 $\pm$ 0.84 GeV.
The particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
Correlations between bins in the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The covariance matrix containing the statistical uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The covariance matrix containing the experimental uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The covariance matrix containing the model uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
Correlations between bins in the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The covariance matrix containing the statistical uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The covariance matrix containing the experimental uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The covariance matrix containing the model uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
Relative experimental uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
Relative model uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
Relative experimental uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
Relative model uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.
The production of Z bosons associated with jets is measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with data recorded with the CMS experiment at the LHC corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$^{-1}$. The multiplicity of jets with transverse momentum $p_\mathrm{T}$$\gt$ 30 GeV is measured for different regions of the Z boson's $p_\mathrm{T}$(Z), from lower than 10 GeV to higher than 100 GeV. The azimuthal correlation $\Delta \phi$ between the Z boson and the leading jet, as well as the correlations between the two leading jets are measured in three regions of $p_\mathrm{T}$(Z). The measurements are compared with several predictions at leading and next-to-leading orders, interfaced with parton showers. Predictions based on transverse-momentum dependent parton distributions and corresponding parton showers give a good description of the measurement in the regions where multiple parton interactions and higher jet multiplicities are not important. The effects of multiple parton interactions are shown to be important to correctly describe the measured spectra in the low $p_\mathrm{T}$(Z) regions.
The measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$, when $p_T<10$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$, when $10<p_T<30$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$, when $30<p_T<50$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$, when $50<p_T<100$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$, when $p_T>100$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{Z,jet1}$, when $p_T<10$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{Z,jet1}$, when $10<p_T<30$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{Z,jet1}$, when $30<p_T<50$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{Z,jet1}$, when $50<p_T<100$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{Z,jet1}$, when $p_T>100$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jet1,jet2}$, when $p_T<10$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jet1,jet2}$, when $10<p_T<30$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jet1,jet2}$, when $30<p_T<50$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jet1,jet2}$, when $50<p_T<100$ GeV
The measured cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi_{jet1,jet2}$, when $p_T>100$ GeV
A measurement of single top-quark production in the s-channel is performed in proton$-$proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The analysis is performed on events with an electron or muon, missing transverse momentum and exactly two $b$-tagged jets in the final state. A discriminant based on matrix element calculations is used to separate single-top-quark s-channel events from the main background contributions, which are top-quark pair production and $W$-boson production in association with jets. The observed (expected) signal significance over the background-only hypothesis is 3.3 (3.9) standard deviations, and the measured cross-section is $\sigma=8.2^{+3.5}_{-2.9}$ pb, consistent with the Standard Model prediction of $\sigma^{\mathrm{SM}}=10.32^{+0.40}_{-0.36}$ pb.
Result of the s-channel single-top cross-section measurement, in pb. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are given, as well as the total uncertainty. The normalisation factors for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds are also shown, with their total uncertainties.
Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Expected distributions of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR, for the s-channel single-top signal, and for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. Each distribution is normalised to unity. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $W$+jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty bands indicate the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR before the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore not included. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, after subtraction of all backgrounds. The fitted distribution for the simulation of the signal is shown together with the post-fit uncertainty in the backgrounds. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.
Pre-fit and post-fit event yields in the SR, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The central value of the event yield for each process is calculated by summing the values of the discriminant bin contents, using the nominal expected yield for the pre-fit value, and the best-fit estimate for the post-fit value. The error includes statistical and systematic uncertainties summed in quadrature. All sources of systematic uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations and anti-correlations in the post-fit case. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore only included in the post-fit uncertainties.
Observed impact of the different sources of uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. The 'Systematic uncertainties' category combines all sources of systematic uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, including the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors. 'Total' gives the total uncertainty on the measurement.
Observed impact of the different sources of $t\bar{t}$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and 'ME/PS matching' to the matching of the ME to the parton shower.
Observed impact of the different sources of s-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.
Observed impact of the different sources of t-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.
Observed impact of the different sources of $tW$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and '$t\bar{t}$ overlap' to the algorithm removing the overlap between $tW$ and $t\bar{t}$ production at NLO, as described in Section 7 in the paper.
Observed impact of the different sources of PDF uncertainties on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the $m_{T}^{W}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Nuisance parameters ranked according to their post-fit impacts on the best-fit value of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. In the figure, only the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impacts are shown. The empty (solid) blue rectangles illustrate the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, corresponding to the upper axis. The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta\mu$, is calculated as the difference in the fitted value of $\mu$ between the nominal fit and the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. Several systematic uncertainties are split into different nuisance parameters, which are indicated by NP. JES (JER) indicates jet energy scale (resolution), and $\gamma$ indicates a nuisance parameter associated to the MC statistics in one of the 18 bins numbered from 0 to 17. The black points show the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters, with the error bars representing the post-fit uncertainties. Each nuisance parameter is shown wrt. its nominal value, $\theta_0$, and in units of its pre-fit uncertainty, except the free-floating normalisation factors of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, and the parameters associated to the MC statistics in each bin, for which the post-fit values and uncertainties are shown.
Correlation matrix of the nuisance parameters and of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. The correlations are given after the fit to data. In the figure, only the parameters which have a correlation of at least 0.2 with any other parameter are shown.
Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, for the collision data used for the measurement, and for 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.
Measured values of the signal cross-section and of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, obtained by statistical-only fits to the collision data used for the measurement, and to 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The central values and their statistical uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, except the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, which are let free-floating (unlike for the statistical uncertainty on the cross-section quoted in the paper). The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.
Three searches are presented for signatures of physics beyond the standard model (SM) in $\tau\tau$ final states in proton-proton collisions at the LHC, using a data sample collected with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) are set on the products of the branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons and the cross sections for the production of a new boson $\phi$, in addition to the H(125) boson, via gluon fusion (gg$\phi$) or in association with b quarks, ranging from $\mathcal{O}$(10 pb) for a mass of 60 GeV to 0.3 fb for a mass of 3.5 TeV each. The data reveal two excesses for gg$\phi$ production with local $p$-values equivalent to about three standard deviations at $m_\phi$ = 0.1 and 1.2 TeV. In a search for $t$-channel exchange of a vector leptoquark U$_1$, 95% CL upper limits are set on the dimensionless U$_1$ leptoquark coupling to quarks and $\tau$ leptons ranging from 1 for a mass of 1 TeV to 6 for a mass of 5 TeV, depending on the scenario. In the interpretations of the $M_\mathrm{h}^{125}$ and $M_\mathrm{h, EFT}^{125}$ minimal supersymmetric SM benchmark scenarios, additional Higgs bosons with masses below 350 GeV are excluded at 95% CL.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. The peak in the expected $gg\phi$ limit is tribute to a loss of sensitivity around $90\text{ GeV}$ due to the background from $Z/\gamma^\ast\rightarrow\tau\tau$ events. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10a of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10b of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 37 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 38 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 39 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 40 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 31 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 32 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 33 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 34 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 35 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 36 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$), via vector boson fusion ($qq\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate is profiled, whereas the scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $qq\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 64 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 65 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 66 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 67 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 68 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 69 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 70 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 71 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 72 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 73 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 74 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 75 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 76 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 77 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 78 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 79 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 80 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 81 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 82 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 83 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 84 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 85 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 86 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 1 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12a of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 2 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12b of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 3 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 92 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 99 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 100 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 101 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 102 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 103 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 104 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 105 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 106 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 107 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 108 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 109 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 110 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 111 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 112 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 113 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Fractions of the cross-section $\sigma(gg\phi)$ as expected from SM for the loop contributions with only top quarks, only bottom quarks and from the top-bottom interference. These values are used to scale the corresponding signal components for a given mass $m_\phi$.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
In a special run of the LHC with $\beta^\star = 2.5~$km, proton-proton elastic-scattering events were recorded at $\sqrt{s} = 13~$TeV with an integrated luminosity of $340~\mu \textrm{b}^{-1}$ using the ALFA subdetector of ATLAS in 2016. The elastic cross section was measured differentially in the Mandelstam $t$ variable in the range from $-t = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-4}~$GeV$^{2}$ to $-t = 0.46~$GeV$^{2}$ using 6.9 million elastic-scattering candidates. This paper presents measurements of the total cross section $\sigma_{\textrm{tot}}$, parameters of the nuclear slope, and the $\rho$-parameter defined as the ratio of the real part to the imaginary part of the elastic-scattering amplitude in the limit $t \rightarrow 0$. These parameters are determined from a fit to the differential elastic cross section using the optical theorem and different parameterizations of the $t$-dependence. The results for $\sigma_{\textrm{tot}}$ and $\rho$ are \begin{equation*} \sigma_{\textrm{tot}}(pp\rightarrow X) = \mbox{104.7} \pm 1.1 \; \mbox{mb} , \; \; \; \rho = \mbox{0.098} \pm 0.011 . \end{equation*} The uncertainty in $\sigma_{\textrm{tot}}$ is dominated by the luminosity measurement, and in $\rho$ by imperfect knowledge of the detector alignment and by modelling of the nuclear amplitude.
The measured total cross section. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The measured total cross section. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The rho-parameter, i.e. the ratio of the real to imaginary part of the elastic scattering amplitude extrapolated to t=0. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The rho-parameter, i.e. the ratio of the real to imaginary part of the elastic scattering amplitude extrapolated to t=0. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The nuclear slope parameter B from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The nuclear slope parameter B from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The nuclear slope parameter C from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The nuclear slope parameter C from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The nuclear slope parameter D from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The nuclear slope parameter D from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.
The total elastic cross section measured inside the fiducial volume. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental uncertainties.
The total elastic cross section measured inside the fiducial volume. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental uncertainties.
The total elastic cross section obtained from the fitted parameters, extrapolated to full phase space using only the nuclear amplitude.
The total elastic cross section obtained from the fitted parameters, extrapolated to full phase space using only the nuclear amplitude.
The total inelastic cross section.
The total inelastic cross section.
The ratio of elastic to total cross section.
The ratio of elastic to total cross section.
The differential elastic cross section as function of t with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are given as signed relative change for 20 sources of experimental uncertainty associated to nuisance parameters used in the fit for the extraction of physics parameters.
The differential elastic cross section as function of t with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are given as signed relative change for 20 sources of experimental uncertainty associated to nuisance parameters used in the fit for the extraction of physics parameters.
Statistical covariance matrix for the measurement of the differential elastic cross section as function of t.
Statistical covariance matrix for the measurement of the differential elastic cross section as function of t.
A measurement of the top quark pole mass $m_\mathrm{t}^\text{pole}$ in events where a top quark-antiquark pair ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) is produced in association with at least one additional jet ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet) is presented. This analysis is performed using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$^{-1}$. Events with two opposite-sign leptons in the final state (e$^+$e$^-$, $\mu^+\mu^-$, e$^\pm\mu^\mp$) are analyzed. The reconstruction of the main observable and the event classification are optimized using multivariate analysis techniques based on machine learning. The production cross section is measured as a function of the inverse of the invariant mass of the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet system at the parton level using a maximum likelihood unfolding. Given a reference parton distribution function (PDF), the top quark pole mass is extracted using the theoretical predictions at next-to-leading order. For the ABMP16NLO PDF, this results in $m_\mathrm{t}^\text{pole}$ = 172.93 $\pm$ 1.36 GeV.
Absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.
Correlation matrix for all nuisance parameters and parameters of interest of the Likelihood fit.
This table is a numerical representation of Fig. 8 for all nuisance parameters.
Measurements of Higgs boson production cross-sections are carried out in the diphoton decay channel using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. The analysis is based on the definition of 101 distinct signal regions using machine-learning techniques. The inclusive Higgs boson signal strength in the diphoton channel is measured to be $1.04^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$. Cross-sections for gluon-gluon fusion, vector-boson fusion, associated production with a $W$ or $Z$ boson, and top associated production processes are reported. An upper limit of 10 times the Standard Model prediction is set for the associated production process of a Higgs boson with a single top quark, which has a unique sensitivity to the sign of the top quark Yukawa coupling. Higgs boson production is further characterized through measurements of Simplified Template Cross-Sections (STXS). In total, cross-sections of 28 STXS regions are measured. The measured STXS cross-sections are compatible with their Standard Model predictions, with a $p$-value of $93\%$. The measurements are also used to set constraints on Higgs boson coupling strengths, as well as on new interactions beyond the Standard Model in an effective field theory approach. No significant deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed in these measurements, which provide significant sensitivity improvements compared to the previous ATLAS results.
Cross-sections times H->yy branching ratio for ggF +bbH, VBF, VH, ttH, and tH production, normalized to their SM predictions. The values are obtained from a simultaneous fit to all categories. The theory uncertainties in the predictions include uncertainties due to missing higher-order terms in the perturbative QCD calculations and choices of parton distribution functions and value of alpha_s, as well as the H->yy branching ratio uncertainty.
Correlation matrix for the measurement of production cross-sections of the Higgs boson times the H->yy branching ratio.
Best-fit values and uncertainties for STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered, normalized to their SM predictions. The values for the gg->H process also include the contributions from bbH production.
Correlation matrix for the measurement of STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered.
Fitted values for kappa_g and kappa_y.
Correlation matrix for the measurement of kappa_g and kappa_y.
Summary of the 68% CL confidence intervals for individual measurements of SMEFT parameters observed in data. In each case, SMEFT parameters other than the one measured are fixed to 0.
Results of the EV parameter measurement in data, in the linear and linear+quadratic parameterizations of the SMEFT. All the EVs parameters are free to vary in the fits. The ranges correspond to 68% CL confidence intervals.
Observed linear correlation coefficients of the EVs parameters in the linear parameterization.
Observed linear correlation coefficients of the EVs parameters in the linear+quadratic parameterization.
Cross-sections times H->yy branching ratio for ggF +bbH, VBF, VH, ttH, and tH production. The values are obtained from a simultaneous fit to all categories. The theory uncertainties in the predictions include uncertainties due to missing higher-order terms in the perturbative QCD calculations and choices of parton distribution functions and value of alpha_s, as well as the H->yy branching ratio uncertainty.
Best-fit values and uncertainties for STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered. The values for the gg->H process also include the contributions from bbH production.
Correlation matrix for the measurement of STXS parameters in each of the 33 regions considered.
The results of a search for Higgs boson pair (HH) production in the WW*WW*, WW*$\tau\tau$, and $\tau\tau\tau\tau$ decay modes are presented. The search uses 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV from 2016 to 2018. Analyzed events contain two, three, or four reconstructed leptons, including electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons. No evidence for a signal is found in the data. Upper limits are set on the cross section for nonresonant HH production, as well as resonant production in which a new heavy particle decays to a pair of Higgs bosons. For nonresonant production, the observed (expected) upper limit on the cross section at 95% confidence level (CL) is 21.3 (19.4) times the standard model (SM) prediction. The observed (expected) ratio of the trilinear Higgs boson self-coupling to its value in the SM is constrained to be within the interval $-$6.9 to 11.1 ($-$6.9 to 11.7) at 95% CL, and limits are set on a variety of new-physics models using an effective field theory approach. The observed (expected) limits on the cross section for resonant HH production range from 0.18 to 0.90 (0.08 to 1.06) pb at 95% CL for new heavy-particle masses in the range 250-1000 GeV.
Distribution of an input to the BDT classifier in the $2\ell$(ss) category: The scalar $p_{T}$ sum, denoted as $H_{T}$, of the two reconstructed $\ell$ and all small-radius jets.
Distribution of an input to the BDT classifier in the $2\ell$(ss) category: The angular separation $\Delta R$ between the two $\ell$.
Distribution of an input to the BDT classifier in the $3\ell$ category: The angular separation between $\ell_{3}$ and the nearest small-radius jet (j). The $\ell_{3}$ in is defined as the $\ell$ that is not part of the opposite-sign $\ell\ell$ pair of lowest mass.
Distribution of an input to the BDT classifier in the $3\ell$ category: The linear discrimminant $p_{T}^{miss,LD}$. The discriminant is defined by the relation $p_{T}^{miss,LD} = 0.6 p_{T}^{miss} + 0.4 H_{T}^{miss}$, where $H_{T}^{miss}$ corresponds to the magnitude of the vector $p_{T}$ sum of all electrons, muons, taus and small radius jets passing the selection critertia, and $p_{T}^{miss}$ represents the missing transverse momentum vector computed as the negative vector $p_{T}$ sum of all the particles reconstructed by the PF algorithm in the event.
Distributions of the transverse mass $m_{T}$ of the lepton that is not originating from the Z boson decay and the missing transverse momentum in the $3\ell$/WZ control region. The distributions expected for the WZ and ZZ as well as for other background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit used in the signal extraction.
Distributions of the four lepton invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ in the $4\ell$/ZZ control region. The distributions expected for the ZZ as well as for other background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit used in the signal extraction.
Distributions of the transverse mass $m_{T}$ of the leading lepton and the missing transverse momentum in the $2\ell$(ss) control region. The distributions expected for the misidentified $\ell$ background as well as for other background processes is shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the background-only ML fit, in which the HH signal is constrained to be zero.
Distributions of the reconstructed HH mass $m_{HH}$ in the $2\ell+2 au_{h}$ control region. The distributions expected for the misidentified $\ell/ au_{h}$ background as well as for other background processes is shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the background-only ML fit, in which the HH signal is constrained to be zero.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $2\ell$(ss) category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $3\ell$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $4\ell$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $3\ell+1 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $2\ell+2 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $1\ell+3 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $4 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the SM HH production cross section, obtained for both individual search categories and from a simultaneous fit of all seven categories combined.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\lambda$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\lambda$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\lambda$ for the seven different categories as well as their combination. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\lambda$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section for the twelve benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)126, the additional benchmark scenario 8a from doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057, the seven benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)091, and for the SM.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section for the twelve benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)126, the additional benchmark scenario 8a from doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057, the seven benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)091, and for the SM. The limits are shown for all seven search categories as well as for their combination.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ and the top Yukawa coupling modifier $\kappa_{t}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ and $\kappa_{t}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($c_{2}-\kappa_{t}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(c_{2},\kappa_{t})=(1.05, 1.74)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the top Yukawa coupling modifier $\kappa_{t}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{t}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}-\kappa_{t}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(\kappa_{\lambda},\kappa_{t})=(-3.54, -1.70)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ and the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($c_{2}-\kappa_{\lambda}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(c_{2},\kappa_{\lambda})=(-0.66, 5.33)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $0$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $0$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs. The Limit is shown for the seven different search categories as well as their combination.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $2$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs.
Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $2$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs. The Limit is shown for the seven different search categories as well as their combination.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for resonances of spin 2 and mass $750\,$GeV production for the $2\ell$(ss) category. The resonant HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $1\,$pb. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.
Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for resonances of spin 2 and mass $750\,$GeV production for the $3\ell$ category. The resonant HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $1\,$pb. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.
We present an observation of photon-photon production of $\tau$ lepton pairs in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions. The measurement is based on a data sample with an integrated luminosity of 404 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ collected by the CMS experiment at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV. The $\gamma\gamma$$\to$$\tau^+\tau^-$ process is observed for $\tau\tau$ events with a muon and three charged hadrons in the final state. The measured fiducial cross section is $\sigma(\gamma\gamma$$\to$$\tau^+\tau^-)$ = 4.8 $\pm$ 0.6 (stat) $\pm$ 0.5 (syst) $\mu$b, in agreement with leading-order QED predictions. Using $\sigma(\gamma\gamma$$\to$$\tau^+\tau^-)$, we estimate a model-dependent value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the $\tau$ lepton of $a_\tau$ = 0.001 $^{+0.055}_{-0.089}$.
$\gamma\gamma\to\tau\tau$ fiducial cross section
$\gamma\gamma\to\tau\tau$ fiducial cross section
Limits on anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton
Limits on anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton
The double differential cross sections of the Drell-Yan lepton pair ($\ell^+\ell^-$, dielectron or dimuon) production are measured as functions of the invariant mass $m_{\ell\ell}$, transverse momentum $p_\mathrm{T}(\ell\ell)$, and $\phi^*_\eta$. The $\phi^*_\eta$ observable, derived from angular measurements of the leptons and highly correlated with $p_\mathrm{T}(\ell\ell)$, is used to probe the low-$p_\mathrm{T}(\ell\ell)$ region in a complementary way. Dilepton masses up to 1 TeV are investigated. Additionally, a measurement is performed requiring at least one jet in the final state. To benefit from partial cancellation of the systematic uncertainty, the ratios of the differential cross sections for various $m_{\ell\ell}$ ranges to those in the Z mass peak interval are presented. The collected data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Measurements are compared with predictions based on perturbative quantum chromodynamics, including soft-gluon resummation.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum. At least one jet is required. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable. The values are normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the dilepton transverse momentum, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $50 \le M_{ll} < 76$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $106 \le M_{ll} < 170$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $170 \le M_{ll} < 350$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width.
The measured differential cross section in the $350 \le M_{ll} < 1000$ GeV mass window, in bins of the $\varphi^*$ variable, divided by the measured differential cross section in the $76 \le M_{ll} < 106$ GeV mass window. At least one jet is required. The values are not normalized by the bin width. This entry contains the covariance matrix of the results.
Response matrix for pT ll mass 50-76 (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 50-76 (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 76-106 (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 76-106 (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 106-170 (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 106-170 (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 170-350 (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 170-350 (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 350-1000 (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 50-76 jet (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 50-76 jet (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 76-106 jet (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 76-106 jet (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 106-170 jet (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 106-170 jet (muon channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 170-350 jet (electron channel)
Response matrix for pT ll mass 170-350 jet (muon channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 50-76 (electron channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 50-76 (muon channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 76-106 (electron channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 76-106 (muon channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 106-170 (electron channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 106-170 (muon channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 170-350 (electron channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 170-350 (muon channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 350-1000 (electron channel)
Response matrix for phistar mass 350-1000 (muon channel)
Cross-section measurements for a $Z$ boson produced in association with high-transverse-momentum jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} \geq 100$ GeV) and decaying into a charged-lepton pair ($e^+e^-,\mu^+\mu^-$) are presented. The measurements are performed using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{-1}$ collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Measurements of angular correlations between the $Z$ boson and the closest jet are performed in events with at least one jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} \geq 500$ GeV. Event topologies of particular interest are the collinear emission of a $Z$ boson in dijet events and a boosted $Z$ boson recoiling against a jet. Fiducial cross sections are compared with state-of-the-art theoretical predictions. The data are found to agree with next-to-next-to-leading-order predictions by NNLOjet and with the next-to-leading-order multi-leg generators MadGraph5_aMC@NLO and Sherpa.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Systematic uncertainties for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.
Systematic uncertainties for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.
A measurement is presented of the production of Z bosons that decay into two electrons or muons in association with jets, in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data were recorded by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The differential cross sections are measured as a function of the transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) of the Z boson and the transverse momentum and rapidities of the five jets with largest $p_\mathrm{T}$. The jet multiplicity distribution is measured for up to eight jets. The hadronic activity in the events is estimated using the scalar sum of the $p_\mathrm{T}$ of all the jets. All measurements are unfolded to the stable particle-level and compared with predictions from various Monte Carlo event generators, as well as with expectations at leading and next-to-leading orders in perturbative quantum chromodynamics.
Measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of exclusive jet multiplicity, $N_{\text{jets}}$.
Measured cross section as a function of the rapidity absolute value of the first jet, $|y(\text{j}_1)|$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the rapidity absolute value of the first jet, $|y(\text{j}_1)|$.
Measured cross section as a function of the transverse momenum of the first jet, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_1)$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the transverse momenum of the first jet, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_1)$.
Measured cross section as a function of the rapidity absolute value of the second jet, $|y(\text{j}_2)|$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the rapidity absolute value of the second jet, $|y(\text{j}_2)|$.
Measured cross section as a function of the transverse momenum of the second jet, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_2)$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the transverse momenum of the second jet, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_2)$.
Measured cross section as a function of the rapidity absolute value of the third jet, $|y(\text{j}_3)|$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the rapidity absolute value of the third jet, $|y(\text{j}_3)|$.
Measured cross section as a function of the transverse momenum of the third jet, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_3)$, and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the transverse momenum of the third jet, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_3)$.
Measured cross section as a function of the $H_{\text{T}}$ observable for events with at least one jet and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the $H_{\text{T}}$ observable for events with at least one jet.
Measured cross section as a function of the $H_{\text{T}}$ observable for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the $H_{\text{T}}$ observable for events with at least two jets.
Measured cross section as a function of the $H_{\text{T}}$ observable for events with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the $H_{\text{T}}$ observable for events with at least three jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of dijet mass, $M_{\text{j}_1\text{j}_2}$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of dijet mass, $M_{\text{j}_1\text{j}_2}$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of Z boson rapidity absolute value, $|y(\text{Z})|$ for events with at least one jet and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of Z boson rapidity absolute value, $|y(\text{Z})|$ for events with at least one jet.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least one jet and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least one jet.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least one jet and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least one jet.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and dijet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{dijet})$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and dijet rapidity difference, $y_{\text{diff}}(\text{Z},\text{dijet})$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and dijet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{dijet})$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and dijet rapidity sum, $y_{\text{sum}}(\text{Z},\text{dijet})$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least one jet and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least one jet.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet azimuthal difference for events, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and leading jet azimuthal difference for events, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_1)$, with at least three jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet azimuthal difference for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet azimuthal difference for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and subleading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least three jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and third jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_3)$, for events with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the Z boson and third jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{Z},\text{j}_3)$, for events with at least three jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least two jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and subleading jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_2)$, for events with at least three jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and third jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_3)$, for events with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the leading and third jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_1,\text{j}_3)$, for events with at least three jets.
Measured differential cross section as a function of the subleading and third jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_2,\text{j}_3)$, for events with at least three jets and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured differential cross section as a function of the subleading and third jet azimuthal difference, $\Delta\phi(\text{j}_2,\text{j}_3)$, for events with at least three jets.
Measured cross section as a function of the leading jet transverse momentum, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_1)$, and rapidity absolute value, $|y(\text{j}_1)|$ for events with at least one jet and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the leading jet transverse momentum, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{j}_1)$, and rapidity absolute value, $|y(\text{j}_1)|$ for events with at least one jet.
Measured cross section as a function of the leading jet and Z boson rapidity abosolute values, $|y(\text{j}_1|$ and $|y(\text(Z))|$, for events with at least one jet with $p_\text{T}>20\,\text{Gev}$ and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the leading jet and Z boson rapidity abosolute values, $|y(\text{j}_1|$ and $|y(\text(Z))|$, for events with at least one jet with $p_\text{T}>20\,\text{Gev}$.
Measured cross section as a function of the transverse momementum, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{Z})$, and rapidity, $y(\text{Z})$, of the Z boson, for events with at least one jet with $p_\text{T}>20\,\text{Gev}$ and breakdown of the relative uncertainty.
Bin-to-bin correlation in the measured cross section as a function of the transverse momementum, $p_{\text{T}}(\text{Z})$, and rapidity, $y(\text{Z})$, of the Z boson, for events with at least one jet with $p_\text{T}>20\,\text{Gev}$.
Measurements of single-, double-, and triple-differential cross-sections are presented for boosted top-quark pair-production in 13 $\text{TeV}$ proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The top quarks are observed through their hadronic decay and reconstructed as large-radius jets with the leading jet having transverse momentum ($p_{\text{T}}$) greater than 500 GeV. The observed data are unfolded to remove detector effects. The particle-level cross-section, multiplied by the $t\bar{t} \rightarrow W W b \bar{b}$ branching fraction and measured in a fiducial phase space defined by requiring the leading and second-leading jets to have $p_{\text{T}} > 500$ GeV and $p_{\text{T}} > 350$ GeV, respectively, is $331 \pm 3 \text{(stat.)} \pm 39 \text{(syst.)}$ fb. This is approximately 20$\%$ lower than the prediction of $398^{+48}_{-49}$ fb by Powheg+Pythia 8 with next-to-leading-order (NLO) accuracy but consistent within the theoretical uncertainties. Results are also presented at the parton level, where the effects of top-quark decay, parton showering, and hadronization are removed such that they can be compared with fixed-order next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) calculations. The parton-level cross-section, measured in a fiducial phase space similar to that at particle level, is $1.94 \pm 0.02 \text{(stat.)} \pm 0.25 \text{(syst.)}$ pb. This agrees with the NNLO prediction of $1.96^{+0.02}_{-0.17}$ pb. Reasonable agreement with the differential cross-sections is found for most NLO models, while the NNLO calculations are generally in better agreement with the data. The differential cross-sections are interpreted using a Standard Model effective field-theory formalism and limits are set on Wilson coefficients of several four-fermion operators.
Fiducial phase-space cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Fiducial phase-space cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,1}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,1}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute normalized cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t,1}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at parton level.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
$p_{T}^{t}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,1}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y^{t,1}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t,2}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t,2}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$m^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at parton level.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}| $normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.
Production cross sections of $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S), and $\Upsilon$(3S) states decaying into $\mu^+\mu^-$ in proton-lead (pPb) collisions are reported using data collected by the CMS experiment at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =$ 5.02 TeV. A comparison is made with corresponding cross sections obtained with pp data measured at the same collision energy and scaled by the Pb nucleus mass number. The nuclear modification factor for $\Upsilon$(1S) is found to be $R_\mathrm{pPb}(\Upsilon(1S))$ = 0.806 $\pm$ 0.024 (stat) $\pm$ 0.059 (syst). Similar results for the excited states indicate a sequential suppression pattern, such that $R_\mathrm{pPb}(\Upsilon(1S))$$\gt$$R_\mathrm{pPb}(\Upsilon(2S))$$\gt$$R_\mathrm{pPb}(\Upsilon(3S))$. The suppression is much less pronounced in pPb than in PbPb collisions, and independent of transverse momentum $p_\mathrm{T}^\Upsilon$ and center-of-mass rapidity $y_\mathrm{CM}^\Upsilon$ of the individual $\Upsilon$ state in the studied range $p_\mathrm{T}^\Upsilon$$\lt$ 30 GeV$/c$ and $\vert y_\mathrm{CM}^\Upsilon\vert$$\lt$ 1.93. Models that incorporate sequential suppression of bottomonia in pPb collisions are in better agreement with the data than those which only assume initial-state modifications.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(1S) as a function of pT in pPb collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pPb collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(2S) as a function of pT in pPb collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pPb collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(3S) as a function of pT in pPb collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pPb collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(1S) as a function of $y^{Y}_{CM}$ in pPb collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pPb collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(2S) as a function of $y^{Y}_{CM}$ in pPb collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pPb collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(3S) as a function of $y^{Y}_{CM}$ in pPb collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pPb collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(1S) as a function of pT in pp collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pp collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(2S) as a function of pT in pp collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pp collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(3S) as a function of pT in pp collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pp collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(1S) as a function of $|y^{Y}_{CM}|$ in pp collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pp collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(2S) as a function of $|y^{Y}_{CM}|$ in pp collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pp collisions.
Differential cross section times dimuon branching fraction of Y(3S) as a function of $|y^{Y}_{CM}|$ in pp collisions. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainty in pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(1S) as a function of pT. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(2S) as a function of pT. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(3S) as a function of pT. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(1S) as a function of $y^{Y}_{CM}$. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(2S) as a function of $y^{Y}_{CM}$. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(3S) as a function of $y^{Y}_{CM}$. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(1S) at forward and backward $y^{Y}_{CM}$ for pT < 6 GeV/c. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(2S) at forward and backward $y^{Y}_{CM}$ for pT < 6 GeV/c. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(3S) at forward and backward $y^{Y}_{CM}$ for pT < 6 GeV/c. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(1S) at forward and backward $y^{Y}_{CM}$ for 6 < pT < 30 GeV/c. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(2S) at forward and backward $y^{Y}_{CM}$ for 6 < pT < 30 GeV/c. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(3S) at forward and backward $y^{Y}_{CM}$ for 6 < pT < 30 GeV/c. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
RFB of Y(1S) versus $N^{|\eta_{lab}|<2.4}_{tracks}$.
RFB of Y(2S) versus $N^{|\eta_{lab}|<2.4}_{tracks}$.
RFB of Y(3S) versus $N^{|\eta_{lab}|<2.4}_{tracks}$.
RFB of Y(1S) versus $E^{|\eta_{lab}|>4}_{T}$.
RFB of Y(2S) versus $E^{|\eta_{lab}|>4}_{T}$.
RFB of Y(3S) versus $E^{|\eta_{lab}|>4}_{T}$.
Nuclear modification factor of Y(1S), Y(2S), and Y(3S) integrated over pT and $y^{Y}_{CM}$. The global uncertainty arises from the integrated luminosity uncertainties in pPb and pp collisions.
This paper presents studies of Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, using data from the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Data were collected in a special low-luminosity configuration with a minimum-bias trigger and a high-multiplicity track trigger, accumulating integrated luminosities of 151 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ and 8.4 nb$^{-1}$ respectively. The BEC are measured for pairs of like-sign charged particles, each with $|\eta|$ < 2.5, for two kinematic ranges: the first with particle $p_T$ > 100 MeV and the second with particle $p_T$ > 500 MeV. The BEC parameters, characterizing the source radius and particle correlation strength, are investigated as functions of charged-particle multiplicity (up to 300) and average transverse momentum of the pair (up to 1.5 GeV). The double-differential dependence on charged-particle multiplicity and average transverse momentum of the pair is also studied. The BEC radius is found to be independent of the charged-particle multiplicity for high charged-particle multiplicity (above 100), confirming a previous observation at lower energy. This saturation occurs independent of the transverse momentum of the pair.
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) and C<sub>2</sub><sup>MC</sup>(Q), with the two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the opposite hemisphere (OHP) like-charge particles pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - interval 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV.
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) and C<sub>2</sub><sup>MC</sup>(Q), with the two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - interval 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of k<sub>T</sub> for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter λ as a function of k<sub>T</sub> for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for pp collisions for track p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV at √s=13 TeV in the multiplicity interval 71 ≤ n<sub>ch</sub> < 80 for the minimum-bias (MB) events. The blue dashed and red solid lines show the results of the exponential and Gaussian fits, respectively. The region excluded from the fits is shown. The statistical uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty for imperfections in the data reconstruction procedure are added in quadrature.
The two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for pp collisions for track p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV at √s=13 TeV in the multiplicity interval 231 ≤ n<sub>ch</sub> < 300 for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The blue dashed and red solid lines show the results of the exponential and Gaussian fits, respectively. The region excluded from the fits is shown. The statistical uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty for imperfections in the data reconstruction procedure are added in quadrature.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pair reference sample, for minimum-bias (MB) events, showing C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) (top panel) at 13 TeV (black circles) and 7 TeV (open blue circles), and the ratio of C<sub>2</sub><sup>7 TeV</sup> (Q) to C<sub>2</sub><sup>13 TeV</sup> (Q) (bottom panel). Comparison of C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup> (Q) for representative multiplicity region 3.09 < m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.86. The statistical and systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature, are presented. The systematic uncertainties include track efficiency, Coulomb correction, non-closure and multiplicity-unfolding uncertainties.
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pair reference sample, for minimum-bias (MB) events, showing C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) (top panel) at 13 TeV (black circles) and 7 TeV (open blue circles), and the ratio of C<sub>2</sub><sup>7 TeV</sup> (Q) to C<sub>2</sub><sup>13 TeV</sup> (Q) (bottom panel). Comparison of C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup> (Q) for representative k<sub>T</sub> region 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤500 MeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature, are presented. The systematic uncertainties include track efficiency, Coulomb correction, non-closure and multiplicity-unfolding uncertainties.
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV for the correlation strength, λ, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV for the source radius, R, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV for the correlation strength, λ, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV for the source radius, R, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of ∛n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of ∛n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of ∛n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
Systematic uncertainties (in percent) in the correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, for the exponential fit of the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV at √s= 13 TeV for the MB and HMT events. The choice of MC generator gives rise to asymmetric uncertainties, denoted by uparrow and downarrow. This asymmetry propagates through to the cumulative uncertainty. The columns under ‘Uncertainty range’ show the range of systematic uncertainty from the fits in the various n<sub>ch</sub> intervals.
The results of the fits to the dependencies of the correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, on the average rescaled charged-particle multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for |η| < 2.5 and both p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The parameters γ and δ resulting from a joint fit to the MB and HMT data are presented. The total uncertainties are shown.
The results of the fits to the dependencies of the correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, on the pair average transverse momentum, k<sub>T</sub>, for various functional forms and for minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. The total uncertainties are shown.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the pair transverse momentum, k<sub>T</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the pair transverse momentum, k<sub>T</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
A search for resonances decaying into a W boson and a radion, where the radion decays into two W bosons, is presented. The data analyzed correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ recorded in proton-proton collisions with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV. One isolated charged lepton is required, together with missing transverse momentum and one or two massive large-radius jets, containing the decay products of either two or one W bosons, respectively. No excess over the background estimation is observed. The results are combined with those from a complementary channel with an all-hadronic final state, described in an accompanying paper. Limits are set on parameters of an extended warped extra-dimensional model. These searches are the first of their kind at the LHC.
Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR4.
Observed upper limits at 95\% \CL on the signal cross section $\times$ branching fraction as functions of the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ resonance masses after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.
Expected median lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.
Expected $+ 1$ s.d. lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.
Expected - 1 s.d. lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.
Observed lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.
Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR1.
Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR2.
Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR3.
Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR5.
Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR6.
Results are presented from a search for charged-lepton flavor violating (CLFV) interactions in top quark production and decay in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The events are required to contain one oppositely charged electron-muon pair in the final state, along with at least one jet identified as originating from a bottom quark. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$, collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. This analysis includes both the production (q $\to$ e$\mu$t) and decay (t $\to$ e$\mu$q) modes of the top quark through CLFV interactions, with q referring to a u or c quark. These interactions are parametrized using an effective field theory approach. With no significant excess over the standard model expectation, the results are interpreted in terms of vector-, scalar-, and tensor-like CLFV four-fermion effective interactions. Finally, observed exclusion limits are set at 95% confidence levels on the respective branching fractions of a top quark to an e$\mu$ pair and an up (charm) quark of 0.13 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ (1.31 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$), 0.07 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ (0.89 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$), and 0.25 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ (2.59 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$) for vector, scalar, and tensor CLFV interactions, respectively.
The expected and observed upper limits on the signal cross sections.
The expected and observed upper limits on CLFV Wilson coefficients. The Limits on the Wilson coefficients are extracted from the upper limits on the cross sections. Since the cross sections are quadratic functions of the Wilson coefficients, the limits lie on an ellipse given by the coordinate intersections.
The expected and observed upper limits on top quark CLFV branching fractions. The Limits on the top quark CLFV branching fractions are extracted from the upper limits on the Wilson coefficients.
The production cross section of a top quark pair in association with a photon is measured in proton-proton collisions in the decay channel with two oppositely charged leptons (e$^\pm\mu^\mp$, e$^+$e$^-$, or $\mu^+\mu^-$). The measurement is performed using 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV during the 2016-2018 data-taking period of the CERN LHC. A fiducial phase space is defined such that photons radiated by initial-state particles, top quarks, or any of their decay products are included. An inclusive cross section of 175.2 $\pm$ 2.5 (stat) $\pm$ 6.3 (syst) fb is measured in a signal region with at least one jet coming from the hadronization of a bottom quark and exactly one photon with transverse momentum above 20 GeV. Differential cross sections are measured as functions of several kinematic observables of the photon, leptons, and jets, and compared to standard model predictions. The measurements are also interpreted in the standard model effective field theory framework, and limits are found on the relevant Wilson coefficients from these results alone and in combination with a previous CMS measurement of the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\gamma$ production process using the lepton+jets final state.
Observed and predicted event yields as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ in the $e\mu$ channel, after the fit to the data.
Observed and predicted event yields as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ in the $ee$ channel, after the fit to the data.
Observed and predicted event yields as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ in the $\mu\mu$ channel, after the fit to the data.
Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.
Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .
Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.
Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.
One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status Email Forum Twitter GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.