Showing 23 of 4573 results
The results of a search for electroweakino pair production $pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2$ in which the chargino ($\tilde\chi^\pm_1$) decays into a $W$ boson and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), while the heavier neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_2$) decays into the Standard Model 125 GeV Higgs boson and a second $\tilde\chi^0_1$ are presented. The signal selection requires a pair of $b$-tagged jets consistent with those from a Higgs boson decay, and either an electron or a muon from the $W$ boson decay, together with missing transverse momentum from the corresponding neutrino and the stable neutralinos. The analysis is based on data corresponding to 139 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions provided by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector. No statistically significant evidence of an excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of the electroweakinos in simplified models, assuming pure wino cross-sections. Masses of $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ up to 740 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
A search for a heavy resonance decaying into $WZ$ in the fully leptonic channel (electrons and muons) is performed. It is based on proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model predictions and limits are set on the production cross section times branching ratio of a heavy vector particle produced either in quark-antiquark fusion or through vector-boson fusion. Constraints are also obtained on the mass and couplings of a singly charged Higgs boson, in the Georgi-Machacek model, produced through vector-boson fusion.
The signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times\epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, is presented as a function of the Georgi-Machacek Model $H_5^\pm$ resonance mass in the VBF category. The A$\times\epsilon$ is shown for the combination of all decay channels. For the Georgi-Machacek Model $H_5^\pm$ samples, generator cuts are: $p_{\mathrm T}$ (jets) $>$ 15 GeV, $p_{\mathrm T}$ (leptons) $>$ 10 GeV, $|\eta|$(jets) $<$ 5 and $|\eta|$(leptons) $<$ 2.7. The decay of $W$ is to all flavors of leptons and of $Z$ to $e^+e^−$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$. The $Z$ to $\tau^+\tau-$ decays give a negligible contribution and were not included in the simulation, however the acceptancs shown here was scaled to include all decays. A systematic uncertainty was applied to cover the scaling uncertainty. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times\epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, is presented as a function of the Georgi-Machacek Model $H_5^\pm$ resonance mass in the VBF category. The A$\times\epsilon$ is shown for the combination of all decay channels. For the Georgi-Machacek Model $H_5^\pm$ samples, generator cuts are: $p_{\mathrm T}$ (jets) $>$ 15 GeV, $p_{\mathrm T}$ (leptons) $>$ 10 GeV, $|\eta|$(jets) $<$ 5 and $|\eta|$(leptons) $<$ 2.7. The decay of $W$ is to all flavors of leptons and of $Z$ to $e^+e^−$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$. The $Z$ to $\tau^+\tau-$ decays give a negligible contribution and were not included in the simulation, however the acceptancs shown here was scaled to include all decays. A systematic uncertainty was applied to cover the scaling uncertainty. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times \epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, is presented as a function of the HVT resonance mass in the VBF category. The A$\times \epsilon$ is shown for the combination of all decay channels. For the HVT VBF samples, generator cuts are: m$_{jj} >$ 150 GeV. The decay of $W$ and $Z$ are to all flavors of leptons. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times \epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, is presented as a function of the HVT resonance mass in the VBF category. The A$\times \epsilon$ is shown for the combination of all decay channels. For the HVT VBF samples, generator cuts are: m$_{jj} >$ 150 GeV. The decay of $W$ and $Z$ are to all flavors of leptons. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times \epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, as a function of the HVT resonance mass for the quark-antiquark production. The $A\times\epsilon$ is shown for each decay channel and the inclusive one. The decay of $W$ and $Z$ are to all flavors of leptons. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times \epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, as a function of the HVT resonance mass for the quark-antiquark production. The $A\times\epsilon$ is shown for each decay channel and the inclusive one. The decay of $W$ and $Z$ are to all flavors of leptons. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.
Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.
Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the $VBF$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.
Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the $VBF$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 900 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 900 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the $VBF$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the $VBF$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($H_5^\pm\to W^\pm Z$) of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($H_5^\pm\to W^\pm Z$) of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on the parameter $\sin(\theta_H)$ of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on the parameter $\sin(\theta_H)$ of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
This paper presents results of searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in models with compressed mass spectra. The searches use 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Events with missing transverse momentum and two same-flavor, oppositely charged, low transverse momentum leptons are selected, and are further categorized by the presence of hadronic activity from initial-state radiation or a topology compatible with vector-boson fusion processes. The data are found to be consistent with predictions from the Standard Model. The results are interpreted using simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry in which the lightest supersymmetric partner is a neutralino with a mass similar to the lightest chargino, the second-to-lightest neutralino or the slepton. Lower limits on the masses of charginos in different simplified models range from 193 GeV to 240 GeV for moderate mass splittings, and extend down to mass splittings of 1.5 GeV to 2.4 GeV at the LEP chargino bounds (92.4 GeV). Similar lower limits on degenerate light-flavor sleptons extend up to masses of 251 GeV and down to mass splittings of 550 MeV. Constraints on vector-boson fusion production of electroweak SUSY states are also presented.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
A search for direct pair production of scalar partners of the top quark (top squarks or scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks) in the all-hadronic $t\bar{t}$ plus missing transverse momentum final state is presented. The analysis of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of ${\sqrt{s}=13}$ TeV proton-proton collision data collected using the ATLAS detector at the LHC yields no significant excess over the Standard Model background expectation. To interpret the results, a supersymmetric model is used where the top squark decays via $\tilde{t} \to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$, with $t^{(*)}$ denoting an on-shell (off-shell) top quark and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ the lightest neutralino. Three specific event selections are optimised for the following scenarios. In the scenario where $m_{\tilde{t}}> m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses are excluded in the range 400-1250 GeV for $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses below $200$ GeV at 95 % confidence level. In the situation where $m_{\tilde{t}}\sim m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses in the range 300-630 GeV are excluded, while in the case where $m_{\tilde{t}}< m_W+m_b+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ (with $m_{\tilde{t}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}\ge 5$ GeV), considered for the first time in an ATLAS all-hadronic search, top squark masses in the range 300-660 GeV are excluded. Limits are also set for scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks, excluding leptoquarks with masses below $1240$ GeV when considering only leptoquark decays into a top quark and a neutrino.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Results of a search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum are reported. The search uses proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected in the period 2015-2018 with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Compared to previous publications, in addition to an increase of almost a factor of four in the data size, the analysis implements a number of improvements in the signal selection and the background determination leading to enhanced sensitivity. Events are required to have at least one jet with transverse momentum above 150 GeV and no reconstructed leptons ($e$, $\mu$ or $\tau$) or photons. Several signal regions are considered with increasing requirements on the missing transverse momentum starting at 200 GeV. Overall agreement is observed between the number of events in data and the Standard Model predictions. Model-independent 95 % confidence-level limits on visible cross sections for new processes are obtained in the range between 736 fb and 0.3 fb with increasing missing transverse momentum. Results are also translated into improved exclusion limits in models with pair-produced weakly interacting dark-matter candidates, large extra spatial dimensions, supersymmetric particles in several compressed scenarios, axion-like particles, and new scalar particles in dark-energy-inspired models. In addition, the data are translated into bounds on the invisible branching ratio of the Higgs boson.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $W \rightarrow \mu \nu $ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $W \rightarrow e \nu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the top control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow ee$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
Contribution to the total SR background uncertainty in exclusive bins of the SR, as obtained from the CR-only fit. In the table, the contribution of each source of systematic is shown as the sum in quadrature of the individual contributions represented by the corresponding nuisance parameters.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM0.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM1.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM2.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM3.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM4.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM5.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM6.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM7.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM8.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM9.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM10.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM11.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the exclusive SR bin EM12.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM0.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM1.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM2.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM3.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM4.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM5.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM6.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM7.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM8.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM9.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM10.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM11.
Expected and observed backgrounds, before and after a binned likelihood fit in the control regions, in the inclusive SR IM12.
A search for heavy resonances decaying into a $W$ or $Z$ boson and a Higgs boson produced in proton$-$proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV is presented. The analysis utilizes the dominant $W \to q \bar{q}^\prime$ or $Z \to q \bar{q}$ and $H \to b \bar{b}$ decays with substructure techniques applied to large-radius jets. A sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector is analyzed and no significant excess of data is observed over the background prediction. The results are interpreted in the context of the Heavy Vector Triplet model with spin-1 $W^\prime$ and $Z^\prime$ bosons. Upper limits on the cross section are set for resonances with mass between 1.5 and 5.0 TeV, ranging from 6.8 to 0.53 fb for $W^\prime \to WH$ and from 8.7 to 0.53 fb for $Z^\prime \to ZH$ at the 95 % confidence level.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the WH channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the WH channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the ZH channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the ZH channel.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT WH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 2 TeV mass point.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT WH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 2 TeV mass point.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT ZH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 4 TeV mass point.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT ZH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 4 TeV mass point.
Dijet mass distributions in the WH 1-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
Dijet mass distributions in the WH 2-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
Dijet mass distributions in the ZH 1-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
Dijet mass distributions in the ZH 2-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
The dynamics of isolated-photon plus two-jet production in $pp$ collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV are studied with the ATLAS detector at the LHC using a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. Cross sections are measured as functions of a variety of observables, including angular correlations and invariant masses of the objects in the final state, $\gamma+jet+jet$. Measurements are also performed in phase-space regions enriched in each of the two underlying physical mechanisms, namely direct and fragmentation processes. The measurements cover the range of photon (jet) transverse momenta from 150 GeV (100 GeV) to 2 TeV. The tree-level plus parton-shower predictions from SHERPA and PYTHIA as well as the next-to-leading-order QCD predictions from SHERPA are compared with the measurements. The next-to-leading-order QCD predictions describe the data adequately in shape and normalisation except for regions of phase space such as those with high values of the invariant mass or rapidity separation of the two jets, where the predictions overestimate the data.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $|y^{\textrm{jet}}|$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta y^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta \phi^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta y^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta \phi^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $m^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $m^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the total phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $|y^{\textrm{jet}}|$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta y^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta \phi^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta y^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta \phi^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $m^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $m^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the fragmentation-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $|y^{\textrm{jet}}|$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta y^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta \phi^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta y^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $\Delta \phi^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $m^{\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
Measured cross sections for isolated-photon plus two-jet production as functions of $m^{\gamma-\textrm{jet}-\textrm{jet}}$ for the direct-enriched phase-space. The predictions from Sherpa NLO are also included.
In this paper, a new technique for reconstructing and identifying hadronically decaying $\tau^+\tau^-$ pairs with a large Lorentz boost, referred to as the di-$\tau$ tagger, is developed and used for the first time in the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. A benchmark di-$\tau$ tagging selection is employed in the search for resonant Higgs boson pair production, where one Higgs boson decays into a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and the other into a boosted $\tau^+\tau^-$ pair, with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons in the final state. Using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, the efficiency of the di-$\tau$ tagger is determined and the background with quark- or gluon-initiated jets misidentified as di-$\tau$ objects is estimated. The search for a heavy, narrow, scalar resonance produced via gluon$-$gluon fusion and decaying into two Higgs bosons is carried out in the mass range 1$-$3 TeV using the same dataset. No deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed, and 95% confidence-level exclusion limits are set on this model.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
Narrow resonances decaying into $WW$, $WZ$ or $ZZ$ boson pairs are searched for in 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider from 2015 to 2018. The diboson system is reconstructed using pairs of high transverse momentum, large-radius jets. These jets are built from a combination of calorimeter- and tracker-inputs compatible with the hadronic decay of a boosted $W$ or $Z$ boson, using jet mass and substructure properties. The search is performed for diboson resonances with masses greater than 1.3 TeV. No significant deviations from the background expectations are observed. Exclusion limits at the 95% confidence level are set on the production cross-section times branching ratio into dibosons for resonances in a range of theories beyond the Standard Model, with the highest excluded mass of a new gauge boson at 3.8 TeV in the context of mass-degenerate resonances that couple predominantly to gauge bosons.
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
HVT WW Acceptance times Efficiency
HVT WZ Acceptance times Efficiency
RS Graviton WW Acceptance times Efficiency
RS Graviton ZZ Acceptance times Efficiency
Single- and double-differential cross-section measurements are presented for the production of top-quark pairs, in the lepton + jets channel at particle and parton level. Two topologies, resolved and boosted, are considered and the results are presented as a function of several kinematic variables characterising the top and $t\bar{t}$ system and jet multiplicities. The study was performed using data from $pp$ collisions at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $36~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. Due to the large $t\bar{t}$ cross-section at the LHC, such measurements allow a detailed study of the properties of top-quark production and decay, enabling precision tests of several Monte Carlo generators and fixed-order Standard Model predictions. Overall, there is good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the data.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Total cross-section at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Total cross-section at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Total cross-section at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology.
This paper describes precision measurements of the transverse momentum $p_\mathrm{T}^{\ell\ell}$ ($\ell=e,\mu$) and of the angular variable $\phi^{*}_{\eta}$ distributions of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in a mass range of 66-116 GeV. The analysis uses data from 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC in 2015 and 2016. Measurements in electron-pair and muon-pair final states are performed in the same fiducial volumes, corrected for detector effects, and combined. Compared to previous measurements in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$7 and 8 TeV, these new measurements probe perturbative QCD at a higher centre-of-mass energy with a different composition of initial states. They reach a precision of 0.2% for the normalized spectra at low values of $p_\mathrm{T}^{\ell\ell}$. The data are compared with different QCD predictions, where it is found that predictions based on resummation approaches can describe the full spectrum within uncertainties.
Selected signal candidate events in data for both decay channels as well as the expected background contributions including their total uncertainties.
Selected signal candidate events in data for both decay channels as well as the expected background contributions including their total uncertainties.
Selected signal candidate events in data for both decay channels as well as the expected background contributions including their total uncertainties.
Overview of the detector efficiency correction factors, $C_{Z}$ , for the electron and muon channels and their systematic uncertainty contributions.
Overview of the detector efficiency correction factors, $C_{Z}$ , for the electron and muon channels and their systematic uncertainty contributions.
Overview of the detector efficiency correction factors, $C_{Z}$ , for the electron and muon channels and their systematic uncertainty contributions.
Measured inclusive cross-section in the fiducial volume in the electron and muon decay channels at Born level and their combination as well as the theory prediction at NNLO in $\alpha_{s}$ using the CT14 PDF set.
Measured inclusive cross-section in the fiducial volume in the electron and muon decay channels at Born level and their combination as well as the theory prediction at NNLO in $\alpha_{s}$ using the CT14 PDF set.
Measured inclusive cross-section in the fiducial volume in the electron and muon decay channels at Born level and their combination as well as the theory prediction at NNLO in $\alpha_{s}$ using the CT14 PDF set.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle level.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid}\times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on born level for the $Z\rightarrow ee$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) and Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. for the electron momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Elec. (Reco), Elec. (ID), Isolation, Trigger and Charge-ID denote the correlated uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the electron reconstruction, identification, isolation, trigger and charge-identification efficiencies; The uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}p_{T}^{ll}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Results of the normalized differential cross-section $1/\sigma_\mathrm{fid} \times \mathrm{d}\sigma_\mathrm{fid}/\mathrm{d}\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measured on bare level for the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ decay channel. The following naming convention is used: Stat.(Data), Stat.(MC) an Eff.(Uncor.), denote the statistical uncertainties due limited data and MC as well as the uncorrelated lepton efficiency uncertainties; Scale and Res. denote the muon momentum scale and resolution uncertainties; Muon Sag. denotes the uncertainty due to the muon sagitta bias; Eff. (Cor.), Isolation, Trigger and TTVA denote the uncertainties of the data/MC scale-factors for the correlated muon reconstruction, isolation, trigger and track-to-vertex matching efficiencies; the uncertainties due to the primary vertex z-distribution and pile-up reweighting are denoted as Z-Pos and Pile-Up, while the model and background uncertainties are summarized under Model and Bkg.. The sign-information is kept to track bin-to-bin changes.
Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.
Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.
Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.
Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.
Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.
Measured combined normalized differential cross-section in the fiducial volume at Born level as well as a factor $k_{dressed}$ to translate from the Born particle level to the dressed particle.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ , the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of lepton pseudorapidity $\eta$, the latter with one entry for each lepton per event. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions of the MC signal sample together with the MC background samples are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of dilepton transverse momentum. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The distribution of events passing the selection requirements in the muon channel as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The MC signal sample is simulated using Powheg+Pythia8. The predictions are normalized to the integral of the data and the total experimental uncertainty of the predicted values is shown as a grey band in the ratio of the prediction to data.
The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.
The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.
The measured normalized cross section as a function of $p_{ll}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown. The $p_{ll}$ distribution is split into linear and logarithmic scales at 30 GeV.
The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.
The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.
The measured normalized cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ for the electron and muon channels and the combined result as well as their ratio together with the total uncertainties, shown as a blue band. The pull distribution between the electron and muon channels, defined as the difference between the two channels divided by the combined uncorrelated uncertainty, is also shown.
Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ distributions predicted by different computations: Pythia8 with the AZ tune, Powheg+Pythia8 with the AZNLO tune, Sherpa v2.2.1 and RadISH with the Born level combined measurement. The uncertainties of the measurement are shown as vertical bars and uncertainties of the Sherpa and RadISH predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
Comparison of the normalized $p_{ll}$ distribution in the range $p_{ll}$ > 10 GeV. The Born level combined measurement is compared with predictions by Sherpa v2.2.1, fixed-order NNLOjet and NNLOjet supplied with NLO electroweak corrections. The uncertainties in the measurement are shown as vertical bars and the uncertainties in the predictions are indicated by the coloured bands.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at dressed level.
The measured combined normalized differential cross-sections, divided by the bin-width, in the fiducial volume at dressed level.
Differential cross-sections are measured for top-quark pair production in the all-hadronic decay mode, using proton$-$proton collision events collected by the ATLAS experiment in which all six decay jets are separately resolved. Absolute and normalised single- and double-differential cross-sections are measured at particle and parton level as a function of various kinematic variables. Emphasis is placed on well-measured observables in fully reconstructed final states, as well as on the study of correlations between the top-quark pair system and additional jet radiation identified in the event. The study is performed using data from proton$-$proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mbox{TeV}$ collected by the ATLAS detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $\mbox{36.1 fb}^{-1}$. The rapidities of the individual top quarks and of the top-quark pair are well modelled by several independent event generators. Significant mismodelling is observed in the transverse momenta of the leading three jet emissions, while the leading top-quark transverse momentum and top-quark pair transverse momentum are both found to be incompatible with several theoretical predictions.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Total cross-section at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 7. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 8. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The results of a search for gluino and squark pair production with the pairs decaying via the lightest charginos into a final state consisting of two $W$ bosons, the lightest neutralinos ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), and quarks, are presented. The signal is characterised by the presence of a single charged lepton ($e^{\pm}$ or $\mu^{\pm}$) from a $W$ boson decay, jets, and missing transverse momentum. The analysis is performed using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data taken at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS experiment. No statistically significant excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of squarks and gluinos in simplified models. Masses of gluino (squark) up to 2.2 TeV (1.4 TeV) are excluded at 95% confidence level for a light $\tilde\chi^0_1$.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 2J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 2J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 2J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 2J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 4J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 4J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 4J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 4J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 6J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 6J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 6J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 6J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Pre-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the TR6J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties (added in quadrature). The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Pre-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the WR6J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties (added in quadrature). The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the TR6J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J low-x b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the WR6J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J low-x b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J high-x b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J high-x b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J low-x b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J low-x b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J high-x b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model. space.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J high-x b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model. space.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for one-flavour schemes in one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for one-flavour schemes in one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for one-flavour schemes in one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-flavour schemes in variable-x
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for one-flavour schemes in one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-flavour schemes in variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model gluino one-step x = 1/2
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model gluino one-step variable-x
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step x = 1/2
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-flavour schemes in variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step variable-x
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-flavour schemes in variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model gluino one-step x = 1/2
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step x=1/2 in one-flavour schemes
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model gluino one-step variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step variable-x in one-flavour schemes
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step x = 1/2
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step variable-x
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step x=1/2 in one-flavour schemes
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step variable-x in one-flavour schemes
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the TR2J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the WR2J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR2JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the TR4J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR2JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the WR4J control region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR4JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR4JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR6JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR6JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR2JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR2JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR4JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR4JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR6JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR6JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
The observation of forward proton scattering in association with lepton pairs ($e^+e^-+p$ or $\mu^+\mu^-+p$) produced via photon fusion is presented. The scattered proton is detected by the ATLAS Forward Proton spectrometer while the leptons are reconstructed by the central ATLAS detector. Proton-proton collision data recorded in 2017 at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV are analyzed, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 14.6 fb$^{-1}$. A total of 57 (123) candidates in the $ee+p$ ($\mu\mu+p$) final state are selected, allowing the background-only hypothesis to be rejected with a significance exceeding five standard deviations in each channel. Proton-tagging techniques are introduced for cross-section measurements in the fiducial detector acceptance, corresponding to $\sigma_{ee+p}$ = 11.0 $\pm$ 2.6 (stat.) $\pm$ 1.2 (syst.) $\pm$ 0.3 (lumi.) fb and $\sigma_{\mu\mu+p}$ = 7.2 $\pm$ 1.6 (stat.) $\pm$ 0.9 (syst.) $\pm$ 0.2 (lumi.) fb in the dielectron and dimuon channel, respectively.
The measured fiducial cross sections. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second is the luminosity
A measurement of event-shape variables in proton$-$proton collisions at large momentum transfer is presented using data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Six event-shape variables calculated using hadronic jets are studied in inclusive multijet events using data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Measurements are performed in bins of jet multiplicity and in different ranges of the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the two leading jets, reaching scales beyond 2 TeV. These measurements are compared with predictions from Monte Carlo event generators containing leading-order or next-to-leading order matrix elements matched to parton showers simulated to leading-logarithm accuracy. At low jet multiplicities, shape discrepancies between the measurements and the Monte Carlo predictions are observed. At high jet multiplicities, the shapes are better described but discrepancies in the normalisation are observed.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ = 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.0 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.
Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.0 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.
Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.5 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.
Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for 1.5 < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.
Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.
Measured total cross section for multijet production as a function of $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ for $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV. The total cross-sections are measured in the same fiducial phase-space region than the measured relative cross-sections as functions of event-shape variables for the corresponding $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ interval. The measurement in the last bin corresponds to $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 6.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $\tau_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of T$_{\textrm{m}}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of S$_{\perp}$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $A$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $C$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 1.5 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and 1.5 TeV < $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ < 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 3 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 4 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}\geq$ 5 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
Measured relative cross sections for multijet production as a function of $D$ for $n^{\textrm{jet}}$ $\geq$ 6 and $H_{\textrm{T2}}$ > 2.0 TeV.
The $t\bar{t}$ production cross-section is measured in the lepton+jets channel using proton$-$proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Events with exactly one charged lepton and four or more jets in the final state, with at least one jet containing $b$-hadrons, are used to determine the $t\bar{t}$ production cross-section through a profile-likelihood fit. The inclusive cross-section is measured to be ${\sigma_{\text{inc}} = 830 \pm 0.4~ \text{(stat.)}\pm 36~\text{(syst.)}\pm 14~\text{(lumi.)}~\mathrm{pb}}$ with a relative uncertainty of 4.6 %. The result is consistent with theoretical calculations at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD. The fiducial $t\bar{t}$ cross-section within the experimental acceptance is also measured.
The results of fitted inclusive and fiducial ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-sections
The results of fitted inclusive and fiducial ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-sections
Ranking of the systematic uncertainties on the measured cross-section, normalised to the predicted value, in the inclusive fit to data. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \sigma_{\text{inc}}/\sigma^{\text{pred.}}_{\text{inc}}$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\sigma_{\text{inc}}/\sigma^{\text{pred}}_{\text{inc}}$ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\theta$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta$ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta}$). The figure shows the effect of the ten most significant uncertainties.
Ranking of the systematic uncertainties on the measured cross-section, normalised to the predicted value, in the inclusive fit to data. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \sigma_{\text{inc}}/\sigma^{\text{pred.}}_{\text{inc}}$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\sigma_{\text{inc}}/\sigma^{\text{pred}}_{\text{inc}}$ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\theta$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta$ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta}$). The figure shows the effect of the ten most significant uncertainties.
Ranking of the systematic uncertainties on the measured cross-section, normalised to the predicted value, in the fiducial fit to data. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \sigma_{\text{fid}}/\sigma^{\text{pred.}}_{\text{fid}}$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\sigma_{\text{fid}}/\sigma^{\text{pred}}_{\text{fid}}$ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\theta$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta$ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta}$). The figure shows the effect of the ten most significant uncertainties.
Ranking of the systematic uncertainties on the measured cross-section, normalised to the predicted value, in the fiducial fit to data. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \sigma_{\text{fid}}/\sigma^{\text{pred.}}_{\text{fid}}$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\sigma_{\text{fid}}/\sigma^{\text{pred}}_{\text{fid}}$ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\theta$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta$ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta}$). The figure shows the effect of the ten most significant uncertainties.
Impact of different categories of systematic uncertainties on the fiducial and inclusive measurements. The quoted values are obtained by repeating the fit, fixing a set of nuisance parameters of the sources corresponding to the considered category, and subtracting in quadrature the resulting uncertainty from the total uncertainty of the nominal fit. The total uncertainty is different from the sum in quadrature of the different components due to correlations between nuisance parameters built by the fit.
Impact of different categories of systematic uncertainties on the fiducial and inclusive measurements. The quoted values are obtained by repeating the fit, fixing a set of nuisance parameters of the sources corresponding to the considered category, and subtracting in quadrature the resulting uncertainty from the total uncertainty of the nominal fit. The total uncertainty is different from the sum in quadrature of the different components due to correlations between nuisance parameters built by the fit.
Fiducial region definition
Fiducial region definition
Inclusive and differential cross-sections for the production of top quarks in association with a photon are measured with proton$-$proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The data were collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC during Run 2 between 2015 and 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The measurements are performed in a fiducial volume defined at parton level. Events with exactly one photon, one electron and one muon of opposite sign, and at least two jets, of which at least one is $b$-tagged, are selected. The fiducial cross-section is measured to be $39.6\,^{+2.7}_{-2.3}\,\textrm{fb}$. Differential cross-sections as functions of several observables are compared with state-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations and next-to-leading-order theoretical calculations. These include cross-sections as functions of photon kinematic variables, angular variables related to the photon and the leptons, and angular separations between the two leptons in the event. All measurements are in agreement with the predictions from the Standard Model.
The measured fiducial cross-section in the electron-muon channel. The first uncertainty is the statistical uncertainty and the second one is the systematic uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The statistical correlation matrix of all the absolute differential cross-sections measured in the fiducial phase-space in the electron-muon channel.
The statistical correlation matrix of all the normalised differential cross-sections measured in the fiducial phase-space in the electron-muon channel.
Fiducial region definition.
The elliptic flow of muons from the decay of charm and bottom hadrons is measured in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using a data sample with an integrated luminosity of 150 pb$^{-1}$ recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The muons from heavy-flavor decay are separated from light-hadron decay muons using momentum imbalance between the tracking and muon spectrometers. The heavy-flavor decay muons are further separated into those from charm decay and those from bottom decay using the distance-of-closest-approach to the collision vertex. The measurement is performed for muons in the transverse momentum range 4-7 GeV and pseudorapidity range $|\eta|<2.4$. A significant non-zero elliptic anisotropy coefficient $v_{2}$ is observed for muons from charm decays, while the $v_{2}$ value for muons from bottom decays is consistent with zero within uncertainties.
Summary of results for inclusive muon v2 as a function of multiplicity. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for inclusive muon v2 as a function of pT. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm and bottom muon v2 as a function of multiplicity. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm and bottom muon v2 as a function of pT. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections of the Higgs boson are measured in the $H \to ZZ^{*} \to 4\ell$ ($\ell = e,\mu$) decay channel. The results are based on proton$-$proton collision data produced at the Large Hadron Collider at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018, equivalent to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The inclusive fiducial cross section for the $H \to ZZ^{*} \to 4\ell$ process is measured to be $\sigma_\mathrm{fid} = 3.28 \pm 0.32$ fb, in agreement with the Standard Model prediction of $\sigma_\mathrm{fid, SM} = 3.41 \pm 0.18 $ fb. Differential fiducial cross sections are measured for a variety of observables which are sensitive to the production and decay of the Higgs boson. All measurements are in agreement with the Standard Model predictions. The results are used to constrain anomalous Higgs boson interactions with Standard Model particles.
Fractional uncertainties for the inclusive fiducial and total cross sections, and range of systematic uncertainties for the differential measurements. The columns e/$\mu$ and jets represent the experimental uncertainties in lepton and jet reconstruction and identification, respectively. The Z + jets, $t\bar{t}$, tXX (Other Bkg.) column includes uncertainties related to the estimation of these background sources. The $ZZ^{*}$ theory ($ZZ^{*}$ th.) uncertainties include the PDF and scale variations. Signal theory (Sig th.) uncertainties include PDF choice, QCD scale, and shower modelling of the signal. Finally, the column labelled Comp. contains uncertainties related to production mode composition and unfolding bias which affect the response matrices. The uncertainties have been rounded to the nearest 0.5%, except for the luminosity uncertainty which has been measured to be 1.7%.
Expected (pre-fit) and observed number of events in the four decay final states after the event selection, in the mass range 115< $m_{4l}$ < 130 GeV. The sum of the expected number of SM Higgs boson events and the estimated background yields is compared to the data. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are included for the predictions.
The fiducial and total cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the 4l final state. The fiducial cross sections are given separately for each decay final state, and for same- and different-flavour decays. The inclusive fiducial cross section is measured as the sum of all final states ($\sigma_{sum}$), as well as by combining the per-final state measurements assuming SM $ZZ^{*} \to 4l$ relative branching ratios ($\sigma_{comb}$). For the total cross section ($\sigma_{tot}$), the Higgs boson branching ratio at $m_{H}$= 125 GeV is assumed. The total SM prediction is accurate to N3LO in QCD and NLO EW for the ggF process. The cross sections for all other Higgs boson production modes XH are added. For the fiducial cross section predictions, the SM cross sections are multiplied by the acceptances determined using the NNLOPS sample for ggF. The p-values indicating the compatibility of the measurement and the SM prediction are shown as well. They do not include the systematic uncertainty in the theoretical predictions.
Correlation matrix between the fiducial cross sections for the four individual decay final states and the $ZZ^{*}$ normalisation factor.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum $p_{T}^{4l}$ of the Higgs boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 . Measured value in the last bin is un upper limit at 95% CL.
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum $p_{T}^{4l}$ of the Higgs boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{12}$ of the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{12}$ of the leading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{34}$ of the subleading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{34}$ of the subleading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the rapidity $|y_{4l}|$ of the Higgs boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the rapidity $|y_{4l}|$ of the Higgs boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $|\cos\theta^{*}|$ of the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $|\cos\theta^{*}|$ of the leading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{1}$ of the anti-lepton from the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{1}$ of the anti-lepton from the leading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{2}$ of the anti-lepton from the subleading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{2}$ of the anti-lepton from the subleading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons.
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi_{1}$ of the decay plane of the leading Z boson and the plane formed between its four-momentum and the z-axis. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi_{1}$ of the decay plane of the leading Z boson and the plane formed between its four-momentum and the z-axis.
Differential fiducial cross section for the jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the number of b-quark initiated jets $N_{b-jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the number of b-quark initiated jets $N_{b-jets}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$ in events with at least one jet. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$ in events with at least one jet.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$ in events with at least two jets. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$ in events with at least two jets.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets $m_{jj}$ in events with at least two jets. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets $m_{jj}$ in events with at least two jets.
Differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in pseudorapidity $\Delta\eta_{jj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in pseudorapidity $\Delta\eta_{jj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in $\phi$ $\Delta\phi_{jj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in $\phi$ $\Delta\phi_{jj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system, in events with at least one jet $p_{T}^{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system, in events with at least one jet $p_{T}^{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus di-jet system, in events with at least two jets $p_{T}^{4ljj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 . Measured value in the last bin is un upper limit at 95% CL.
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus di-jet system, in events with at least two jets $p_{T}^{4ljj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system in events with at least one jet $m_{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system in events with at least one jet $m_{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus di-jet system in events with at least two jets $m_{4ljj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus di-jet system in events with at least two jets $m_{4ljj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $ll\mu\mu$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $llee$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass m12 vs. m34 in $ll\mu\mu$ and $llee$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $|y_{4l}|$ bins. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $|y_{4l}|$ bins.
Differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $N_{jets}$ bins. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $N_{jets}$ bins.
Differential fiducial cross section for transverse momentum of the four lepton system vs. the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for transverse momentum of the four lepton system vs. the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system vs the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$m_{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system vs the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$m_{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton vs the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{l.jet}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton vs the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{lead.jet}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the rapidity of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$|y^{lead.jet}|$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the rapidity of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$|y^{lead.jet}|$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $2\mu2e$ and $2e2\mu$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
A search for new-physics resonances decaying into a lepton and a jet performed by the ATLAS experiment is presented. Scalar leptoquarks pair-produced in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider are considered using an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, corresponding to the full Run 2 dataset. They are searched for in events with two electrons or two muons and two or more jets, including jets identified as arising from the fragmentation of $c$- or $b$-quarks. The observed yield in each channel is consistent with the Standard Model background expectation. Leptoquarks with masses below 1.8 TeV and 1.7 TeV are excluded in the electron and muon channels, respectively, assuming a branching ratio into a charged lepton and a quark of 100%, with minimal dependence on the quark flavour. Upper limits on the aforementioned branching ratio are also given as a function of the leptoquark mass.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the pretag Signal Region of the $ qe$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the pretag Signal Region of the $ q\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the untagged Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the untagged Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.
The signal selection efficiency x acceptance summed over all signal regions, for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.
The observed and expected limits for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.
Cutflow Table in the electron channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.
Cutflow Table in the muon channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.
This Letter presents a search for the production of new heavy resonances decaying into a Higgs boson and a photon using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The analysis is performed by reconstructing hadronically decaying Higgs boson $(H\to b\bar{b})$ candidates as single large-radius jets. A novel algorithm using information about the jet constituents in the center-of-mass frame of the jet is implemented to identify the two $b$-quarks in the single jet. No significant excess of events is observed above the expected background. Upper limits are set on the production cross-section times branching fraction for narrow spin-1 resonances decaying into a Higgs boson and a photon in the resonance mass range from 0.7 to 4 TeV, cross-sections times branching fraction are excluded between 11.6 fb and 0.11 fb at a 95% confidence level.
Data distribution of the reconstructed $m_{J\gamma}$ and background only fitting in the single-b-tagged category. Background and signal fit functions are provided in Table 3. Background event yields are calculated using the fitted background function.
Data distribution of the reconstructed $m_{J\gamma}$ and background only fitting in the double-b-tagged category. Background and signal fit functions are provided in Table 3. Background event yields are calculated using the fitted background function.
Background and signal functions, with their fit parameters. For the background function, the parameters are fitted from the data distribution. The "Yield" is the total number of events in data in the single-b-tagged or double-b-tagged fitting range. For the single-b-tagged category, the fitting range is [1400GeV, 4200GeV], and for the double-b-tagged category, it is [600GeV, 4200GeV]. The background event yields per bin in Table 1 and Table 2 are calculated using the data yield multiplied by the integral of the normalized background function in that bin. For the signal function, the value for the parameters are from parametrisation studies and CB stands for a Crystal-Ball function. Signal distributions in Figure 1a and Figure 1b are normalized to an arbitrary yield, for illustration purpose.
Observed and expected 95% confidence-level limits on sigma x BR as a function of mZ`.
Cutflow Table for 1 TeV, 2 TeV, 4 TeV MC signal samples and Data. Cut0: $\mathcal{L} \times \sigma \times B(Z`\to H\gamma)\times B(H \to b\bar{b})$; Cut1: Preselection; Cut2: Photon requirement; Cut3: Large-$R$ jet requirement; Cut4: Large-$R$ jet mass optimization; Cut5: Double $b$-tagged; Cut5.1: $p_T$ optimization(Double $b$-tagged); Cut6: Single $b$-tagged; Cut6.1: $p_T$ optimization(Single $b$-tagged).
A search is presented for new phenomena in events characterised by high jet multiplicity, no leptons (electrons or muons), and four or more jets originating from the fragmentation of $b$-quarks ($b$-jets). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2. The dominant Standard Model background originates from multijet production and is estimated using a data-driven technique based on an extrapolation from events with low $b$-jet multiplicity to the high $b$-jet multiplicities used in the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed and 95% confidence-level limits that constrain simplified models of R-parity-violating supersymmetry are determined. The exclusion limits reach 950 GeV in top-squark mass in the models considered.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.
Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.
Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
A search for the electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two electrons or muons is presented. The analysis is based on 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. Three $R$-parity-conserving scenarios where the lightest neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle are considered: the production of chargino pairs with decays via either $W$ bosons or sleptons, and the direct production of slepton pairs. The analysis is optimised for the first of these scenarios, but the results are also interpreted in the others. No significant deviations from the Standard Model expectations are observed and limits at 95 % confidence level are set on the masses of relevant supersymmetric particles in each of the scenarios. For a massless lightest neutralino, masses up to 420 GeV are excluded for the production of the lightest-chargino pairs assuming $W$-boson-mediated decays and up to 1 TeV for slepton-mediated decays, whereas for slepton-pair production masses up to 700 GeV are excluded assuming three generations of mass-degenerate sleptons.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
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 on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch 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.