Forward neutron single spin asymmetries in p+p, p+Al and p+Au collisions as a function of pT in bins of xF correlated with hard collision activity

Forward neutron single spin asymmetries in p+p, p+Al and p+Au collisions as a function of pT in bins of xF without hard collision activity

Forward neutron single spin asymmetries in p+p collisions as a function of xF in bins of pT (anti-)correlated with hard collision activity

Forward neutron single spin asymmetries in p+Al collisions as a function of xF in bins of pT (anti-)correlated with hard collision activity

Forward neutron single spin asymmetries in p+Au collisions as a function of xF in bins of pT (anti-)correlated with hard collision activity

Ratio of the electron data to the calculated background as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias collisions (upper panel) and relative contributions to the background from various sources (lower panel). The curves for $\omega$ and $\phi$ show the sum of the Dalitz and the di-electron decay modes.

The background-subtracted electron spectra for central (0-10%) collisions compared with the expected contributions from open charm decays. Also shown, for central collisions only, are the expected contribution from bottom decays (dashed) and the conversion electron spectrum from a direct phonon prediction (dotted).

The background-subtracted electron spectra for minimum bias (0-92%) collisions compared with the expected contributions from open charm decays. Also shown, for central collisions only, are the expected contribution from bottom decays (dashed) and the conversion electron spectrum from a direct phonon prediction (dotted).

Single electron cross sections $\frac{d\sigma_e}{dy}|_{y=0}$ of this measurement and ISR experiments [9,11,31] are displayed (bottom of figure, right-hand scale) with charm decay contributions calculated with PYTHIA. Open and filled symbols for 1.0 < $p_T$ < 1.4 GeV/$c$ and $p_T$ > 1.4 GeV/$c$, respectively. The derived charm cross section of this measurement is compared with charm cross sections from SPS/FNAL experiments (top of figure, left-hand scale). The thick curve and the shaded band represent the charm cross section in the PYTHIA model and in a NLO pQCD calculation [30], respectively.

Single electron cross sections $\frac{d\sigma_e}{dy}|_{y=0}$ of this measurement and ISR experiments [9,11,31] are displayed (bottom of figure, right-hand scale) with charm decay contributions calculated with PYTHIA. Open and filled symbols for 1.0 < $p_T$ < 1.4 GeV/$c$ and $p_T$ > 1.4 GeV/$c$, respectively. The derived charm cross section of this measurement is compared with charm cross sections from SPS/FNAL experiments (top of figure, left-hand scale). The thick curve and the shaded band represent the charm cross section in the PYTHIA model and in a NLO pQCD calculation [30], respectively.

Spectra of inclusive $\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) for minimum-bias events.

Spectra of inclusive feed-down corrected protons (antiprotons) for minimum-bias events.

The double helicity asymmetry for neutral pion production at $\sqrt{s}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function $p_T$ (GeV/$c$). Error bars are statistical uncertainties. The point-to-point experimental systematic uncertainties are negligible. Not included in the figure/table are the correlated for all points scale systematic uncertainty of 14% (scales both the values and point-to-point uncertainties by the same factor).

Forward neutron single spin asymmetries as a function of PT

$\bar{d}/d$ ratio vs. $p_T$ for minimum bias data.

Differential anisotropy $v_2$($p_T$) for charged hadrons in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV obtained via reaction plane methods

Differential anisotropy as a function of centrality for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/$c$

Differential anisotropy as a function of centrality for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV/$c$

Differential anisotropy as a function of centrality for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV/$c$

Differential anisotropy $v_2$($p_T$) for centrality selection 13 - 26%.

Differential anisotropy $v_2$($p_T$) for centrality selection 13 - 26%.

Differential $v_2$ vs. $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ for charged hadrons in nucleus-nucleus collisions. Results are shown for the centrality cut of 13 - 26% and $p_T$ selections of 1.75 GeV/$c$ and 0.65 GeV/$c$.

Signal yields for the charge scenarios considered in the analysis, as well as their associateds uncertainties.

Signal yields for two charge scenarios considered in the analysis, as well as their associated uncertainties.

Signal yields for the charge scenarios considered in the analysis, as well as their associateds uncertainties.

Signal yields for two charge scenarios considered in the analysis, as well as their associated uncertainties.

Signal yields for the charge scenarios considered in the analysis, as well as their associateds uncertainties.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the early 2016 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 6%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text. Comparing with respect to the binomial fit starting at $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}} = 2$, and not $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}} = 1$, is needed to account for the fact that early 2016 data is more strongly affected low dE/dx by instrumental effects that widen the N hits distribution.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the early 2016 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 6%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text. Comparing with respect to the binomial fit starting at $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}} = 2$, and not $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}} = 1$, is needed to account for the fact that early 2016 data is more strongly affected low dE/dx by instrumental effects that widen the N hits distribution.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the late 2016 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 78%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the late 2016 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 78%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the 2017 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 65%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the 2017 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 65%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the 2018 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 9%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Distribution of $N_{\text{hits}}^{\text{low dE/dx}}$ in the SR and the CR for the 2018 data set, as well as for an FCP signal at a mass of 100 GeV and different charge scenarios. The vertical bars and the shaded area correspond to the statistical uncertainty in the SR and the CR, respectively. The p-value of the fit is 9%. The two lower panels show the ratio of the number of tracks observed in the CR (upper) and SR (lower), and the fit function. The vertical bars correspond to the uncertainty from statistical sources, while the shaded area shows the systematic uncertainty in the fit due to the choice of the fitting function and the binomial fit range as explained in low dE/dx the main text.

Exclusion region (hatched) at 95% CL in the FCP charge-mass plane for the considered signal. The expected exclusion is shown with the associated 1 and 2 standard deviations $\sigma$ bands. Signal points at charges 0.9, 0.8, 2/3, 0.5, and 1/3 e are connected by straight lines to guide the eye. This is a conservative interpolation. Previous exclusions from CMS [Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 092008), JHEP 07 (2013) 122] as well as OPAL [Phys. Lett. B 572 (2003) 8] are given for comparison.

Exclusion region (hatched) at 95% CL in the FCP charge-mass plane for the considered signal. The expected exclusion is shown with the associated 1 and 2 standard deviations $\sigma$ bands. Signal points at charges 0.9, 0.8, 2/3, 0.5, and 1/3 e are connected by straight lines to guide the eye. This is a conservative interpolation. Previous exclusions from CMS [Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 092008), JHEP 07 (2013) 122] as well as OPAL [Phys. Lett. B 572 (2003) 8] are given for comparison.

Nucelar modification factor $R_{CP}$ for ($p+\bar{p}$)/2.

Nucelar modification factor $R_{CP}$ for $\pi^0$.

Charged hadron to $\pi^0$ ratio in central (0-10%) Au+Au collisions.

Charged hadron to $\pi^0$ ratio in peripheral (60-92%) Au+Au collisions. The peripheral data points are offset by +130 MeV/$c$ for clarity.

Systematic error on normalization a) common to both centralities b) that can move the $h$/$\pi^0$ ratios for each centrality independent of the other.

$I_{dAu}$ vs. $p_T^{assoc}$ for different centrality, $p_T^{trig}$ and $\eta^{trig}$ bins.

The ratio of correlation peak widths between $d + Au$ and $p + p$ collisions. Only statistic errors are shown.

The ratio of correlation peak widths between $d + Au$ and $p + p$ collisions. Only statistic errors are shown.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for identified particle $\pi^-$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for identified particle $K^-$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for identified particle $\bar{p}$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for identified particle $\pi^+$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for identified particle $K$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for identified particle $p$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for combined particles $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for combined particles $K^+$ and $K^-$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for combined particles $p$ and $\bar{p}$.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for combined particles $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ scaled by quarks for each particle as motivated by a quark coalescence model.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for combined particles $K^+$ and $K^-$ scaled by quarks for each particle as motivated by a quark coalescence model.

Transverse momentum dependepnce of $v_2$ for combined particles $p$ and $\bar{p}$ scaled by quarks for each particle as motivated by a quark coalescence model.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for negative charged particle distributions at 0-20% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for combined $\pi^-$ and $K^-$ at 0-20% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for $\bar{p}$ at 0-20% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for positive charged particle distributions at 0-20% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for combined $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ at 0-20% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for $p$ at 0-20% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for negative charged particle distributions at 20-40% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for combined $\pi^-$ and $K^-$ at 20-40% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for $\bar{p}$ at 20-40% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for positive charged particle distributions at 20-40% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for combined $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ at 20-40% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for $p$ at 20-40% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for negative charged particle distributions at 40-60% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for combined $\pi^-$ and $K^-$ at 40-60% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for $\bar{p}$ at 40-60% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for positive charged particle distributions at 40-60% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for combined $\pi^+$ and $K^+$ at 40-60% centrality.

Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2$ for $p$ at 40-60% centrality.

The top panel shows the measured $R_{side}$ from identical pions for PHENIX. The bottom panel shows the ratio $R_{out}/R_{side}$ as a function of $k_T$. Longitudinal Co-Moving System (LCMS) frame for $\pi^-$

The top panel shows the measured $R_{side}$ from identical pions for PHENIX. The bottom panel shows the ratio $R_{out}/R_{side}$ as a function of $k_T$. Pair Center-of-Mass System (PCMS) frame for $\pi^+$

The top panel shows the measured $R_{side}$ from identical pions for PHENIX. The bottom panel shows the ratio $R_{out}/R_{side}$ as a function of $k_T$. Pair Center-of-Mass System (PCMS) frame for $\pi^-$

Transverse momentum spectra of primordial protons in 20-40% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of primordial protons in 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of deuterons in 0-10% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of deuterons in 10-20% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of deuterons in 20-40% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of deuterons in 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of tritons in 0-10% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of tritons in 10-20% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of tritons in 20-40% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of tritons in 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{3}He$ in 0-10% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{3}He$ in 10-20% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{3}He$ in 20-40% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{3}He$ in 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{4}He$ in 0-10% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{4}He$ in 10-20% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{4}He$ in 20-40% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum spectra of $^{4}He$ in 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Averaged transverse momentum ($<p_{T}>$) of primordial protons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Averaged transverse momentum ($<p_{T}>$) of deuterons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Averaged transverse momentum ($<p_{T}>$) of tritons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Averaged transverse momentum ($<p_{T}>$) of $^{3}He$ at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Averaged transverse momentum ($<p_{T}>$) of $^{4}He$ at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Integral Yield (dN/dy) of primordial protons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Integral Yield (dN/dy) of deuterons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Integral Yield (dN/dy) of tritons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Integral Yield (dN/dy) of $^{3}He$ at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Integral Yield (dN/dy) of $^{4}He$ at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

$4\pi$ yield for primordial protons and light nuclei at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

deuteron to proton ratios at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

triton to proton ratios at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

helium3 to proton ratios at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

helium4 to proton ratios at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum dependence of $\sqrt[A-1]{B_{A}} (GeV^{2}/c^{3})$ of deuterons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum dependence of $\sqrt[A-1]{B_{A}} (GeV^{2}/c^{3})$ of tritons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Transverse momentum dependence of $\sqrt[A-1]{B_{A}} (GeV^{2}/c^{3})$ of $^{3}He$ at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Rapidity dependence of $\sqrt[A-1]{B_{A}} (GeV^{2}/c^{3})$ of deuterons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Rapidity dependence of $\sqrt[A-1]{B_{A}} (GeV^{2}/c^{3})$ of tritons at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Rapidity dependence of $\sqrt[A-1]{B_{A}} (GeV^{2}/c^{3})$ of $^{3}He$ at different centralities in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Centrality dependence of $N_{p}\times N_{t}/N_{d}^{2}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Centrality dependence of $N_{^{4}He} \times N_{p}/N_{^{3}He} \times N_{d}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Centrality dependence of $N_{^{4}He} \times N_{d}/N_{^{3}He} \times N_{t}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown respectively.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2016 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 2.3%.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2017 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 3.7%.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2018 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 1.8%.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_150. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.

Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_300. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass channel for the exclusion and discovery signal regions as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. This treats the lack of availability of $b$-jet triggers as an inefficiency.

The particle-level acceptance for the low-mass exclusion and discovery signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass channel discovery regions as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the efficiency is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. The efficiency calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

The particle-level acceptance for the high-mass signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the acceptance is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 130 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 150 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

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.