Showing 10 of 249 results
This paper presents a search for dark matter, $\chi$, using events with a single top quark and an energetic $W$ boson. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision data collected with the ATLAS experiment at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV during LHC Run 2 (2015-2018), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search considers final states with zero or one charged lepton (electron or muon), at least one $b$-jet and large missing transverse momentum. In addition, a result from a previous search considering two-charged-lepton final states is included in the interpretation of the results. The data are found to be in good agreement with the Standard Model predictions and the results are interpreted in terms of 95% confidence-level exclusion limits in the context of a class of dark matter models involving an extended two-Higgs-doublet sector together with a pseudoscalar mediator particle. The search is particularly sensitive to on-shell production of the charged Higgs boson state, $H^{\pm}$, arising from the two-Higgs-doublet mixing, and its semi-invisible decays via the mediator particle, $a$: $H^{\pm} \rightarrow W^\pm a (\rightarrow \chi\chi)$. Signal models with $H^{\pm}$ masses up to 1.5 TeV and $a$ masses up to 350 GeV are excluded assuming a tan$\beta$ value of 1. For masses of $a$ of 150 (250) GeV, tan$\beta$ values up to 2 are excluded for $H^{\pm}$ masses between 200 (400) GeV and 1.5 TeV. Signals with tan$\beta$ values between 20 and 30 are excluded for $H^{\pm}$ masses between 500 and 800 GeV.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
This Letter presents the measurement of the fiducial and differential cross-sections of the electroweak production of a $Z \gamma$ pair in association with two jets. The analysis uses 140 fb$^{-1}$ of LHC proton-proton collision data taken at $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector during the years 2015-2018. Events with a $Z$ boson candidate decaying into either an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+ \mu^-$ pair, a photon and two jets are selected. The electroweak component is extracted by requiring a large dijet invariant mass and a large rapidity gap between the two jets and is measured with an observed and expected significance well above five standard deviations. The fiducial $pp \rightarrow Z \gamma jj$ cross-section for the electroweak production is measured to be 3.6 $\pm$ 0.5 fb. The total fiducial cross-section that also includes contributions where the jets arise from strong interactions is measured to be $16.8^{+2.0}_{-1.8}$ fb. The results are consistent with the Standard Model predictions. Differential cross-sections are also measured using the same events and are compared with parton-shower Monte Carlo simulations. Good agreement is observed between data and predictions.
Post-fit mjj distributions in the mjj>500 GeV SR. The uncertainty band around the expectation includes all systematic uncertainties (including MC statistical uncertainty) and takes into account their correlations as obtained from the fit. The error bar around the data points represents the data statistical uncertainty. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
Post-fit mjj distributions in the mjj>500 GeV CR. The uncertainty band around the expectation includes all systematic uncertainties (including MC statistical uncertainty) and takes into account their correlations as obtained from the fit. The error bar around the data points represents the data statistical uncertainty. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
Post-fit mjj distributions in the mjj>150 GeV Extended SR. The uncertainty band around the expectation includes all systematic uncertainties (including MC statistical uncertainty) and takes into account their correlations as obtained from the fit. The error bar around the data points represents the data statistical uncertainty. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading lepton pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading photon pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading jet pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the Zy system pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the dijet rapidity difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the Zy and dijet azimuthal difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading lepton pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading photon pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading jet pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Z boson pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Zy system pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the dijet rapidity difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Zy and dijet azimuthal difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the centrality of the system ζ(Zy). The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.
Differential cross-sections are measured for top-quark pair production in the all-hadronic decay mode, using proton$-$proton collision events collected by the ATLAS experiment in which all six decay jets are separately resolved. Absolute and normalised single- and double-differential cross-sections are measured at particle and parton level as a function of various kinematic variables. Emphasis is placed on well-measured observables in fully reconstructed final states, as well as on the study of correlations between the top-quark pair system and additional jet radiation identified in the event. The study is performed using data from proton$-$proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mbox{TeV}$ collected by the ATLAS detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $\mbox{36.1 fb}^{-1}$. The rapidities of the individual top quarks and of the top-quark pair are well modelled by several independent event generators. Significant mismodelling is observed in the transverse momenta of the leading three jet emissions, while the leading top-quark transverse momentum and top-quark pair transverse momentum are both found to be incompatible with several theoretical predictions.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
A search for a long-lived, heavy neutral lepton ($\mathcal{N}$) in 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider is reported. The $\mathcal{N}$ is produced via $W \rightarrow \mathcal{N} \mu$ or $W \rightarrow \mathcal{N} e$ and decays into two charged leptons and a neutrino, forming a displaced vertex. The $\mathcal{N}$ mass is used to discriminate between signal and background. No signal is observed, and limits are set on the squared mixing parameters of the $\mathcal{N}$ with the left-handed neutrino states for the $\mathcal{N}$ mass range $3$ GeV $< m_{\mathcal{N}} < 15$ GeV. For the first time, limits are given for both single-flavor and multiflavor mixing scenarios motivated by neutrino flavor oscillation results for both the normal and inverted neutrino-mass hierarchies.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH e Dirac model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH e Majorana model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH mu Dirac model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 1SFH mu Majorana model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.
Expected and observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.
The event selection efficiency for each mass-lifetime point in all six studied channels. Shown is the fraction of the produced MC simulation events that pass all signal region selections. An entry of 0 indicates no events were selected.
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH e Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 1SFH u Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (NH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Dirac model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (prefit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
Expected and observed yields in the different analysis regions (postfit) for the 2QDH (IH) Majorana model (10 GeV, 10mm).
The total displaced vertexing efficiency as a function of $r_{DV}$ for the custom configuration used in this analysis. The definition of the secondary vertex efficiency can be found in defined in \cite{ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-013}. The efficiency is shown for $\mu-\mu\mu$, $\mu-\mu e$ and $\mu-ee$ signals with $m_N=10$~GeV and $c\tau_N=10$~mm.
This paper describes precision measurements of the transverse momentum $p_\mathrm{T}^{\ell\ell}$ ($\ell=e,\mu$) and of the angular variable $\phi^{*}_{\eta}$ distributions of Drell-Yan lepton pairs in a mass range of 66-116 GeV. The analysis uses data from 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC in 2015 and 2016. Measurements in electron-pair and muon-pair final states are performed in the same fiducial volumes, corrected for detector effects, and combined. Compared to previous measurements in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$7 and 8 TeV, these new measurements probe perturbative QCD at a higher centre-of-mass energy with a different composition of initial states. They reach a precision of 0.2% for the normalized spectra at low values of $p_\mathrm{T}^{\ell\ell}$. The data are compared with different QCD predictions, where it is found that predictions based on resummation approaches can describe the full spectrum within uncertainties.
The results of a search for gluino and squark pair production with the pairs decaying via the lightest charginos into a final state consisting of two $W$ bosons, the lightest neutralinos ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), and quarks, are presented. The signal is characterised by the presence of a single charged lepton ($e^{\pm}$ or $\mu^{\pm}$) from a $W$ boson decay, jets, and missing transverse momentum. The analysis is performed using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data taken at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS experiment. No statistically significant excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of squarks and gluinos in simplified models. Masses of gluino (squark) up to 2.2 TeV (1.4 TeV) are excluded at 95% confidence level for a light $\tilde\chi^0_1$.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR2J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx discovery region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery high region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Signal efficiency in SR6J discovery low region for squark production one-step variable-x simplified models. The -1 value indicates the truth yields for this point is 0 but the reco yields is not 0
Cross-section measurements for a $Z$ boson produced in association with high-transverse-momentum jets ($p_{\mathrm{T}} \geq 100$ GeV) and decaying into a charged-lepton pair ($e^+e^-,\mu^+\mu^-$) are presented. The measurements are performed using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{-1}$ collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Measurements of angular correlations between the $Z$ boson and the closest jet are performed in events with at least one jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} \geq 500$ GeV. Event topologies of particular interest are the collinear emission of a $Z$ boson in dijet events and a boosted $Z$ boson recoiling against a jet. Fiducial cross sections are compared with state-of-the-art theoretical predictions. The data are found to agree with next-to-next-to-leading-order predictions by NNLOjet and with the next-to-leading-order multi-leg generators MadGraph5_aMC@NLO and Sherpa.
A search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson as well as searches for dark matter candidates, produced together with a leptonically decaying $Z$ boson, are presented. The analysis is performed using proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, delivered by the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ and recorded by the ATLAS experiment. Assuming Standard Model cross-sections for $ZH$ production, the observed (expected) upper limit on the branching ratio of the Higgs boson to invisible particles is found to be 19% (19%) at the 95% confidence level. Exclusion limits are also set for simplified dark matter models and two-Higgs-doublet models with an additional pseudoscalar mediator.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(med), m($\chi$)), with Axial-vector mediator)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(med), m($\chi$)), with Axial-vector mediator)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(med), m($\chi$)), with Vector mediator)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(med), m($\chi$)), with Vector mediator)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(H), tan($\beta$)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.35)
The expected exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)
The observed exclusion contours as a function of (m(a), m(H)), with sin($\theta$) = 0.7)
Expected lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 200 GeV, m(H) = 600 GeV.
Observed lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 200 GeV, m(H) = 600 GeV.
Expected lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 350 GeV, m(H) = 1000 GeV.
Observed lower limit on signal strength at 95% CL as a function of sin($\theta$), with m(a) = 350 GeV, m(H) = 1000 GeV.
Observed lower limit on WIMP-nucleon cross section at 90% CL as a function of m(WIMP), assuming Higgs-portal scenario with Scalar WIMP.
Observed lower limit on WIMP-nucleon cross section at 90% CL as a function of m(WIMP), assuming Higgs-portal scenario with Majorana WIMP.
Observed lower limit on the spin-dependent WIMP–proton scattering cross-section.
Observed lower limit on the spin-independent WIMP–nucleon scattering cross-section.
A search for new phenomena has been performed in final states with at least one isolated high-momentum photon, jets and missing transverse momentum in proton--proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The data, collected by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC, correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$. The experimental results are interpreted in a supersymmetric model in which pair-produced gluinos decay into neutralinos, which in turn decay into a gravitino, at least one photon, and jets. No significant deviations from the predictions of the Standard Model are observed. Upper limits are set on the visible cross section due to physics beyond the Standard Model, and lower limits are set on the masses of the gluinos and neutralinos, all at 95% confidence level. Visible cross sections greater than 0.022 fb are excluded and pair-produced gluinos with masses up to 2200 GeV are excluded for most of the NLSP masses investigated.
Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.
Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.
This search, a type not previously performed at ATLAS, uses a comparison of the production cross sections for $e^+ \mu^-$ and $e^- \mu^+$ pairs to constrain physics processes beyond the Standard Model. It uses $139 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data recorded at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV at the LHC. Targeting sources of new physics which prefer final states containing $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ to $e^{-}\mu^{+}$, the search contains two broad signal regions which are used to provide model-independent constraints on the ratio of cross sections at the 2% level. The search also has two special selections targeting supersymmetric models and leptoquark signatures. Observations using one of these selections are able to exclude, at 95% confidence level, singly produced smuons with masses up to 640 GeV in a model in which the only other light sparticle is a neutralino when the $R$-parity-violating coupling $\lambda'_{231}$ is close to unity. Observations using the other selection exclude scalar leptoquarks with masses below 1880 GeV when $g_{\text{1R}}^{eu}=g_{\text{1R}}^{\mu c}=1$, at 95% confidence level. The limit on the coupling reduces to $g_{\text{1R}}^{eu}=g_{\text{1R}}^{\mu c}=0.46$ for a mass of 1420 GeV.
Observed yields, and fake lepton background yields in the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of SR-MET, along with the results of the $e^{+}\mu^{-}/e^{-}\mu^{+}$ ratio measurement and 1-sided p-value in SR-MET, binned in $M_{T2}$.
Observed yields, and fake lepton background yields in the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of SR-JET, along with the results of the $e^{+}\mu^{-}/e^{-}\mu^{+}$ ratio measurement and 1-sided p-value in SR-JET, binned in $H_{\text{P}}$.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total number of signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of each bin of SR-MET. The regions are binned in the same way as the ratio $\rho$ measurement. The limits are shown for a selection of 'z' values, where 'z' is the fraction of the total signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total number of signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{-}\mu^{+}$ channels of each bin of SR-JET. The regions are binned in the same way as the ratio $\rho$ measurement. The limits are shown for a selection of 'z' values, where 'z' is the fraction of the total signal events entering the $e^{+}\mu^{-}$ channel.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status Email Forum Twitter GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.