Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ; Contact us: CMS Publications Committee

CMS-TOP-20-001 ; CERN-EP-2021-135

Measurement of differential $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross sections in the full kinematic range using lepton+jets events from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration

5 August 2021

Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 092013

Abstract: Measurements of differential and double-differential cross sections of top quark pair ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) production are presented in the lepton+jets channels with a single electron or muon and jets in the final state. The analysis combines for the first time signatures of top quarks with low transverse momentum ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$, where the top quark decay products can be identified as separated jets and isolated leptons, and with high ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$, where the decay products are collimated and overlap. The measurements are based on proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The cross sections are presented at the parton and particle levels, where the latter minimizes extrapolations based on theoretical assumptions. Most of the measured differential cross sections are well described by standard model predictions with the exception of some double-differential distributions. The inclusive $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross section is measured to be $\sigma_\mathrm{t\bar{t}} = $ 791 $\pm$ 25 pb, which constitutes the most precise measurement in the lepton+jets channel to date.

Links: e-print arXiv:2108.02803 [hep-ex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ;

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Comparison between the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ distributions at the particle and parton levels, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. Left : the percentage of ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} $-bin migration between the particle and parton levels, shown using the color scale to the right of the plot. The bin boundaries are those shown in the right panel. Each column is normalized such that the sum of its entries corresponds to the fraction of particle-level events in this bin at the parton level in the full phase space. Right : fraction of parton-level top quarks in the same ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin at the particle level (purity), fraction of particle-level top quarks in the same ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin at the parton level (stability), ratio of the number of particle- to parton-level top quarks (bin efficiency), and the fraction of particle-level events that are not signal events at the parton level.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Comparison between the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ distributions at the particle and parton levels, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. Left : the percentage of ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} $-bin migration between the particle and parton levels, shown using the color scale to the right of the plot. The bin boundaries are those shown in the right panel. Each column is normalized such that the sum of its entries corresponds to the fraction of particle-level events in this bin at the parton level in the full phase space. Right : fraction of parton-level top quarks in the same ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin at the particle level (purity), fraction of particle-level top quarks in the same ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin at the parton level (stability), ratio of the number of particle- to parton-level top quarks (bin efficiency), and the fraction of particle-level events that are not signal events at the parton level.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Comparison between the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ distributions at the particle and parton levels, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. Left : the percentage of ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} $-bin migration between the particle and parton levels, shown using the color scale to the right of the plot. The bin boundaries are those shown in the right panel. Each column is normalized such that the sum of its entries corresponds to the fraction of particle-level events in this bin at the parton level in the full phase space. Right : fraction of parton-level top quarks in the same ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin at the particle level (purity), fraction of particle-level top quarks in the same ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin at the parton level (stability), ratio of the number of particle- to parton-level top quarks (bin efficiency), and the fraction of particle-level events that are not signal events at the parton level.
png pdf	Figure 2: Normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons and the correctly reconstructed ${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$ candidate (left). Normalized distributions of the reconstructed $m({\mathrm{t} _\ell})$ for correctly (solid red curve) and incorrectly (dashed blue curve) selected ${\mathrm{b} _\ell}$ (right). The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation for the parton-level measurement.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons and the correctly reconstructed ${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$ candidate (left). Normalized distributions of the reconstructed $m({\mathrm{t} _\ell})$ for correctly (solid red curve) and incorrectly (dashed blue curve) selected ${\mathrm{b} _\ell}$ (right). The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation for the parton-level measurement.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons and the correctly reconstructed ${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$ candidate (left). Normalized distributions of the reconstructed $m({\mathrm{t} _\ell})$ for correctly (solid red curve) and incorrectly (dashed blue curve) selected ${\mathrm{b} _\ell}$ (right). The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation for the parton-level measurement.
png pdf	Figure 3: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t (upper) and 1t1l (lower) categories. The comparisons of data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) are shown for the (left) parton- and (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG+PYTHIA describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t (upper) and 1t1l (lower) categories. The comparisons of data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) are shown for the (left) parton- and (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG+PYTHIA describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t (upper) and 1t1l (lower) categories. The comparisons of data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) are shown for the (left) parton- and (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG+PYTHIA describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 3-c: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t (upper) and 1t1l (lower) categories. The comparisons of data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) are shown for the (left) parton- and (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG+PYTHIA describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 3-d: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t (upper) and 1t1l (lower) categories. The comparisons of data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) are shown for the (left) parton- and (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG+PYTHIA describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 4: Distributions of the output discriminant ${L_\mathrm {NN}}$ used in the boosted ${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$ identification for the low-${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (left) and high-${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (right) regions. The data (points) and predictions from simulation (colored histograms) are shown. The hatched area gives the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the prediction. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratio of the data to the sum of the individual predictions is displayed in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Distributions of the output discriminant ${L_\mathrm {NN}}$ used in the boosted ${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$ identification for the low-${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (left) and high-${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (right) regions. The data (points) and predictions from simulation (colored histograms) are shown. The hatched area gives the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the prediction. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratio of the data to the sum of the individual predictions is displayed in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Distributions of the output discriminant ${L_\mathrm {NN}}$ used in the boosted ${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$ identification for the low-${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (left) and high-${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (right) regions. The data (points) and predictions from simulation (colored histograms) are shown. The hatched area gives the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the prediction. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratio of the data to the sum of the individual predictions is displayed in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 5: The selection efficiency for background jets as a function of the signal selection efficiency in three ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ ranges for 3Q (solid curves) and 2Q+3Q (dashed curves) jets from simulation. An efficiency of 100% corresponds to the preselection of $ {| \eta |} < $ 2.4 and $m_\mathrm {jet} > $ 120 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 6: Schematic overview of the categories and how they are used in the analysis.
png pdf	Figure 7: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 7-d: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 7-e: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 7-f: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distributions between data (points) and predictions (colored histograms) obtained for the parton-level measurement. Contributions of the various reconstruction categories are obtained from the POWHEG+PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events in the 2t and 1t1l categories are extracted from the data (cf. Section 10). All other background contributions are taken from simulation. Combined systematic (cf. Section 13) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total predicted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 8: The ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (right) distributions for the multijet and DY/W boson backgrounds from data (points) in the control region and from simulation (colored histograms) in the signal region for the 1t1l category. The red lines show the variations in the control region distribution when shifting the discriminant selection range up (solid lines) and down (dotted lines). The blue dashed line gives the sum of the multijet and DY/W boson predictions in the control region. The hatched band shows the statistical uncertainties in the prediction. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: The ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (right) distributions for the multijet and DY/W boson backgrounds from data (points) in the control region and from simulation (colored histograms) in the signal region for the 1t1l category. The red lines show the variations in the control region distribution when shifting the discriminant selection range up (solid lines) and down (dotted lines). The blue dashed line gives the sum of the multijet and DY/W boson predictions in the control region. The hatched band shows the statistical uncertainties in the prediction. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: The ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$ (right) distributions for the multijet and DY/W boson backgrounds from data (points) in the control region and from simulation (colored histograms) in the signal region for the 1t1l category. The red lines show the variations in the control region distribution when shifting the discriminant selection range up (solid lines) and down (dotted lines). The blue dashed line gives the sum of the multijet and DY/W boson predictions in the control region. The hatched band shows the statistical uncertainties in the prediction. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the predicted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9-c: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9-d: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9-e: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 9-f: The postfit ${H_\mathrm {NN}}$ distributions in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) for the data (points) and simulation (colored histograms). The electron and muon events and all three years of data taking have been combined. The hatched area shows the total uncertainties from the fit. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The ratios of data to the sum of the fitted yields are provided in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 10: Distributions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (upper left), ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (upper right), ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (lower left), and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$ (lower right) after background subtraction. The points show the data and the dashed lines the predictions for the various events types. The lower panels give the ratio of the data to the predictions. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainties, and the horizontal bars the bin widths.
png pdf	Figure 10-a: Distributions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (upper left), ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (upper right), ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (lower left), and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$ (lower right) after background subtraction. The points show the data and the dashed lines the predictions for the various events types. The lower panels give the ratio of the data to the predictions. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainties, and the horizontal bars the bin widths.
png pdf	Figure 10-b: Distributions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (upper left), ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (upper right), ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (lower left), and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$ (lower right) after background subtraction. The points show the data and the dashed lines the predictions for the various events types. The lower panels give the ratio of the data to the predictions. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainties, and the horizontal bars the bin widths.
png pdf	Figure 10-c: Distributions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (upper left), ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (upper right), ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (lower left), and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$ (lower right) after background subtraction. The points show the data and the dashed lines the predictions for the various events types. The lower panels give the ratio of the data to the predictions. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainties, and the horizontal bars the bin widths.
png pdf	Figure 10-d: Distributions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (upper left), ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (upper right), ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (lower left), and ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$ (lower right) after background subtraction. The points show the data and the dashed lines the predictions for the various events types. The lower panels give the ratio of the data to the predictions. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainties, and the horizontal bars the bin widths.
png pdf	Figure 11: Combined response matrices of all reconstruction categories for the measurements of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ at parton (upper left) and particle (lower left) levels from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. The purity (fraction of parton-/particle-level events that are reconstructed in the same bin at the detector level), stability (fraction of detector-level events that belong in the same bin at the parton/particle level), the efficiency per bin, and the fraction of ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ background for the corresponding parton and particle levels are shown in the right plots.
png pdf	Figure 11-a: Combined response matrices of all reconstruction categories for the measurements of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ at parton (upper left) and particle (lower left) levels from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. The purity (fraction of parton-/particle-level events that are reconstructed in the same bin at the detector level), stability (fraction of detector-level events that belong in the same bin at the parton/particle level), the efficiency per bin, and the fraction of ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ background for the corresponding parton and particle levels are shown in the right plots.
png pdf	Figure 11-b: Combined response matrices of all reconstruction categories for the measurements of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ at parton (upper left) and particle (lower left) levels from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. The purity (fraction of parton-/particle-level events that are reconstructed in the same bin at the detector level), stability (fraction of detector-level events that belong in the same bin at the parton/particle level), the efficiency per bin, and the fraction of ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ background for the corresponding parton and particle levels are shown in the right plots.
png pdf	Figure 11-c: Combined response matrices of all reconstruction categories for the measurements of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ at parton (upper left) and particle (lower left) levels from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. The purity (fraction of parton-/particle-level events that are reconstructed in the same bin at the detector level), stability (fraction of detector-level events that belong in the same bin at the parton/particle level), the efficiency per bin, and the fraction of ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ background for the corresponding parton and particle levels are shown in the right plots.
png pdf	Figure 11-d: Combined response matrices of all reconstruction categories for the measurements of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ at parton (upper left) and particle (lower left) levels from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. The purity (fraction of parton-/particle-level events that are reconstructed in the same bin at the detector level), stability (fraction of detector-level events that belong in the same bin at the parton/particle level), the efficiency per bin, and the fraction of ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ background for the corresponding parton and particle levels are shown in the right plots.
png pdf	Figure 12: The $p$-values of the $\chi ^2$ fits for the listed variables are shown for the parton- (upper) and particle- (lower) level measurements.
png pdf	Figure 12-a: The $p$-values of the $\chi ^2$ fits for the listed variables are shown for the parton- (upper) and particle- (lower) level measurements.
png pdf	Figure 12-b: The $p$-values of the $\chi ^2$ fits for the listed variables are shown for the parton- (upper) and particle- (lower) level measurements.
png pdf	Figure 13: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 13-a: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 13-b: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 13-c: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 13-d: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 13-e: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 13-f: The individual sources of systematic uncertainties in the various parton (left) and particle (right) measurements and their relative contributions to the overall uncertainty. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category "Other''.
png pdf	Figure 14: The $Z$-scores from the corresponding $\chi ^2$ tests comparing the measured differential cross sections for the shown variables at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) levels to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The $Z$-scores are truncated at an upper limit of six. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account in the $\chi ^2$ calculation.
png pdf	Figure 14-a: The $Z$-scores from the corresponding $\chi ^2$ tests comparing the measured differential cross sections for the shown variables at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) levels to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The $Z$-scores are truncated at an upper limit of six. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account in the $\chi ^2$ calculation.
png pdf	Figure 14-b: The $Z$-scores from the corresponding $\chi ^2$ tests comparing the measured differential cross sections for the shown variables at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) levels to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The $Z$-scores are truncated at an upper limit of six. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account in the $\chi ^2$ calculation.
png pdf	Figure 15: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 15-a: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 15-b: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 15-c: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 15-d: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 15-e: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 16: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 16-a: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 16-b: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 16-c: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 16-d: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 16-e: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 17: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 17-a: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 17-b: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 17-c: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 17-d: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 18: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 18-a: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 18-b: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 18-c: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 18-d: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 19: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 19-a: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 19-b: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 19-c: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 19-d: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 19-e: Differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 20: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 20-a: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 20-b: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 20-c: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 20-d: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 20-e: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21-e: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 21-f: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22-e: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 22-f: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23-e: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 23-f: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24-e: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 24-f: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25-e: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 25-f: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26-e: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 26-f: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27-e: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 27-f: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28-e: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 28-f: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29-e: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 29-f: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30-e: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 30-f: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 31: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 31-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 31-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 31-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 31-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 32: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 32-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 32-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 32-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 32-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs. ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 33: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 33-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 33-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 33-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 34: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 34-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 34-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 34-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 35: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-a: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-b: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-c: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-d: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-e: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-f: Double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 36: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-a: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-b: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-c: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-d: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-e: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-f: Double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs. ${{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels. Lower right: ratio of $ {| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 37: Measurements of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production cross sections $\sigma _{{\mathrm{e} \text {/} \mu \text {+jets}}}$ with their total uncertainty obtained as the sum of the cross sections in all bins of a distribution as a function of the kinematic variable used in the determination. The results are compared to the Top++ and the Matrix predictions with their corresponding uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 38: Measurements of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production cross sections $\sigma _\mathrm {particle}$ at the particle level and their total uncertainties as a function of the kinematic variable used in the determination. The results are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA.
png pdf	Figure 39: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 39-a: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 39-b: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 39-c: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 39-d: Differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 40: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 40-a: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 40-b: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 40-c: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 40-d: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 41: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 41-a: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 41-b: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 41-c: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 41-d: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 42: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 42-a: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 42-b: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 42-c: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 42-d: Differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A1: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A1-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A1-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A1-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A1-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A1-e: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A2: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A2-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A2-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A2-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A2-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A2-e: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\text {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A3: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A3-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A3-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A3-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A3-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A4: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A4-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A4-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A4-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A4-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$, ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) |}}$, and the differences ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ and ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A5: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A5-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A5-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A5-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A5-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A5-e: Normalized differential cross sections at the parton level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A6: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A6-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A6-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A6-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A6-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A6-e: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of kinematic variables of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A7-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A8-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ vs. ${{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A9-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A10-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {{| y({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A11-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A12-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs.$ {\cos(\theta ^*)}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A13-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A14-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A15-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A16-f: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A17: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A17-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A17-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A17-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A17-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A18: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A18-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A18-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A18-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A18-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$ vs.$ {m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A19: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A19-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A19-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A19-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A20: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A20-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A20-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A20-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ vs. ${\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A21: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A21-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A21-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A21-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A21-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A21-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the parton level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA (P8) or HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A22: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A22-a: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A22-b: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A22-c: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A22-d: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A22-e: Normalized double-differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}}$ vs.$ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A23: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A23-a: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A23-b: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A23-c: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A23-d: Normalized differential cross sections at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$, and ${m_\text {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A24: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A24-a: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A24-b: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A24-c: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A24-d: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A25: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A25-a: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A25-b: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A25-c: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A25-d: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${m({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A26: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A26-a: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A26-b: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A26-c: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A26-d: Normalized differential cross section at the particle level as a function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with gray (yellow) bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure A27: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in $Z$-scores comparing the measured normalized cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) levels to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The $Z$-scores are truncated at an upper limit of six. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account for the calculation of the $\chi ^2$.
png pdf	Figure A27-a: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in $Z$-scores comparing the measured normalized cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) levels to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The $Z$-scores are truncated at an upper limit of six. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account for the calculation of the $\chi ^2$.
png pdf	Figure A27-b: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in $Z$-scores comparing the measured normalized cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) levels to the predictions of POWHEG+PYTHIA (P8) for the CP5 and CUETP8M2T4 (T4) tunes, POWHEG+HERWIG (H7), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The $Z$-scores are truncated at an upper limit of six. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account for the calculation of the $\chi ^2$.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: The sources of systematic uncertainty and their absolute and relative values in the measurement of $\sigma _{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $.
png pdf	Table 2: The sources of systematic uncertainty and their absolute and relative values in the measurement of $\sigma _\mathrm {particle}$.

Summary

Measurements of differential and double-differential top quark pair ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) production cross sections have been presented as a function of many kinematic properties of the top quarks and the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ system at the parton and particle levels, where the latter reduces extrapolations based on theoretical assumptions. In addition, the number of additional jets and kinematic variables in bins of jet multiplicities have been measured at the particle level. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$ recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. The $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ cross sections are measured in the lepton+jets channels with a single electron or muon and jets in the final state. For the first time the full spectra of differential cross sections are determined using a combination of resolved and boosted $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ topologies, in which the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ decay products can be either identified as separated jets and isolated leptons or as collimated and overlapping jets, respectively. The combination of multiple reconstruction categories provides constraints on the systematic uncertainties and results in a significantly improved precision with respect to previous measurements. For a top quark transverse momentum ${p_{\mathrm{T}}} < $ 500 GeV the uncertainty is reduced by about 50% compared with the previous CMS measurement [17]. The dominant sources of systematic uncertainties are the jet energy scale, integrated luminosity, and $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ modeling. Most differential distributions are found to be compatible with the standard model predictions of the event generators POWHEG+PYTHIA, POWHEG+HERWIG, and MG5_aMC@NLO+PYTHIA. In addition, the parton-level cross sections are compared to the next-to-next-to-leading-order quantum chromodynamics calculations obtained with Matrix that comes with a significantly reduced theoretical uncertainty. A softer top quark ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ spectrum is observed compared to most of the next-to-leading-order predictions. Deviations between the predictions and data are observed when the top quark ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ is measured in bins of the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ invariant mass and ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$. The POWHEG+HERWIG and MG5_aMC@NLO+PYTHIA simulations do not give a good description of the observed jet multiplicities and related observables such as the scalar ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ sum of additional jets. The total $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross section is measured to be

References
1	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ normalised multi-differential cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions	EPJC 80 (2020) 658	CMS-TOP-18-004 1904.05237
2	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the top quark Yukawa coupling from $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ kinematic distributions in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	PRD 100 (2019) 072007	CMS-TOP-17-004 1907.01590
3	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the top quark Yukawa coupling from $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ kinematic distributions in the dilepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV	PRD 102 (2020) 092013	CMS-TOP-19-008 2009.07123
4	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV	EPJC 73 (2013) 2339	CMS-TOP-11-013 1211.2220
5	ATLAS Collaboration	Differential top-antitop cross-section measurements as a function of observables constructed from final-state particles using pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV in the ATLAS detector	JHEP 06 (2015) 100	1502.05923
6	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV	EPJC 75 (2015) 542	CMS-TOP-12-028 1505.04480
7	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the lepton+jets channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector	EPJC 76 (2016) 538	1511.04716
8	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential cross-section of highly boosted top quarks as a function of their transverse momentum in $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector	PRD 93 (2016) 032009	1510.03818
9	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross section in the all-jets final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV	EPJC 76 (2016) 128	CMS-TOP-14-018 1509.06076
10	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the integrated and differential $ \mathrm{t \bar{t}} $ production cross sections for high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ top quarks in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV	PRD 94 (2016) 072002	CMS-TOP-14-012 1605.00116
11	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of top quark pair differential cross-sections in the dilepton channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV with ATLAS	PRD 94 (2016) 092003	1607.07281
12	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of double-differential cross sections for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV and impact on parton distribution functions	EPJC 77 (2017) 459	CMS-TOP-14-013 1703.01630
13	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of jet activity produced in top-quark events with an electron, a muon and two b-tagged jets in the final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 77 (2017) 220	1610.09978
14	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the e$ \mu $ channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector	EPJC 77 (2017) 292	1612.05220
15	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of normalized differential $ \mathrm{t \bar{t}} $ cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = 13 TeV. $	JHEP 04 (2018) 60	CMS-TOP-16-007 1708.07638
16	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV	PRD 95 (2017) 092001	CMS-TOP-16-008 1610.04191
17	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at 13 TeV	PRD 97 (2018) 112003	CMS-TOP-17-002 1803.08856
18	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ differential cross-sections of highly boosted top quarks decaying to all-hadronic final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector	PRD 98 (2018) 012003	1801.02052
19	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of top-quark pair differential and double-differential cross-sections in the $ \ell $+jets channel with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector	EPJC 79 (2019) 1028	1908.07305
20	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross-section and lepton differential distributions in $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ dilepton events from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 80 (2020) 528	1910.08819
21	CMS Collaboration	HEPData record for this analysis	link
22	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 40	hep-ph/0409146
23	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 70	0709.2092
24	S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re	A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX	JHEP 06 (2010) 043	1002.2581
25	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi	A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction	JHEP 09 (2007) 126	0707.3088
26	T. Sjostrand et al.	An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	CPC 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
27	P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo	Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune	EPJC 74 (2014) 3024	1404.5630
28	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
29	CMS Collaboration	Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021	CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
30	CMS Collaboration	Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS Pythia8 tunes from underlying-event measurements	EPJC 80 (2020) 4	CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179
31	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
32	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 663	1706.00428
33	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4--a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
34	M. Bahr et al.	HERWIG++ physics and manual	EPJC 58 (2008) 639	0803.0883
35	CMS Collaboration	Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements	EPJC 81 (2021) 312	CMS-GEN-19-001 2011.03422
36	J. Alwall et al.	The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations	JHEP 07 (2014) 079	1405.0301
37	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
38	M. Czakon and A. Mitov	Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders	CPC 185 (2014) 2930	1112.5675
39	A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt	Parton distributions for the LHC	EPJC 63 (2009) 189	0901.0002
40	J. Gao et al.	CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD	PRD 89 (2014) 033009	1302.6246
41	R. D. Ball et al.	Parton distributions with LHC data	NPB 867 (2013) 244	1207.1303
42	S. Catani et al.	Top-quark pair hadroproduction at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD	PRD 99 (2019) 051501	1901.04005
43	S. Catani et al.	Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO	JHEP 07 (2019) 100	1906.06535
44	E. Re	Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method	EPJC 71 (2011) 1547	1009.2450
45	C. D. White, S. Frixione, E. Laenen, and F. Maltoni	Isolating Wt production at the LHC	JHEP 11 (2009) 074	0908.0631
46	Y. Li and F. Petriello	Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ	PRD 86 (2012) 094034	1208.5967
47	P. Kant et al.	HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions	CPC 191 (2015) 74	1406.4403
48	N. Kidonakis	NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production	Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714	1210.7813
49	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands	A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1	CPC 178 (2008) 852	0710.3820
50	Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al.	Review of particle physics	Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020 (2020) 083C01
51	CMS Collaboration	Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level	CDS
52	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti-$ k_\mathrm{T} $ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
53	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
54	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The catchment area of jets	JHEP 04 (2008) 005	0802.1188
55	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
56	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	JINST 15 (2020) P10017	CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165
57	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
58	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
59	CMS Collaboration	Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 16 (2021) P05014	CMS-EGM-17-001 2012.06888
60	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P06015	CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528
61	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of inclusive $ \mathrm{W} $ and $ \mathrm{Z} $ cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV	JHEP 01 (2011) 080	CMS-EWK-10-002 1012.2466
62	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV	JINST 12 (2017) P02014	CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663
63	CMS Collaboration	Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P05011	CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158
64	D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran	Pileup per particle identification	JHEP 10 (2014) 59	1407.6013
65	D. Kingma and J. Ba	Adam: a method for stochastic optimization	in Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015 2015	1412.6980
66	I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn	$ N $-jettiness: an inclusive event shape to veto jets	PRL 105 (2010) 092002	1004.2489
67	J. D. Bjorken and S. J. Brodsky	Statistical model for electron-positron annihilation into hadrons	PRD 1 (1970) 1416
68	W. S. Cleveland	Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots	J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 (1979) 829
69	CMS Collaboration	Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS	2021. Submitted to EPJC	CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927
70	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
71	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
72	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC	PRL 117 (2016) 182002	1606.02625
73	S. Dulat et al.	New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics	PRD 93 (2016) 033006	1506.07443
74	H1 and ZEUS Collaborations	Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic e$ ^\pm $p scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data	EPJC 12 (2015) 580	1506.06042
75	L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne	Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs	EPJC 75 (2015) 204	1412.3989

Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN

© Copyright CERN 2018 for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration