Processing math: 92%

Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

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

CMS-PAS-TOP-20-001

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

CMS Collaboration

March 2021

Abstract: Measurements of differential and double-differential cross sections of the production of top quark pairs ($\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}$) are presented in the lepton+jets channel with a single electron or muon and jets in the final state. The analysis combines signatures of top quarks with low transverse momentum $p_\mathrm{T}$, where the top 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 data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC between 2016 and 2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The cross sections are presented at the parton and particle level, where the latter minimizes extrapolations based on theoretical assumptions. Both results are compared to standard model calculations using different combinations of next-to-leading order quantum chromodynamics (QCD) matrix elements and parton shower models. Most of the measured differential cross sections are well described by the predictions with the exception of some double-differential distributions. A calculation at next-to-next-to-leading order accuracy in QCD provides an improved description of the parton-level measurements. The inclusive $\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}$ cross section $\sigma_\mathrm{tot} =$ 791 $\pm$ 25 pb is measured, which constitutes the most precise measurement in the lepton+jets channel to date.

Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to PRD. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Comparison between the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$ distributions at the particle and parton level, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. Left: ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$-bin migrations between particle and parton level. The ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ range of the bins can be taken from 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 level, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. Left: ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$-bin migrations between particle and parton level. The ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ range of the bins can be taken from 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 level, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation. Left: ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$-bin migrations between particle and parton level. The ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ range of the bins can be taken from 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 ${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$ (left). Normalized distributions of the reconstructed $M({\mathrm{t} _\ell})$ for correctly and incorrectly selected ${\mathrm{b} _\ell}$ (right). The distributions are taken from the POWHEG +PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons and the correctly reconstructed ${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$ (left). Normalized distributions of the reconstructed $M({\mathrm{t} _\ell})$ for correctly and incorrectly selected ${\mathrm{b} _\ell}$ (right). The distributions are taken from the POWHEG +PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons and the correctly reconstructed ${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$ (left). Normalized distributions of the reconstructed $M({\mathrm{t} _\ell})$ for correctly and incorrectly selected ${\mathrm{b} _\ell}$ (right). The distributions are taken from the POWHEG +PYTHIA ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 3: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t category. The comparisons of data and predictions are shown for the (left) parton- and the (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG +PYTHIA are used to describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section xxxxx). Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t category. The comparisons of data and predictions are shown for the (left) parton- and the (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG +PYTHIA are used to describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section xxxxx). Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 2t category. The comparisons of data and predictions are shown for the (left) parton- and the (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG +PYTHIA are used to describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section xxxxx). Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 4: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 1t1l category. The comparisons of data and predictions are shown for the (left) parton- and the (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG +PYTHIA are used to describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section xxxxx). Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 1t1l category. The comparisons of data and predictions are shown for the (left) parton- and the (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG +PYTHIA are used to describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section xxxxx). Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Distributions of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the 1t1l category. The comparisons of data and predictions are shown for the (left) parton- and the (right) particle-level measurements. Events generated with POWHEG +PYTHIA are used to describe ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson background events is extracted from the data (cf. Section xxxxx). Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5: Distributions of the output variable of the NN for the identification of a boosted ${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$. The distributions are shown in the low (left) and high (right) ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ regions. The data are compared to the predicted yields taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom panels.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Distributions of the output variable of the NN for the identification of a boosted ${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$. The distributions are shown in the low (left) and high (right) ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ regions. The data are compared to the predicted yields taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom panels.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Distributions of the output variable of the NN for the identification of a boosted ${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$. The distributions are shown in the low (left) and high (right) ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ regions. The data are compared to the predicted yields taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom panels.
png pdf	Figure 6: Background selection efficiency as function of the signal selection efficiency in various ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ ranges for 3Q and 3Q+2Q jets. An efficiency of 100% corresponds to the preselection of ${| \eta |} <$ 2.4 and $M_\mathrm {jet} >$ 120 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 7: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-d: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-e: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-f: Comparisons of various reconstructed kinematic distribution between data and predictions. 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 xxxxx). All other background contributions are taken from the simulations. Combined systematic (cf. Section yyyyy) 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 8: Comparisons of the multijet DY/W boson background obtained from data in the control region and the predicted background in the signal region in the 1t1l category. The red and orange lines show the shape uncertainties obtained by varying the selection of the control region. The magenta line shows the multijet DY/W boson prediction in the control region. The hatched uncertainty shows the statistical uncertainties in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Comparisons of the multijet DY/W boson background obtained from data in the control region and the predicted background in the signal region in the 1t1l category. The red and orange lines show the shape uncertainties obtained by varying the selection of the control region. The magenta line shows the multijet DY/W boson prediction in the control region. The hatched uncertainty shows the statistical uncertainties in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Comparisons of the multijet DY/W boson background obtained from data in the control region and the predicted background in the signal region in the 1t1l category. The red and orange lines show the shape uncertainties obtained by varying the selection of the control region. The magenta line shows the multijet DY/W boson prediction in the control region. The hatched uncertainty shows the statistical uncertainties in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 9: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 9-c: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 9-d: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 9-e: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 9-f: Post-fit distributions in bins of the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ (left) and ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ (right) measurements. For illustration the distributions of the electron and muon channels are added for the three years. In addition, for the ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ measurement the results are summed over the ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ bins that are fitted separately for each ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ bin. The post-fit uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total fitted yields. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 10: Signal yields in the 2t, 1t1l, and boosted categories after background subtraction. The error bars show the statistical uncertainty in data. The prediction is obtained with POWHEG +PYTHIA, for which no uncertainties are shown.
png pdf	Figure 10-a: Signal yields in the 2t, 1t1l, and boosted categories after background subtraction. The error bars show the statistical uncertainty in data. The prediction is obtained with POWHEG +PYTHIA, for which no uncertainties are shown.
png pdf	Figure 10-b: Signal yields in the 2t, 1t1l, and boosted categories after background subtraction. The error bars show the statistical uncertainty in data. The prediction is obtained with POWHEG +PYTHIA, for which no uncertainties are shown.
png pdf	Figure 10-c: Signal yields in the 2t, 1t1l, and boosted categories after background subtraction. The error bars show the statistical uncertainty in data. The prediction is obtained with POWHEG +PYTHIA, for which no uncertainties are shown.
png pdf	Figure 10-d: Signal yields in the 2t, 1t1l, and boosted categories after background subtraction. The error bars show the statistical uncertainty in data. The prediction is obtained with POWHEG +PYTHIA, for which no uncertainties are shown.
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) and particle (lower) level. The matrices are shown together with their 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), and the efficiency per bin.
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) and particle (lower) level. The matrices are shown together with their 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), and the efficiency per bin.
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) and particle (lower) level. The matrices are shown together with their 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), and the efficiency per bin.
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) and particle (lower) level. The matrices are shown together with their 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), and the efficiency per bin.
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) and particle (lower) level. The matrices are shown together with their 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), and the efficiency per bin.
png pdf	Figure 12: The $p$-values of the $\chi ^2$ fits are shown for the parton- (upper) and particle- (lower) level measurements.
png pdf	Figure 12-a: The $p$-values of the $\chi ^2$ fits are shown for the parton- (upper) and particle- (lower) level measurements.
png pdf	Figure 12-b: The $p$-values of the $\chi ^2$ fits are shown for the parton- (upper) and particle- (lower) level measurements.
png pdf	Figure 13: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 13-a: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 13-b: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 13-c: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 13-d: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 13-e: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 13-f: Uncertainties split into various sources for three exemplary distributions. Uncertainties in the parton-level measurement are shown on the left and in the particle-level measurement on the right. Sources with a maximum uncertainty below 1.5% are combined in the category of "Other''. The boundaries of the bins can be taken from Figs zzzzz, aaaaa, and bbbbb in Section ccccc.
png pdf	Figure 14: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in standard deviation (SD) comparing the measured cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) level to various predictions. The $p$-values above 0.5 correspond to a positive SD and below 0.5 to a negative SD. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account.
png pdf	Figure 14-a: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in standard deviation (SD) comparing the measured cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) level to various predictions. The $p$-values above 0.5 correspond to a positive SD and below 0.5 to a negative SD. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account.
png pdf	Figure 14-b: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in standard deviation (SD) comparing the measured cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) level to various predictions. The $p$-values above 0.5 correspond to a positive SD and below 0.5 to a negative SD. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account.
png pdf	Figure 15: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-a: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-b: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-c: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-d: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-e: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-a: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-b: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-c: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-d: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-e: Differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-a: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-b: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-c: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-d: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-a: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-b: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-c: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-d: Differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-a: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-b: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-c: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-d: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-e: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-a: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-b: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-c: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-d: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-e: Differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-a: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-b: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-c: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-d: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-e: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-f: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30-a: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30-b: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30-c: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30-d: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30-e: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 30-f: Double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 31: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 31-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 31-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 31-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 31-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 32: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 32-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 32-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 32-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 32-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 33: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 33-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 33-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 33-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 34: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 34-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 34-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 34-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 35: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 35-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$.
png pdf	Figure 36: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-a: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-b: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-c: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-d: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-e: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 36-f: Double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel. Bottom right: ratio of ${| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |} / {| y(\mathrm{t}) |}$
png pdf	Figure 37: The ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production cross sections obtained as the sum of the cross sections in all bins of a distribution. The results are compared to the Top++2.0 and the Matrix prediction with their corresponding uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 38: The ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ production cross sections $\sigma _\mathrm {particle}$ obtained as the sum of the cross sections in all bins of a distribution. The results are compared to the POWHEG +PYTHIA predictions.
png pdf	Figure 39: Differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 39-a: Differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 39-b: Differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 39-c: Differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 39-d: Differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 40: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 40-a: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 40-b: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 40-c: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 40-d: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 41: Differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 41-a: Differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 41-b: Differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 41-c: Differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 41-d: Differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 42: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 42-a: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 42-b: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 42-c: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 42-d: Differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 43: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 43-a: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 43-b: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 43-c: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 43-d: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 43-e: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 44: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 44-a: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 44-b: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 44-c: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 44-d: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 44-e: Normalized differential cross section as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\ell})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {high}})}$, ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {low}})}$, and ${S_\mathrm {T}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 45: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 45-a: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 45-b: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 45-c: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 45-d: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 46: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 46-a: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 46-b: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 46-c: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 46-d: Normalized differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 47: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 47-a: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 47-b: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 47-c: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 47-d: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 47-e: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 48: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 48-a: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 48-b: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 48-c: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 48-d: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 48-e: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of quantities of the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$ system. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 49-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 50-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 51-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 52-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{| y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 53-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 54-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\qopname {\mathrm{e}}lax o{cos}(\theta ^*)}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 55-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 56-f: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57-a: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57-b: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57-c: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57-d: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57-e: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 57-f: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58-a: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58-b: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58-c: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58-d: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58-e: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 58-f: Normalized double differential cross section as 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 light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 59: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 59-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 59-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 59-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 59-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 60: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 60-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 60-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 60-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 60-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| \Delta y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}} }$ vs ${ {M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 61: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 61-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 61-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 61-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 62: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 62-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 62-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 62-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})} }$ vs ${ {\Delta {| y_{\mathrm{t} /\mathrm{\bar{t}}} |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 63: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 63-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 63-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 63-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 63-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 63-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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 (MG5)+PYTHIA FxFx, and the NNLO QCD calculations obtained with Matrix. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 64: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 64-a: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 64-b: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 64-c: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 64-d: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 64-e: Normalized double differential cross section as function of ${{{| y(\mathrm{t}) |}} }$ vs ${ {{| y(\mathrm{\bar{t}}) |}}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 65: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 65-a: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 65-b: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 65-c: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 65-d: Normalized differential cross sections as functions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\ell)}$, jet multiplicity, ${H_\mathrm {T}}$, and ${M_\mathrm {evt}}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 66: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 66-a: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 66-b: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 66-c: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 66-d: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 67: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 67-a: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 67-b: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 67-c: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 67-d: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 68: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 68-a: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 68-b: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 68-c: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 68-d: Normalized differential cross section as function of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})}$ in bins of jet multiplicity. The data are shown as points with light (dark) 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), 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 at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 69: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in standard deviation (SD) comparing the measured normalized cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) level to various predictions. The $p$-values above 0.5 correspond to a positive SD and below 0.5 to a negative SD. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account.
png pdf	Figure 69-a: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in standard deviation (SD) comparing the measured normalized cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) level to various predictions. The $p$-values above 0.5 correspond to a positive SD and below 0.5 to a negative SD. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account.
png pdf	Figure 69-b: Results of $\chi ^2$ tests in standard deviation (SD) comparing the measured normalized cross sections at the parton (upper) and particle (lower) level to various predictions. The $p$-values above 0.5 correspond to a positive SD and below 0.5 to a negative SD. The uncertainties in the measurements and the predictions are taken into account.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Systematic uncertainties in the measurement of $\sigma _\mathrm {tot}$.
png pdf	Table 2: Systematic uncertainties in the measurement of $\sigma _\mathrm {particle}$.

Summary

A measurement of the differential and double differential $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross sections was presented as functions of many kinematic properties of the top quarks and the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ system at the parton and particle level. 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. The $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ cross sections are measured in the e/$\mu$+jets channels. For the first time the cross section of the full spectra are obtained using a combination of resolved and boosted $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ topologies. The combination of multiple reconstruction categories allows for constraints of systematic uncertainties and results in a significantly improved precision with respect to previous measurements. Uncertainties in the jet energy scale, luminosity, and $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ modeling are the dominant sources. In general, most differential distributions are found to be compatible with the SM predictions of POWHEG +PYTHIAA, POWHEG +HERWIG, and mg5_aMC@NLO +PYTHIAA. In addition, the parton-level cross sections are compared to the NNLO QCD 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 NLO predictions. Deviations between the predictions and data are observed when the top quark ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ is measured in bins of ${M(\mathrm{t\bar{t}})}$ and ${{p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\mathrm{t\bar{t}})}$. The simulation by POWHEG +HERWIG and mg5_aMC@NLO +PYTHIAA have problems to describe the jet multiplicities and related observables like ${H_\mathrm{T}}$. The measured inclusive $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross section is

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 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
3	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
4	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
5	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
6	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
7	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
8	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
9	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
10	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
11	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
12	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
13	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
14	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
15	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
16	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
17	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
18	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross-section and lepton differential distributions in $e\mu$ dilepton events from pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 80 (2020) 528	1910.08819
19	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 40	hep-ph/0409146
20	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 70	0709.2092
21	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
22	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
23	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands	PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual	JHEP 05 (2006) 026	hep-ph/0603175
24	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands	A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1	CPC 178 (2008) 852	0710.3820
25	P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo	Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune	EPJC 74 (2014) 3024	1404.5630
26	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
27	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
28	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
29	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 663	1706.00428
30	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4--a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
31	M. Bahr et al.	HERWIG++ physics and manual	EPJC 58 (2008) 639	0803.0883
32	CMS Collaboration	Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements	Submitted to \it EPJC	CMS-GEN-19-001 2011.03422
33	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
34	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
35	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
36	M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and M. Wiesemann	Fully differential NNLO computations with MATRIX	EPJC 78 (2017) 537	1711.06631
37	E. Re	Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method	EPJC 71 (2011) 1547	1009.2450
38	Y. Li and F. Petriello	Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ	PRD 86 (2012) 094034	1208.5967
39	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
40	N. Kidonakis	NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production	Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714	1210.7813
41	Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al.	Review of particle physics	CPC 40 (2016) 100001
42	CMS Collaboration	Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level	CDS
43	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
44	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
45	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
46	CMS Collaboration	Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	JINST 10 (2015) P06005	CMS-EGM-13-001 1502.02701
47	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
48	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of inclusive $W$ and $Z$ cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	JHEP 01 (2011) 080	CMS-EWK-10-002 1012.2466
49	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
50	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
51	D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran	Pileup Per Particle Identification	JHEP 10 (2014) 59	1407.6013
52	D. Kingma and J. Ba	Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization	International Conference on Learning Representations (2014)	1412.6980
53	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
54	J. D. Bjorken and S. J. Brodsky	Statistical Model for Electron-Positron Annihilation into Hadrons	PRD 1 (1970) 1416
55	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity measurement for the 2016 data taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
56	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity measurement for the 2017 data taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
57	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity measurement for the 2018 data taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
58	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
59	W. S. Cleveland	Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots	J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 (1979) 829
60	S. Dulat et al.	New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics	PRD 93 (2016) 033006	1506.07443
61	H1 and ZEUS Collaboration	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
62	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
63	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the top quark Yukawa coupling from $t\overline{t}$ 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

Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN

© Copyright CERN 2018 for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration