Showing 10 of 23 results
The correlations between flow harmonics $v_n$ for $n=2$, 3 and 4 and mean transverse momentum $[p_\mathrm{T}]$ in $^{129}$Xe+$^{129}$Xe and $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.44$ TeV and 5.02 TeV, respectively, are measured using charged particles with the ATLAS detector. The correlations are sensitive to the shape and size of the initial geometry, nuclear deformation, and initial momentum anisotropy. The effects from non-flow and centrality fluctuations are minimized, respectively, via a subevent cumulant method and event activity selection based on particle production in the very forward rapidity. The results show strong dependences on centrality, harmonic number $n$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and pseudorapidity range. Current models describe qualitatively the overall centrality- and system-dependent trends but fail to quantitatively reproduce all the data. In the central collisions, where models generally show good agreement, the $v_2$-$[p_\mathrm{T}]$ correlations are sensitive to the triaxiality of the quadruple deformation. The comparison of model to the Pb+Pb and Xe+Xe data suggests that the $^{129}$Xe nucleus is a highly deformed triaxial ellipsoid that is neither a prolate nor an oblate shape. This provides strong evidence for a triaxial deformation of $^{129}$Xe nucleus using high-energy heavy-ion collision.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality
$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality
This paper presents measurements of charged-hadron spectra obtained in $pp$, $p$+Pb, and Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ or $\sqrt{s_{_\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV, and in Xe+Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_\text{NN}}}=5.44$ TeV. The data recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC have total integrated luminosities of 25 pb${}^{-1}$, 28 nb${}^{-1}$, 0.50 nb${}^{-1}$, and 3 $\mu$b${}^{-1}$, respectively. The nuclear modification factors $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ and $R_\text{AA}$ are obtained by comparing the spectra in heavy-ion and $pp$ collisions in a wide range of charged-particle transverse momenta and pseudorapidity. The nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ shows a moderate enhancement above unity with a maximum at $p_{\mathrm{T}} \approx 3$ GeV; the enhancement is stronger in the Pb-going direction. The nuclear modification factors in both Pb+Pb and Xe+Xe collisions feature a significant, centrality-dependent suppression. They show a similar distinct $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-dependence with a local maximum at $p_{\mathrm{T}} \approx 2$ GeV and a local minimum at $p_{\mathrm{T}} \approx 7$ GeV. This dependence is more distinguishable in more central collisions. No significant $|\eta|$-dependence is found. A comprehensive comparison with several theoretical predictions is also provided. They typically describe $R_\text{AA}$ better in central collisions and in the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range from about 10 to 100 GeV.
Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Jet quenching is the process of color-charged partons losing energy via interactions with quark-gluon plasma droplets created in heavy-ion collisions. The collective expansion of such droplets is well described by viscous hydrodynamics. Similar evidence of collectivity is consistently observed in smaller collision systems, including $pp$ and $p$+Pb collisions. In contrast, while jet quenching is observed in Pb+Pb collisions, no evidence has been found in these small systems to date, raising fundamental questions about the nature of the system created in these collisions. The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider has measured the yield of charged hadrons correlated with reconstructed jets in 0.36 nb$^{-1}$ of $p$+Pb and 3.6 pb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at 5.02 TeV. The yields of charged hadrons with $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{ch} >0.5$ GeV near and opposite in azimuth to jets with $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{jet} > 30$ or $60$ GeV, and the ratios of these yields between $p$+Pb and $pp$ collisions, $I_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$, are reported. The collision centrality of $p$+Pb events is categorized by the energy deposited by forward neutrons from the struck nucleus. The $I_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ values are consistent with unity within a few percent for hadrons with $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{ch} >4$ GeV at all centralities. These data provide new, strong constraints which preclude almost any parton energy loss in central $p$+Pb collisions.
The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).
The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).
The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).
The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).
The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).
The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).
The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).
The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).
Two-particle long-range azimuthal correlations are measured in photonuclear collisions using 1.7 nb$^{-1}$ of 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Candidate events are selected using a dedicated high-multiplicity photonuclear event trigger, a combination of information from the zero-degree calorimeters and forward calorimeters, and from pseudorapidity gaps constructed using calorimeter energy clusters and charged-particle tracks. Distributions of event properties are compared between data and Monte Carlo simulations of photonuclear processes. Two-particle correlation functions are formed using charged-particle tracks in the selected events, and a template-fitting method is employed to subtract the non-flow contribution to the correlation. Significant nonzero values of the second- and third-order flow coefficients are observed and presented as a function of charged-particle multiplicity and transverse momentum. The results are compared with flow coefficients obtained in proton-proton and proton-lead collisions in similar multiplicity ranges, and with theoretical expectations. The unique initial conditions present in this measurement provide a new way to probe the origin of the collective signatures previously observed only in hadronic collisions.
The measured $v_2$ and $v_3$ charged-particle anisotropies as a function of charged-particle multiplicity in photonuclear collisions
The measured $v_2$ and $v_3$ charged-particle anisotropies as a function of charged-particle transverse momentum in photonuclear collisions
Heavy-flavour hadron production provides information about the transport properties and microscopic structure of the quark-gluon plasma created in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions. A measurement of the muons from semileptonic decays of charm and bottom hadrons produced in Pb+Pb and $pp$ collisions at a nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider is presented. The Pb+Pb data were collected in 2015 and 2018 with sampled integrated luminosities of $208~\mathrm{\mu b}^{-1}$ and $38~\mathrm{\mu b^{-1}}$, respectively, and $pp$ data with a sampled integrated luminosity of $1.17~\mathrm{pb}^{-1}$ were collected in 2017. Muons from heavy-flavour semileptonic decays are separated from the light-flavour hadronic background using the momentum imbalance between the inner detector and muon spectrometer measurements, and muons originating from charm and bottom decays are further separated via the muon track's transverse impact parameter. Differential yields in Pb+Pb collisions and differential cross sections in $pp$ collisions for such muons are measured as a function of muon transverse momentum from 4 GeV to 30 GeV in the absolute pseudorapidity interval $|\eta| < 2$. Nuclear modification factors for charm and bottom muons are presented as a function of muon transverse momentum in intervals of Pb+Pb collision centrality. The measured nuclear modification factors quantify a significant suppression of the yields of muons from decays of charm and bottom hadrons, with stronger effects for muons from charm hadron decays.
Summary of charm muon double differential cross section in pp collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of pT. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of charm muon per-event invariant yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of pT for five different centrality intervals. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of bottom muon per-event invariant yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of pT for five different centrality intervals. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm muon RAA as a function of pT for five different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for bottom muon RAA as a function of pT for five different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm muon RAA to bottom muon RAA ratio as a function of pT for five different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Measurements of the centrality and rapidity dependence of inclusive jet production in $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV proton--lead ($p$+Pb) collisions and the jet cross-section in $\sqrt{s} = 2.76$ TeV proton--proton collisions are presented. These quantities are measured in datasets corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 27.8 nb$^{-1}$ and 4.0 pb$^{-1}$, respectively, recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2013. The $p$+Pb collision centrality was characterised using the total transverse energy measured in the pseudorapidity interval $-4.9 < \eta < -3.2$ in the direction of the lead beam. Results are presented for the double-differential per-collision yields as a function of jet rapidity and transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) for minimum-bias and centrality-selected $p$+Pb collisions, and are compared to the jet rate from the geometric expectation. The total jet yield in minimum-bias events is slightly enhanced above the expectation in a $p_\mathrm{T}$-dependent manner but is consistent with the expectation within uncertainties. The ratios of jet spectra from different centrality selections show a strong modification of jet production at all $p_\mathrm{T}$ at forward rapidities and for large $p_\mathrm{T}$ at mid-rapidity, which manifests as a suppression of the jet yield in central events and an enhancement in peripheral events. These effects imply that the factorisation between hard and soft processes is violated at an unexpected level in proton-nucleus collisions. Furthermore, the modifications at forward rapidities are found to be a function of the total jet energy only, implying that the violations may have a simple dependence on the hard parton-parton kinematics.
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
The ATLAS Collaboration has measured the inclusive production of $Z$ bosons via their decays into electron and muon pairs in $p+$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider. The measurements are made using data corresponding to integrated luminosities of 29.4 nb$^{-1}$ and 28.1 nb$^{-1}$ for $Z \rightarrow ee$ and $Z \rightarrow \mu\mu$, respectively. The results from the two channels are consistent and combined to obtain a cross section times the $Z \rightarrow \ell\ell$ branching ratio, integrated over the rapidity region $|y^{*}_{Z}|<3.5$, of 139.8 $\pm$ 4.8 (stat.) $\pm$ 6.2 (syst.) $\pm$ 3.8 (lumi.) nb. Differential cross sections are presented as functions of the $Z$ boson rapidity and transverse momentum, and compared with models based on parton distributions both with and without nuclear corrections. The centrality dependence of $Z$ boson production in $p+$Pb collisions is measured and analyzed within the framework of a standard Glauber model and the model's extension for fluctuations of the underlying nucleon-nucleon scattering cross section.
The centrality bias factors derived from data as explained in the text. Model calculations shown in the Figure are found in arXiv:1412.0976.
The differential $Z$ boson production cross section, $d\sigma/dy^\mathrm{*}_{Z}$, as a function of $Z$ boson rapidity in the center-of-mass frame $y^\mathrm{*}_{Z}$, for $Z\rightarrow ee$, $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$, and their combination $Z\rightarrow\ell\ell$.
The differential cross section of $Z$ boson production multiplied by the Bjorken $x$ of the parton in the lead nucleus, $x_{Pb} d\sigma /dx_{Pb}$, as a function of $x_{Pb}$.
The differential cross section of $Z$ boson production scaled by 1/$p_\mathrm{T}^{Z}$, (1/$p_\mathrm{T}^{Z}$) $d\sigma /dp_\mathrm{T}^{Z}$, for $-3<y^\mathrm{*}_{Z}<2$.
The differential cross section of $Z$ boson production scaled by 1/$p_\mathrm{T}^{Z}$, (1/$p_\mathrm{T}^{Z}$) $d\sigma /dp_\mathrm{T}^{Z}$, for $-2<y^\mathrm{*}_{Z}<0$ and $0<y^\mathrm{*}_{Z}<2.
Centrality bias corrected $Z$ boson yields per event for $-3<y^\mathrm{*}_{Z}<2$ scaled by by $\langle N_{coll}\rangle$. (To remove the centrality bias correction each value may be multiplied by the approriate correction value found in arXiv:1412.0976.).
The rapidity differential Z boson yields per event scaled by $\langle N_{coll}\rangle$ for three centrality ranges.
Correlations between the elliptic or triangular flow coefficients $v_m$ ($m$=2 or 3) and other flow harmonics $v_n$ ($n$=2 to 5) are measured using $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV Pb+Pb collision data collected in 2010 by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated lumonisity of 7 $\mu$b$^{-1}$. The $v_m$-$v_n$ correlations are measured in midrapidity as a function of centrality, and, for events within the same centrality interval, as a function of event ellipticity or triangularity defined in a forward rapidity region. For events within the same centrality interval, $v_3$ is found to be anticorrelated with $v_2$ and this anticorrelation is consistent with similar anticorrelations between the corresponding eccentricities $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$. On the other hand, it is observed that $v_4$ increases strongly with $v_2$, and $v_5$ increases strongly with both $v_2$ and $v_3$. The trend and strength of the $v_m$-$v_n$ correlations for $n$=4 and 5 are found to disagree with $\epsilon_m$-$\epsilon_n$ correlations predicted by initial-geometry models. Instead, these correlations are found to be consistent with the combined effects of a linear contribution to $v_n$ and a nonlinear term that is a function of $v_2^2$ or of $v_2v_3$, as predicted by hydrodynamic models. A simple two-component fit is used to separate these two contributions. The extracted linear and nonlinear contributions to $v_4$ and $v_5$ are found to be consistent with previously measured event-plane correlations.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
linear fit result of $v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_5$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_5$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q3 event-shape selection.
RMS eccentricity scaled v_n.
RMS eccentricity scaled v_n.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{5}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{5}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{5}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{5}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
The relationship between jet production in the central region and the underlying-event activity in a pseudorapidity-separated region is studied in 4.0 pb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s} = 2.76$ TeV $pp$ collision data recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The underlying event is characterised through measurements of the average value of the sum of the transverse energy at large pseudorapidity downstream of one of the protons, which are reported here as a function of hard-scattering kinematic variables. The hard scattering is characterised by the average transverse momentum and pseudorapidity of the two highest transverse momentum jets in the event. The dijet kinematics are used to estimate, on an event-by-event basis, the scaled longitudinal momenta of the hard-scattered partons in the target and projectile beam-protons moving toward and away from the region measuring transverse energy, respectively. Transverse energy production at large pseudorapidity is observed to decrease with a linear dependence on the longitudinal momentum fraction in the target proton and to depend only weakly on that in the projectile proton. The results are compared to the predictions of various Monte Carlo event generators, which qualitatively reproduce the trends observed in data but generally underpredict the overall level of transverse energy at forward pseudorapidity.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +2.1 < eta^dijet < +2.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +1.2 < eta^dijet < +2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.8 < eta^dijet < +1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.8 < eta^dijet < -0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -1.2 < eta^dijet < -0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.1 < eta^dijet < -1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.8 < eta^dijet < -2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +2.1 < eta^dijet < +2.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +1.2 < eta^dijet < +2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.8 < eta^dijet < +1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.8 < eta^dijet < -0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -1.2 < eta^dijet < -0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.1 < eta^dijet < -1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.8 < eta^dijet < -2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-2 < x_targ < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-1 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-2 < x_proj < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-1 < x_proj < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-2 < x_targ < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-1 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-2 < x_proj < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-1 < x_proj < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 1$.
In order to study further the long-range correlations ("ridge") observed recently in p+Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) =5.02 TeV, the second-order azimuthal anisotropy parameter of charged particles, v_2, has been measured with the cumulant method using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. In a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately 1 microb^(-1), the parameter v_2 has been obtained using two- and four-particle cumulants over the pseudorapidity range |eta|<2.5. The results are presented as a function of transverse momentum and the event activity, defined in terms of the transverse energy summed over 3.1<eta<4.9 in the direction of the Pb beam. They show features characteristic of collective anisotropic flow, similar to that observed in Pb+Pb collisions. A comparison is made to results obtained using two-particle correlation methods, and to predictions from hydrodynamic models of p+Pb collisions. Despite the small transverse spatial extent of the p+Pb collision system, the large magnitude of v_2 and its similarity to hydrodynamic predictions provide additional evidence for the importance of final-state effects in p+Pb reactions.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 25-40 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 40-55 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 55-80 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 25-40 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 40-55 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 55-80 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.
The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with two-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.
The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with four-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.