$a_2(1320)$ differential cross section in the m=-2 projection split into different reflectivity components, $\frac{d\sigma^+_{-2}}{dt}$ and $\frac{d\sigma^-_{-2}}{dt}$, in bins of four-momentum transfer. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.

$a_2(1320)$ differential cross section in the m=0 projection split into different reflectivity components, $\frac{d\sigma^+_{0}}{dt}$ and $\frac{d\sigma^-_{0}}{dt}$, in bins of four-momentum transfer. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.

$a_2(1320)$ differential cross section in the m=+1 projection split into different reflectivity components, $\frac{d\sigma^+_{+1}}{dt}$ and $\frac{d\sigma^-_{+1}}{dt}$, in bins of four-momentum transfer. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.

$a_2(1320)$ differential cross section in the m=+2 projection split into different reflectivity components, $\frac{d\sigma^+_{+2}}{dt}$ and $\frac{d\sigma^-_{+2}}{dt}$, in bins of four-momentum transfer. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic.

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ / $N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 3 panel b, $[p_{T}]$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 1b$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The correlation matrix of the fit parameters for the six combined regions, including the signal regions (electron+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, muon+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, dilepton: 2-lepton 1-bjet and 2-lepton 2-bjet inclusive) is shown.

The impact of systematic uncertainties on the fitted signal-strength parameter $\hat{\mu}$ for the combined (six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$) fit of all channels. Only the 15 most significant systematic uncertainties are shown and listed in decreasing order of their impact on $\mu$ on the $y$-axis. The empty (filled) blue/cyan boxes correspond to the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, referring to the upper $x$-axis. The impact of each systematic uncertainty, $\Delta \mu$, is calculated by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu$ with the result of the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter $\theta$ to its best-fit value $\hat{\theta}$ shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \theta(\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \hat{\theta})$. The black points, which refer to the lower $x$-axis, show the pulls of the fitted nuisance parameters, i.e., the deviations of the fitted parameters $\hat{\theta}$ from their nominal values $\theta_0$, normalized to their nominal uncertainties $\Delta \theta$. The black lines show the post-fit uncertainties of the nuisance parameters, relative to their nominal uncertainties, which are indicated by the dashed lines.

Breakdown of relative systematic uncertainties in the measured ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-section. The quoted uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit with a group of nuisance parameters fixed to their fitted values and subtracting in quadrature the resulting total uncertainty from the uncertainty of the complete fit. However, the total uncertainty is not the quadratic sum of the grouped impacts, as this approach neglects the correlation among the different groups.

The signal strength $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$, defined as the ratio of the observed signal for the combined six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$.) to the SM expectation with no nPDF effects included, is measured using a binned profile-likelihood method. The parameter $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ is determined by the fit to the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ data distributions in the six signal regions, where the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ variable is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the leptons and HI jets. Over all 9% uncertainties is observed

The figure shows the measurement of the top quark pair production cross-section, $\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, based on 165 nb$^{-1}$ of data. The central measured value is shown alongside theoretical predictions using various parton distribution functions (PDFs): MCFM TUJU21, MCFM nNNPDF30, MCFM nCTEQ15HQ, and MCFM EPPS21. The green and yellow bands represent the total and statistical uncertainties of the data, respectively. Additional measurements for comparison include the CMS result at 8.16 TeV for p+Pb collisions and an extrapolated ATLAS+CMS result for pp collisions at 8 TeV. Relevant references are indicated: PRL 119 (2017) 242001 and JHEP 07 (2023) 213.

The ATLAS measurement of \( R_{p\text{Pb}} \) as a function of the nuclear modification factor in proton-lead (\( p\) + Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair \( \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 8.16 \) TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\). The black points represent theoretical predictions from various MCFM parton distribution functions (PDFs): TUJU21, nNNPDF30, nCTEQ15HQ, and EPPS21. The green band indicates the total uncertainty of the data, while the yellow band represents the statistical uncertainty. The dashed line at \( R_{p\text{Pb}} = 1 \) shows the expected value in the absence of nuclear modifications.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 4.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_p$ for $3.0 < y_b < 4.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-3.0 < y_b < -2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 4.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_{Pb}$ for $3.0 < y_b < 4.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-3.0 < y_b < -2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-2.0 < y_b < -1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $-1.0 < y_b < 0.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $0.0 < y_b < 1.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 4.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $1.0 < y_b < 2.0$ and $2.0 < y^* < 3.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $2.0 < y_b < 3.0$ and $1.0 < y^* < 2.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$R_\text{CP}$ plotted as a function of approximated $x_\mathrm{F}$ for $3.0 < y_b < 4.0$ and $0.0 < y^* < 1.0$, constructed using $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ and $\langle y^{*} \rangle$. The proton-going direction is defined by $y_{\text{b}} > 0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $0.0 < y^{*} < 1.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $1.0 < y^{*} < 2.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $40.0 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 49.6$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $49.6 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 61.4$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $0-10$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\langle T_{\text{AB}} \rangle$ normalized per-event dijet yields in $60-90$% collisions as a function of $\langle y_{\text{b}} \rangle$ for $61.4 < p_{\text{T,Avg}} \text{ [GeV]} < 76.1$ and $2.0 < y^{*} < 4.0$.

$\gamma p \rightarrow J/\psi p$ differential cross sections 10.36–11.44 GeV beam energy range, average $t$ and beam energy in bins of $t$. The first cross section uncertainties are statistical, and the second are systematic. The overall average beam energy is 10.82 GeV. There is an additional fully correlated systematic uncertainty of 19.5% on the total cross section, not included here.