The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Inclusive J/psi production cross-section as a function of J/psi pT in the J/psi rapidity (|y|) bin 1.5<|y|<2. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive J/psi production cross-section as a function of J/psi pT in the J/psi rapidity (|y|) bin 0.75<|y|<1.5. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive J/psi production cross-section as a function of J/psi pT in the J/psi rapidity (|y|) bin |y|<0.75. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity |y|<0.75 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.}.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 0.75<|y|<1.5 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/-0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 1.5<|y|<2 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/-0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 2<|y|<2.4 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta =+/-0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity |y|<0.75 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 0.75<|y|<1.5 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 1.5<|y|<2 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 2<|y|<2.4 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity |y|<0.75. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 0.75<|y|<1.5. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 1.5<|y|<2. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 2<|y|<2.4. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Unweighted J/psi candidate yields in bins of $J/psi transverse momentum and rapidity. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute J/psi rapidities within 2<|y|<2.4. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J\psi.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute J/psi rapidities within 1.5<|y|<2. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J/psi.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute J/psi rapidities within 0.75<|y|<1.5. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J/psi.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute rapidities within |y|<0.75. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J/psi.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin |y|<0.75, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin 0.75<|y|<1.5, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin 1.75<|y|<2.0, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin 2.0<|y|<2.4, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Distribution of the missing ET for data and the SM expectation in the one-lepton plus 2 jet channel.

Observed 95 PCT exclusion limit in the M(gluino), M(sbottom) plane obtained with the zero-lepton channel data.

Expected 95 PCT exclusion limit in the M(gluino), M(sbottom) plane obtained with the zero-lepton channel data.

Observed and expected 95 PCT CL upper limits on the gluino-mediated and stop pair production cross section as a function of the gluino mass for a stop mass od 180 GeV, for the one-lepton analysis.

Observed and expected 95 PCT CL upper limits on the gluino-mediated and stop pair production cross section as a function of the gluino mass for a stop mass od 210 GeV, for the one-lepton analysis.

Observed 95 PCT CL exclusion limits from the zero-lepton analysis on the MSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with tan(beta) = 40, A0 = 0 and MU > 0.

Expected 95 PCT CL exclusion limits from the zero-lepton analysis on the MSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with tan(beta) = 40, A0 = 0 and MU > 0.

Observed 95 PCT CL exclusion limits from the one-lepton analysis on the MSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with tan(beta) = 40, A0 = 0 and MU > 0.

Expected 95 PCT CL exclusion limits from the one-lepton analysis on the MSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with tan(beta) = 40, A0 = 0 and MU > 0.

Observed 95 PCT CL exclusion limits from the combined zero and one-lepton analyses on the MSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with tan(beta) = 40, A0 = 0 and MU > 0.

Expected 95 PCT CL exclusion limits from the combined zero and one-lepton analyses on the MSUGRA/CMSSM scenario with tan(beta) = 40, A0 = 0 and MU > 0.

7 TeV Particle density vs. Delta(phi) with leading particle pT > 1 GeV.

7 TeV Particle density vs. Delta(phi) with leading particle pT > 2 GeV.

7 TeV Particle density vs. Delta(phi) with leading particle pT > 3 GeV.

900 GeV Transverse region Particle density vs. leading particle pT.

7 TeV Transverse region Particle density vs. leading particle pT.

900 GeV Transverse region scalar pT sum density vs. leading particle pT.

7 TeV Transverse region scalar pT sum density vs. leading particle pT.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for p p --> zprime x BR(zprime -> e-mu) as a function of the zprime mass.

Distribution of the heavy particle Mass estimated from the Tile Calorimeter data plus the simulated background and model estimates for three gluino masses. A cut of BETA < 1 is imposed.;.

Distribution of the heavy particle Mass estimated from the Pixel detector data plus the data driven background and model estimates for two gluino masses.;.

Distribution of the heavy particle Mass estimated from the Tile Calorimeter data plus the data driven background and model estimates for two gluino masses.;.