Comparison of the shapes extrapolated with a linear or quadratic extrapolation of the QCD contribution in the W+ signal region.

Comparison of the shapes extrapolated with a linear or quadratic extrapolation of the QCD contribution in the W- signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the transverse mass in the W+ signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the transverse mass in the W- signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the dimuon mass in the Z boson signal region.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W+ signal region in the transverse mass bin 12 < mT < 18 GeV. The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W- signal region in the transverse mass bin 12 < mT < 18 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W+ signal region in the transverse mass bin 102 < mT < 108 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (larger value) and quadratic (smaller value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W- signal region in the transverse mass bin 102 < mT < 108 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

The table compares theoretical and measured values of the product of the fiducial cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value. The relative uncertainties on the measured values are given separately with and without the contribution from the luminosity uncertainty.

The table compares theoretical and measured values of the product of the total cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value. The relative uncertainties on the measured values are given separately with and without the contribution from the luminosity uncertainty.

The table compares theoretical and measured ratios of the product of the fiducial cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value.

The table compares theoretical and measured ratios of the product of the total cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value.

Comparison of the measured and theoretical cross sections for Z, W+, W-, and W production at different center-of-mass energies. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with the NNPDF 3.1 PDF set.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 and ISR starting scale SpaceShower:pT0Ref = 1 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 and ISR starting scale SudakovCommon:pTmin=0.7 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{+}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for e final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for e final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for ee final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for mumu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for ee final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for mumu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Figure 4 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 13TeV

Figure 5 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 5.02TeV

Figure 6 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes between 13TeV and 5.02TeV

Figure 7 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 13TeV

Figure 8 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 5.02TeV

Figure 9 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes between 13TeV and 5.02TeV

Summary of theoretical predictions of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at ppbar collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at UA1 and UA2.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at D0.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at CDF.

Summary of theoretical predictions of the total inclusive cross sections for W boson production times leptonic branching fractions at pp collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at pp collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at CMS.

Direct photon spectra for minimum bias (0-86%) Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 62.4$ GeV (a) and $39$ GeV (b). For $62.4$ GeV also centrality bins of 0-20% (c) and 20-40% (d) are shown. Data points are shown with statistical and systematic uncertainties, unless the central value is negative (arrows) or is consistent with zero within the statistical uncertainties (arrows with data point). In these cases upper limit with CL = 95$%$ are given.

Inverse slopes, $T_{eff}$ , obtained from fitting the combined data from central collisions shown in Fig. 11 is compared to the fit results of the individual data sets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 62.4$ GeV, $200$ GeV, and $2760$ GeV. Also included is the value for $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 39$ GeV obtained from fitting the min. bias data set in the lower $p_T$ range.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated direct-photon yields from A+A collisions for $p_{T,min}$ of $5$ GeV/c (a) and $8$ GeV/c. The representation is the same as in Fig. 13. Also shown are the results from pQCD calculations scaled by $N_{coll}$

Integrated direct-photon yields from A+A collisions for $p_{T,min}$ of $5$ GeV/c (a) and $8$ GeV/c. The representation is the same as in Fig. 13. Also shown are the results from pQCD calculations scaled by $N_{coll}$

The $\alpha$ values extracted using fits to integrated direct photon yields. The dashed line gives the average $\alpha$ value for the 4 lower $p_{T,min}$ points. Also shown is a model calculation for $\alpha$ discussed in the text.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio RMN.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio Rincl_veto.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio RMN_veto.

Differential cross section dσincl/d∆y for inclusive dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Differential cross section dσMN/d∆y for Mueller-Navelet dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Ratio Rincl of the cross sections for inclusive to ”exclusive” dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Ratio Rincl_veto of the cross sections for inclusive to ”exclusive” with veto dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Ratio RMN of the cross sections for Mueller-Navelet to ”exclusive” dijet production together with predicgtion of different MC models.

Ratio RMN_veto of the cross sections for Mueller-Navelet to ”exclusive” with veto dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the cross section dσincl/d∆y.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the cross section dσMN/d∆y.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio Rincl.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio RMN.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio Rincl_veto.

Summary of the systematic uncertainties on the ratio RMN_veto.

Differential cross section dσincl/d∆y for inclusive dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Differential cross section dσMN/d∆y for Mueller-Navelet dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Ratio Rincl of the cross sections for inclusive to ”exclusive” dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Ratio Rincl_veto of the cross sections for inclusive to ”exclusive” with veto dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

Ratio RMN of the cross sections for Mueller-Navelet to ”exclusive” dijet production together with predicgtion of different MC models.

Ratio RMN_veto of the cross sections for Mueller-Navelet to ”exclusive” with veto dijet production together with predictions of different MC models.

<K+>/<PI>+.

Inverse slope parameter T.

Inverse slope parameter T.

Inverse slope parameter T.

Inverse slope parameter T.

K-/PI- at y=0.

K-/PI- at y=0.

<K->/<PI->.

<K->/<PI->.

Direct photon spectra(Nucl. Part. Phys. 23, A1 (1997)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in p+p at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 63 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 51, 836 (1990)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in p+p at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 63 GeV.

Direct photon spectra normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 62.4 GeV.

Direct photon spectra normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 39.0 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review C91, 064904 (2015)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review Letters 104, 132301 (2010)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review Letters 109, 152302 (2012)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physical Review C98, 054902 (2018)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 200 GeV.

Direct photon spectra(Physics Letters B754 235 (2016)) normalized by $(dN_{ch}/d\eta)^{1.25}$ for in Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 2760 GeV.

Number of binary collisions N_{coll} vs. Charged particle multiplicity in Au+Au at various cm energies.

Charged particle multiplicity vs. centrality in Au+Au at various cm energies.

Number of binary collisions N_{coll} vs. centrality in Au+Au at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. Charged particle multiplicity in various systems at various cm energies.

Charged particle multiplicity vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. Charged particle multiplicity in various systems at various cm energies.

Charged particle multiplicity vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Integrated direct photon yield vs. centrality in various systems at various cm energies.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ in 10-20% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ in 20-30% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ in 30-40% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ in 40-50% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ in 50-60% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 0-0.2% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 0-5% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 0-10% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 10-20% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 20-30% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 30-40% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 40-50% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ in 50-60% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $220 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<260$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $185 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<220$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $150 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<185$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) elliptic flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_2$, as a function of $p_T$ $120 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<150$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $220 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<260$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $185 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<220$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $150 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<185$ in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) triangular flow, $v^{(\alpha)}_3$, as a function of $p_T$ for multiplicity class $120 \leq N^{offline}_{trk}<150$ in pPb collisions.

Pearson correlation coefficients $r_2$ and $r_3$ reconstructed using the leading and subleading flows as a function of $p^{a}_{T} - p^{b}_{T}$ in bin $p^{a}_{T}$ for centrality class 0-0.2% in PbPb collisions.

Pearson correlation coefficients $r_2$ and $r_3$ reconstructed using the leading and subleading flows as a function of $p^{a}_{T} - p^{b}_{T}$ in bin $p^{a}_{T}$ for centrality class 0-5% in PbPb collisions.

Pearson correlation coefficients $r_2$ and $r_3$ reconstructed using the leading and subleading flows as a function of $p^{a}_{T} - p^{b}_{T}$ in bin $p^{a}_{T}$ for centrality class 10-20% in PbPb collisions.

Pearson correlation coefficients $r_2$ and $r_3$ reconstructed using the leading and subleading flows as a function of $p^{a}_{T} - p^{b}_{T}$ in bin $p^{a}_{T}$ for centrality class 20-30% in PbPb collisions.

Pearson correlation coefficients $r_2$ and $r_3$ reconstructed using the leading and subleading flows as a function of $p^{a}_{T} - p^{b}_{T}$ in bin $p^{a}_{T}$ for centrality class 30-40% in PbPb collisions.

Pearson correlation coefficients $r_2$ and $r_3$ reconstructed using the leading and subleading flows as a function of $p^{a}_{T} - p^{b}_{T}$ in bin $p^{a}_{T}$ for centrality class 40-50% in PbPb collisions.

Elliptic and triangular ratios of subleading and leading flow as a function of multiplicity for the highest bin 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV in PbPb collisions.

Elliptic and triangular ratios of subleading and leading flow as a function of multiplicity for the highest bin 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV in pPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 0-0.2% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 0-5% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 0-10% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 10-20% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 20-30% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 30-40% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 40-50% centrality PbPb collisions.

Leading ($\alpha$ = 1) and subleading ($\alpha$ = 2) multiplicity modes, $v^{(\alpha)}_0$, as a function of $p_T$ in 50-60% centrality PbPb collisions.