Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of $80\,$GeV and $120\,$GeV, assuming no additional pile-up mitigation.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$ in $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events.

The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV vs pile-up for each of the four years of data taking.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV in three periods during the year 2017.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to $p_T(\mu\mu)$.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to the offline $E_T^{miss}$ calculation with muons treated as being invisible.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for a $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 175 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 175 GeV.

HLT_xe70_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2015.

HLT_xe90_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_pufit trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2017. This trigger included an implicit requirement of cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe70 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout each year.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $p_T(\mu\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout the year.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

Forward-backward ratio, $N_{\mu}(+\eta_{\textrm{CM}})/N_{\mu}(-\eta_{\textrm{CM}})$, for the negatively charged muons, as a function of the muon pseudorapidity in the centre-of-mass frame.

Forward-backward ratio, $N_{\mu}(+\eta_{\textrm{CM}})/N_{\mu}(-\eta_{\textrm{CM}})$, for the positively charged muons, as a function of the muon pseudorapidity in the centre-of-mass frame.

Forward-backward ratio, $N_{\mu}(+\eta_{\textrm{CM}})/N_{\mu}(-\eta_{\textrm{CM}})$, for muons of both signs, as a function of the muon pseudorapidity in the centre-of-mass frame.

The covariance matrix of the W boson differential cross section measurements. Each bin is labeled mi_i or pl_i, where mi stands for $W^{-} \to \mu^{-} \bar{\nu}$ channel and pl for $W^{+} \to \mu^{+} \nu$ channel, and 0 <= i <= 23 is the bin number in $\eta_{\textrm{CM}}$ (from -2.86 - -2.60 to 1.80 - 1.93). The global normalisation uncertainty of 3.5% is included. Data from Figure 2.

95% CL intervals on the double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\varUpsilon(3S)} / N_{\varUpsilon(1S)})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\varUpsilon(3S)} / N_{\varUpsilon(1S)})_{pp}$, as a function of centrality, for upsilon $|y|<2.4$ and $p_T<30$GeV, and $p_{T}^{\mu}>4$GeV.

68% CL intervals on the double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\varUpsilon(3S)} / N_{\varUpsilon(1S)})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\varUpsilon(3S)} / N_{\varUpsilon(1S)})_{pp}$, as a function of centrality, for upsilon $|y|<2.4$ and $p_T<30$GeV, and $p_{T}^{\mu}>4$GeV.

95% CL intervals on the double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, as a function of pT, for the forward rapidity analysis bin.

Double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, as a function of centrality, for the midrapidity analysis bin.

95% CL intervals on the double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, as a function of centrality, for the midrapidity analysis bin.

Double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, as a function of centrality, for the forward rapidity analysis bin.

95% CL intervals on the double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, as a function of centrality, for the forward rapidity analysis bin.

Double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, integrated over centrality, for the midrapidity and forward rapidity analysis bins.

95% CL interval on the double ratio of measured yields, $(N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{\mathrm{PbPb}} / (N_{\psi\mathrm{(2S)}} / N_{J/\psi})_{pp}$, integrated over centrality, for the midrapidity and forward rapidity analysis bins.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV, for centrality 30-50%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 10-30%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 30-50%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 10-30%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 30-50%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 0-10% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 10-30% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 30-50% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 0-10% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 10-30% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 30-50% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 0-10% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 10-30% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 30-50% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, as a function of the average number of participants in the collision (<Npart>), for charged jets with pT = 60-70 GeV and either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. The correspondence between <Npart> and the centrality classes is given in Table 1 of the paper, and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, as a function of the average number of participants in the collision (<Npart>), for charged jets with pT = 60-70 GeV and either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. The correspondence between <Npart> and the centrality classes is given in Table 1 of the paper, and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, as a function of the average number of participants in the collision (<Npart>), for charged jets with pT = 60-70 GeV and either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. The correspondence between <Npart> and the centrality classes is given in Table 1 of the paper, and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet pT-spectra with radius parameter R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV, for two centrality classes 0-10% and 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.