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.

Self-Normalized $J/\psi$ yields in the same arms before and after dimuon subtraction and the comparison with PYTHIA 8 simulations

Self-normalized $\psi(2S)$ to $J/\psi$ yields ratio as a function of Self-normalized $N_{ch}$ in the same arms

Self-normalized $\psi(2S)$ to $J/\psi$ yields ratio as a function of Self-normalized $N_{ch}$ in opposite arms

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.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

QED correction factors for inclusive measurement, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

The correlation matrix for the inclusive measurement. The azimuthal correlation angle $\Delta\phi$ of each lepton--leading-jet pair was assigned a bin ID between 0 to 59 segmented uniformly from 0 to $\pi$. This bin ID was offset by multiples of 60 based on the jet multiplicity so that the pair from a single jet event, as suggested by the MC simulation, was assigned a value between 0 to 59, dijet events were given 60 to 119, trijet 120 to 179, and four or more jets 180 to 239.

The correlation matrix for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

Normalized distributions of EA in HT ($E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}>4$ GeV) events selected by three ranges of leading jet $p_\mathrm{T}$. Events require $p_\mathrm{T,jet}^\mathrm{raw,lead}>4~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ and the presence of a recoil jet.

Jet spectra per trigger for trigger-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|<\pi/3$) and recoil-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|>2\pi/3$). Jets are of $R=0.4$, and the offline trigger threshold is $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}>4$ GeV. Spectra are shown for high- and low-EA events.

Ratio of the semi-inclusive jet spectra for trigger-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|<\pi/3$) and recoil-side ($|\phi_\mathrm{jet}-\phi_\mathrm{trig}|>2\pi/3$) in high-EA to low-EA events. Jets are of $R=0.4$, and the offline trigger threshold is $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{trig}>4$ GeV.

Distributions of the azimuthal separation between the two highest-$p_\mathrm{T}$ jets for high- and low-EA events for two sets of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$.

Ratios of distributions of the azimuthal separation between the two highest-$p_\mathrm{T}$ jets for two sets of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ for high-EA events relative to low-EA events.

Distributions of dijet $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ imbalance, $A_{J}$, for high- and low-EA events for two set of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ requirements.

Rastio of distributions of dijet $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ imbalance, $A_{J}$, for two sets of minimum $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{raw}$ requirements for high-EA events relative to low-EA events.

Data from Figure 2, panel b, U+U, 0-0.5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel a, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel b, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel c, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel d, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel e, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel f, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel a, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel a, U+U, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel b, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel b, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel c, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel c, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel d, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel d, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, standard method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, standard, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, standard, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Figure 1b, lower panel, subevent

Figure 2a, full-event

Figure 2b, subevent

Figure 3b

Figure 3c

Figure 3e

Figure 3f

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Figure 5a, full-event

Figure 5b, subevent

Figure 5c, full-event

Figure 5d, subevent

Figure 6a

Figure 6b

Figure 7a, full-event

Figure 7b, subevent

Figure 7c, full-event

Figure 7d, subevent

Figure 8a, full-event

Figure 8b, subevent

Figure 9a, full-event

Figure 9b, subevent

Figure 10a, full-event

Figure 10b, subevent

Figure 11a, full-event

Figure 11b, full-event

Figure 11c, full-event

Figure 11d, subevent

Figure 11e, subevent

Figure 11f, subevent

Figure 12a, full-event

Figure 12b, subevent

Figure 13

Figure 14a

Figure 14b

Invariant mass distributions of $^3\hbox{He}+\pi^-$ (A), $^3\overline{\hbox{He}}+\pi^+$ (B), $^4\hbox{He}+\pi^-$ (C) and $^4\overline{\hbox{He}}+\pi^+$ (D). The solid bands mark the signal invariant mass regions. The obtained signal count ($N_{\rm Sig}$), background count ($N_{\rm Bg}$), and signal significance are listed in each panel.

(A) (anti)hypernuclei yields versus $L/\beta\gamma$. The vertical error bars represent the statistical error only.

(A) (anti)hypernuclei yields versus $L/\beta\gamma$. The vertical error bars represent the statistical error only.

Our measured (anti)hypernuclei lifetimes compared with world data and theoretical predictions (solid triangles). Error bars and boxes represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. Vertical solid lines with shaded regions show the average lifetime of (anti)hypernuclei and their corresponding uncertainties. The vertical gray line shows the lifetime of the free $\Lambda$.

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Production yield ratios of various particles with the same baryon number. Results combining all collision systems in this work are shown by filled stars. Open stars show results with only U+U and Au+Au collisions, while quadrangular stars show results with only Zr+Zr and Ru+Ru collisions. Statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties are shown by vertical bars and boxes, respectively. Previous measurement results and thermal model predictions are also shown for comparison. Ratio Typle Index, 0:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}$ 1:$\frac{{}^{3}\bar{He}}{{}^{3}He}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 2:$\frac{{}^{4}\bar{He}}{{}^{4}He}$ 3:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}$ 4:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}\times\frac{\bar{p}}{p}$ 5:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}$ 6:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{3}He}$ 7:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\Lambda}H}{{}^{4}He}$ 8:$\frac{{}^{3}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{3}\bar{He}}$ 9:$\frac{{}^{4}_{\bar{\Lambda}}\bar{H}}{^{4}\bar{He}}$

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $L/(\beta\gamma)$ obtained from the embedding Monte Carlo technique. Hypernuclei have stricter topological cuts than antihypernuclei to suppress knock-out $^3\hbox{He}$ and $^4\hbox{He}$, resulting in lower efficiencies.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $L/(\beta\gamma)$ obtained from the embedding Monte Carlo technique. Hypernuclei have stricter topological cuts than antihypernuclei to suppress knock-out $^3\hbox{He}$ and $^4\hbox{He}$, resulting in lower efficiencies.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

H3L, antiH3L, H4L and antiH4L candidate invariant-mass distributions in different $L/\beta\gamma$ intervals.

$dN/d(L/\beta\gamma)$ as a function of $L/\beta\gamma$ for $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$, and exponential fits to obtain their lifetimes.

Efficiency corrected $p_{T}$ spectra for $^3\hbox{He}$, $^3\overline{\hbox{He}}$, \htl, and \ahtl. The spectra are in the phase space of $|y|<0.7$ with only MB-triggered events. The spectra are not normalized by the number of events. The lines represent the BW-function fits.

Efficiency corrected $p_{T}$ spectra for $^3\hbox{He}$, $^3\overline{\hbox{He}}$, \htl, and \ahtl. The spectra are in the phase space of $|y|<0.7$ with only MB-triggered events. The spectra are not normalized by the number of events. The lines represent the BW-function fits.

Correlation matrix of the unfolding uncertainty between the inclusive-jet measurement and the previous dijet measurement. Correlations are given in percent.

Summary of different determinations of $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ at NNLO or higher order, adapted from PDG, see references therein. The red points are included in the PDG world average. The averages from each sub-field are shown as yellow bands and the world average as a blue band. A recent measurement from CMS using jet cross sections and the latest determination from HERAPDF, which are not yet included in the world average, are shown in green. The current determination, assuming half-correlated and half-uncorrelated scale uncertainties, is shown in black.

Value of the strong coupling $\alpha_s(\mu^2)$ as a function of the scale $\mu$. The data points indicate determinations from measurements that were performed close to the indicated scale. The uncertainties represent the full uncertainty of each determination. All depicted results were obtained at least at NNLO. They are based on data from $e^+e^-$, $ep$ and $pp$ collisions, as well as from $\tau$ lepton decays and quarkonium states. The solid blue line shows the PDG world average. Also shown are the $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ values corresponding to each data point.

Double-differential inclusive-jet cross sections using the alternative treatment of QED radiation, as explained in <a href="https://inspirehep.net/literature/2714089">the accompanying thesis</a> (section 9.5.3 and table C.7) and <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18136">arXiv:2405.18136</a>. The alternative treatment affects the central value of the cross sections, $\sigma$, the QED correction factors $c_\text{QED}$ and their uncertainty and the sum of all uncorrelated uncertainties $\delta_\text{uncor}$. All other uncertainties and corrections are identical to Tables 1 and 2 and should be taken from there.