The correlation matrix corresponding to the statistical uncertainties on the differential cross-section ($d\sigma/dp_T$) fit results for $W^-$. To combine with $W^+$ results (Fig8a), use the rows and columns ordered as $W^+$ and then $W^-$. Assume no correlation in the statistical uncertainties between $W^+$ and $W^-$ (zero entries in the off-diagonal blocks).

The correlation matrix corresponding to all of the systematic uncertainties on the differential cross-section ($d\sigma/dp_T$) fit results for $W^+$ and $W^-$ combined together, with rows and columns ordered as $W^+$ and then $W^-$.

Data from Figure 2, panel d, upper panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 2, panel d, lower panel, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Figure 4, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Figure 5, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})/v_{0}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$=1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel a, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel b, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel c, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 6, panel d, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, Zero Crossing Point of $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 7, $\left\langle [p_{T}]\right\rangle$ for $p_{T}$ range of 0.5-10 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel a, Closure of Sum Rule 1 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 8, panel b, Closure of Sum Rule 2 for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel a, $v_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 9, panel b, $v_{0} / v^{5\%}_{0}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel a, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 10, panel b, $v_{0}\sqrt{N_{ch}}$ vs Centrality for $\eta_{gap}$ = 1

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 0-5% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 5-10% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 10-20% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 20-30% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 30-40% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 40-50% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 50-60% Centrality

Data from Appendix, Figure 11, $v_{0}(p_{T})\,\sqrt{\left\langle N_{\mathrm{ch}}\right\rangle}$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-2 GeV, $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Top row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Left column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 0-5% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=0

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=1

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=2

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 1, Bottom row, Right column, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ for $p^{ref}_{T}$ = 0.5-5 GeV, 60-70% Centrality, $\eta_{gap}$=3

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 2, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 0, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 3, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 1, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 4, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 2, and 60-70% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 0-5% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 5-10% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 10-20% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 20-30% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary, Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 30-40% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 40-50% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 50-60% Centrality

Data from Auxiliary Figure 5, $v_{0}(p_{T})$ For $\eta_{gap}$ = 3, and 60-70% Centrality

The Charged-hadron yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The K^{0}_{S} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The #Lambda yields as a function of pT in different y selections in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The #Xi^{-} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The K^{0}_{S} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The #Lambda yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The #Xi^{-} yields as a function of pT in different y selections in p+Pb collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in p+Pb collisions.

The Charged-hadron and identified-hadron yields as a function of y in p+Pb collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

The meanpT of charged hadrons and identified hadrons as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in p+Pb collisions.

The baryon to meson ratio as a function of pT in p+Pb collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in Pb+Pb photo-nuclear collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

The ratios of identified-strange-hadron yield to charged-hadron yields as a function of Nchrec in p+Pb collisions.

Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as functions of the pair invariant mass. Data are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR(PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT + FSR(PY8), and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions.

Differential cross sections for exclusive dielectron production, in the fiducial phase space of Table 1, as functions of the pair |cos $\theta$*|. Data are compared with SUPERCHIC + FSR(PHOTOS++), STARLIGHT + FSR(PY8), and gamma-UPC + FSR(PY8) predictions.

Differential exclusive diphoton cross sections in the fiducial phase space of Table 1 as a function of the diphoton rapidity measured in data compared with SUPERCHIC and gamma-UPC@NLO predictions.

Differential exclusive diphoton cross sections in the fiducial phase space of Table 1 as a function of the diphoton invariant mass measured in data compared with SUPERCHIC and gamma-UPC@NLO predictions.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the production cross section $\sigma(\gamma\gamma \rightarrow a \rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$ as a function of the ALP mass $m_{a}$. The uncertainties indicate regions containing 68 and 95% of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The additional datasets indicate the expected ALP cross sections as a function of $m_{a}$ for decreasing photon couplings ($g_{a\gamma} = 0.3, 0.1, 0.05 TeV^{-1}$).

Exclusion limits at 95% CL in the axion-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma}$ versus axion mass $m_a$ plane, for the operator $\frac{1}{4\Lambda}aF\widetilde{F}$ (assuming ALPs coupled only to photons) extracted in this analysis.

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

The figure shows the measurement of the top quark pair production cross-section, $\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$, in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV, based on 1.9 nb$^{-1}$ of data.

Distributions for data and expected signal and background contributions of the MVA score for the µ + jets channel in the 3j1b category, before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty in the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-prediction ratio. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Observed and predicted number of events in each of the eight categories of the signal region, before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty in the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-prediction ratio.

Distributions for the e + jets final state before the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization before the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Distributions for the e + jets final state after the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization after the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Distributions for the µ + jets final state before the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization before the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Distributions for the µ + jets final state after the maximum likelihood fit, MVA score bins for the 3j1b category and ∆R med ( j, j 0 ) bins for the other categories. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the shaded band the uncertainty of the prediction. All uncertainties considered in the analysis are included in the uncertainty band. The lower panels show the data-to-simulation ratio, where the simulations are adjusted according to their normalization after the fit. The first and last bins in each distribution include underflow and overflow events, respectively.

Covariance matrix for the lepton+jets ML fit.

Covariance matrix for the combination ML fit.

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.

The Bs meson $p_{\rm{T}}$-dependent RAA in PpPp. The measurment was carried out inside a fiducial region respecting ($p_{\rm{T}}$<10 & 1.5<|y|<2.4) and ($p_{\rm{T}}$>10 & |y|<2.4).

Charged-hadron $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta/N_{part}$ in PbPb collisions at 5.36 TeV at midrapidity as a function of $N_{part}$.

Charged-hadron $\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta/N_{part}$ in PbPb collisions at 5.36 TeV at midrapidity as a function of $N_{part}/2A$.