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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by &#9001;TPPB&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by &#9001;TAA&#9002;. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijets from pp collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

ratio of subleading jet RAA^pair to leading jet RAA^pair in PbPb collisions

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.3< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$Cov_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for peripheral events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ for central events, Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV

$\Sigma E_{T}$ vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Three_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ for central events, Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Standard method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{3}$ ratio between Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV and Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV for central events, Combined_subevent method, for , $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality,

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$\rho_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{3}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Two_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$Cov_{4}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$ based Centrality.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$c_{k}$ Standard method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{2})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{3})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$var(v^{2}_{4})$ Combined subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N^{rec}_{ch}$.

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<2.5, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <2.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{2}$ Three_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{3}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $\Sigma E_{T}$ based Centrality

$\rho_{4}$ Combined_subevent method, for Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV, $|\eta|$<1.0, 0.5< $p_{T}$ <5.0 GeV vs $N_{ch}^{rec}$ based Centrality

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

Forward cross sections.

Backward cross sections.

From S, P and D wave fit to d(sig)/domega.

Light quark ($uds$) Collins asymmetries obtained by fitting the U/L and U/C double ratios as a function of ($z_1$,$z_2$) for $K\pi$ hadron pairs. In the first column, the $z$ bins and their respective mean values for the hadron ($K$ or $\pi$) in one hemisphere are reported; in the following column, the same variables for the second hadron ($K$ or $\pi$) are shown; in the third column the mean value of $\sin^2\theta_{2}/(1+\cos^2\theta_{2})$ is summarized, calculated in the RF0 frame; in the last two columns the asymmetry results are summarized. The mean values of the quantities reported in the table are calculated by summing the corresponding values for each $K\pi$ pair and dividing by the number of $K\pi$ pairs that fall into each ($z_1$,$z_2$) interval. Note that the $A^{UL}$ and $A^{UC}$ results are strongly correlated since they are obtained by using the same data set.

Light quark ($uds$) Collins asymmetries obtained by fitting the U/L and U/C double ratios as a function of ($z_1$,$z_2$) for pion pairs. In the first column, the $z$ bins and their respective mean values for the pion in one hemisphere are reported; in the following column, the same variables for the second pion are shown; in the third column the mean value of $\sin^2\theta_{th}/(1+\cos^2\theta_{th})$ is summarized, calculated in the RF12 frame; in the last two columns the asymmetry results are summarized. The mean values of the quantities reported in the table are calculated by summing the corresponding values for each $\pi\pi$ pair and dividing by the number of $\pi\pi$ pairs that fall into each ($z_1$,$z_2$) interval. Note that the $A^{UL}$ and $A^{UC}$ results are strongly correlated since they are obtained by using the same data set.

Light quark ($uds$) Collins asymmetries obtained by fitting the U/L and U/C double ratios as a function of ($z_1$,$z_2$) for pion pairs. In the first column, the $z$ bins and their respective mean values for the pion in one hemisphere are reported; in the following column, the same variables for the second pion are shown; in the third column the mean value of $\sin^2\theta_{2}/(1+\cos^2\theta_{2})$ is summarized, calculated in the RF0 frame; in the last two columns the asymmetry results are summarized. The mean values of the quantities reported in the table are calculated by summing the corresponding values for each $\pi\pi$ pair and dividing by the number of $\pi\pi$ pairs that fall into each ($z_1$,$z_2$) interval. Note that the $A^{UL}$ and $A^{UC}$ results are strongly correlated since they are obtained by using the same data set.

xT scaling (with xT.

J/psi nuclear modification factor RAA from sqrt(s).

J/psi nuclear modification factor RAA from sqrt(s).

J/psi-hadron azimuthal correlations in sqrt(s).

Contribution from B-hadron feed-down to inclusive J/psi production in sqrt(s).

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$\Delta\phi$ distribution used to extract the away-side yield. The triangular pair acceptance correction in $\Delta\eta$ is not applied.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

Away-side associated particle distribution.

$I_{AA}$.

$I_{AA}$.

$I_{AA}$.

$I_{AA}$.

HBT parameters for all centralities in 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu.

HBT parameters for all centralities in 200 GeV Cu+Cu.

HBT parameters for 200 GeV Au+Au, 0-5% and Cu+Cu, 0-10%

HBT parameters for 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu, 0-10% and 62.4 GeV Au+Au, 0-5%

HBT radii for radii ratios in 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu, 0-10% and 200 GeV & 62.4 GeV Au+Au, 0-5%. Note that on Figure 8 in the paper the radii ratios are shown while here we list the radii values.

Energy dependence of the pi- HBT Radii for Volume estimate (Rside*Rside*Rlong) in central Au+Au, Pb+Pb, and Pb+Au collisions (AGS,SPS and RHIC) at midrapidity and k_T ~ 0.2-0.3 GeV/c. Note that on Figure 9 in the paper Rside*Rside*Rlong is shown while here we list the Rside and Rlong values.

HBT Radii for Volume estimate(Rside*Rside*Rlong & Rout*Rout*Rlong) comparisons for 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV Au+Au with Npart and dNch/deta. Note that on Figure 10 in the paper specific combinations of the HBT radii are shown while here we list the radii values.

HBT Radii for Volume estimate(Rside*Rside*Rlong & Rout*Rout*Rlong) comparisons for 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV Au+Au & Cu+Cu with dNch/deta. Note that on Figure 11 in the paper specific combinations of the HBT radii are shown while here we list the radii values.

HBT radii comparisons for 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV Au+Au & Cu+Cu with dNch/deta1/3

(Color online) Measured dynamical $K/\pi$ fluctuations in terms of $\nu_{dyn,K\pi}$ for 62.4 and 200 GeV Au+Au compared with $\sigma^{2}_{dyn}$ from central Pb+Pb collisions at 6.3, 7.6, 8.8, 12.3, and 17.3 GeV from NA49 [7]. Statistical errors are shown for the STAR data. Statistical and systematic errors are shown for the NA49 results. The solid line corresponds to a fit to the STAR data of the form $c + d/(dN/d\eta)$.

(Color online) The dN/dη scaled dynamical $K/\pi$ fluctuations for summed charges (stars), same signs (circles), and opposite signs (squares) as a function of $dN/d\eta$. The errors shown are statistical. The open and filled symbols refer to Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV respectively. The dash-dot, dotted, and dashed lines represents HIJING calculations for summed charges, same signs, and opposite signs respectively.

Efficiency corrected $t_{\perp}$ spectrum for $\rho^{0}$ from (top) minium bias and (bottom) topology data, for mid-rapidity (left) and larger rapidity (right) samples. The points are the data, while the solid lines are the results of fits to Eq. (3).

Efficiency corrected $t_{\perp}$ spectrum for $\rho^{0}$ from (top) minium bias and (bottom) topology data, for mid-rapidity (left) and larger rapidity (right) samples. The points are the data, while the solid lines are the results of fits to Eq. (3).

Efficiency corrected $t_{\perp}$ spectrum for $\rho^{0}$ from (top) minium bias and (bottom) topology data, for mid-rapidity (left) and larger rapidity (right) samples. The points are the data, while the solid lines are the results of fits to Eq. (3).

Efficiency corrected $t_{\perp}$ spectrum for $\rho^{0}$ from (top) minium bias and (bottom) topology data, for mid-rapidity (left) and larger rapidity (right) samples. The points are the data, while the solid lines are the results of fits to Eq. (3).

Upper panels. $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ scaled ($R^{N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}}_{AA}$) nuclear modification factors as a function of $p_{T}$ of $\phi$ mesons for $0-10\%$ and $20-30\%$ $Cu+Cu$ and $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Lower panel. Same as above for $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}$ scaled ($R^{N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}}_{AA}$) nuclear modification factor. The error bars represent the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. The shaded band in upper panel around 1 at $p_{T}=4.5-5.5$ GeV/$c$ in the right side reflects the uncertainty in $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ and that on the lower panel for $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}$ calculation for central $Au+Au$ collisions. The respective uncertainties for central $Cu+Cu$ collisions are of similar order.

Upper panels. $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ scaled ($R^{N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}}_{AA}$) nuclear modification factors as a function of $p_{T}$ of $\phi$ mesons for $0-10\%$ and $20-30\%$ $Cu+Cu$ and $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Lower panel. Same as above for $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}$ scaled ($R^{N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}}_{AA}$) nuclear modification factor. The error bars represent the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. The shaded band in upper panel around 1 at $p_{T}=4.5-5.5$ GeV/$c$ in the right side reflects the uncertainty in $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ and that on the lower panel for $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}$ calculation for central $Au+Au$ collisions. The respective uncertainties for central $Cu+Cu$ collisions are of similar order.

Upper panels. $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ scaled ($R^{N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}}_{AA}$) nuclear modification factors as a function of $p_{T}$ of $\phi$ mesons for $0-10\%$ and $20-30\%$ $Cu+Cu$ and $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Lower panel. Same as above for $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}$ scaled ($R^{N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}}_{AA}$) nuclear modification factor. The error bars represent the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. The shaded band in upper panel around 1 at $p_{T}=4.5-5.5$ GeV/$c$ in the right side reflects the uncertainty in $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ and that on the lower panel for $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{bin}}}$ calculation for central $Au+Au$ collisions. The respective uncertainties for central $Cu+Cu$ collisions are of similar order.

Upper panel. The ratio of the yields of $K^{−}$, $\phi$, $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\Xi+\bar{\Xi}$ normalized to $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ in nucleus-nucleus collisions to corresponding yields in inelastic $p+p$ collisions as a function of $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ at 200 GeV. Lower panel. Same as above for $\phi$ mesons in $Cu+Cu$ collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV. The $p+p$ collision data at 200 GeV are from STAR [5] and at 62.4 GeV from ISR [29]. The error bars shown represent the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature.

Upper panel. The ratio of the yields of $K^{−}$, $\phi$, $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\Xi+\bar{\Xi}$ normalized to $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ in nucleus-nucleus collisions to corresponding yields in inelastic $p+p$ collisions as a function of $N_{\scriptsize{\mbox{part}}}$ at 200 GeV. Lower panel. Same as above for $\phi$ mesons in $Cu+Cu$ collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV. The $p+p$ collision data at 200 GeV are from STAR [5] and at 62.4 GeV from ISR [29]. The error bars shown represent the statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature.

Upper panels: same-event (full points) and mixed-event (solid line) $K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant mass distributions at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.4 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV collisions (a), 0.8 < $p_{T}$ < 1.2 GeV/c in Au + Au 62.4 GeV collisions (60–80%) (c), and 0.8 < $p_{T}$ < 1.2 GeV/c in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions (0–10%) (e). Lower panels: the corresponding $\phi$ meson mass peaks after subtracting the background. Dashed curves show a Breit-Wigner + linear background function fit in (b), (d). In (f), both linear and quadratic backgrounds are shown as dashed and dot-dashed lines, respectively.

Upper panels: same-event (full points) and mixed-event (solid line) $K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant mass distributions at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.4 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV collisions (a), 0.8 < $p_{T}$ < 1.2 GeV/c in Au + Au 62.4 GeV collisions (60–80%) (c), and 0.8 < $p_{T}$ < 1.2 GeV/c in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions (0–10%) (e). Lower panels: the corresponding $\phi$ meson mass peaks after subtracting the background. Dashed curves show a Breit-Wigner + linear background function fit in (b), (d). In (f), both linear and quadratic backgrounds are shown as dashed and dot-dashed lines, respectively.

Upper panels: same-event (full points) and mixed-event (solid line) $K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant mass distributions at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.4 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV collisions (a), 0.8 < $p_{T}$ < 1.2 GeV/c in Au + Au 62.4 GeV collisions (60–80%) (c), and 0.8 < $p_{T}$ < 1.2 GeV/c in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions (0–10%) (e). Lower panels: the corresponding $\phi$ meson mass peaks after subtracting the background. Dashed curves show a Breit-Wigner + linear background function fit in (b), (d). In (f), both linear and quadratic backgrounds are shown as dashed and dot-dashed lines, respectively.

Reconstruction efficiency including acceptance of $\phi$ meson as a function of $p_{T}$ in several centrality bins of Au + Au, d + Au, and p + p 200 GeV collisions.

Reconstruction efficiency including acceptance of $\phi$ meson as a function of $p_{T}$ in several centrality bins of Au + Au, d + Au, and p + p 200 GeV collisions.

Reconstruction efficiency including acceptance of $\phi$ meson as a function of $p_{T}$ in several centrality bins of Au + Au, d + Au, and p + p 200 GeV collisions.

Event plane $\Phi_{2}$ resolution as a function of centrality in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions, where the vertical axis starts from 0.3 for clarity.

$\phi−\Phi_{2}$ distribution for $\phi$ meson at 1.5 < $p_{T}$ < 2.0 GeV/c in Au + Au collisions (0–80$\%$) at 200 GeV. The line is the fitting result. Error bars are statistical only.

<cos2($\phi_{K^{+}K^{-}}$-$\Phi_{2}$)> (full red points) and <sin2($\phi_{K^{+}K^{-}}$-$\Phi_{2}$)> (open blue points) as a function of $m_{inv}$ of $K^{+}K^{-}$ pairs at 0.5 < $p_{T}$ < 1.0 GeV/c in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions (0–80\%), where the solid curve is the result of fitting by Eq. (10). The arrow shows the position of the $\phi$ invariant mass peak. The dashed line shows the zero horizontal line.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Masses and widths (FWHMs) of $\phi$ as a function of $p_{T}$ in p + p 200 GeV (NSD), d + Au 200 GeV (0–20$\%$), Au + Au 62.4 GeV (0–20$\%$), and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions, with the corresponding $PDG$ values.

Invariant mass distributions of $\phi$ meson at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.0 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV (NSD) and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions. Solid symbols: experimental data. Open symbols: MC simulation. Curves are the results of a Breit-Wigner function fit. Note: Two sets of MC data are shown for Au + Au 200 GeV, and see text for details.

Invariant mass distributions of $\phi$ meson at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.0 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV (NSD) and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions. Solid symbols: experimental data. Open symbols: MC simulation. Curves are the results of a Breit-Wigner function fit. Note: Two sets of MC data are shown for Au + Au 200 GeV, and see text for details.

Invariant mass distributions of $\phi$ meson at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.0 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV (NSD) and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions. Solid symbols: experimental data. Open symbols: MC simulation. Curves are the results of a Breit-Wigner function fit. Note: Two sets of MC data are shown for Au + Au 200 GeV, and see text for details.

Invariant mass distributions of $\phi$ meson at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.0 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV (NSD) and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions. Solid symbols: experimental data. Open symbols: MC simulation. Curves are the results of a Breit-Wigner function fit. Note: Two sets of MC data are shown for Au + Au 200 GeV, and see text for details.

Invariant mass distributions of $\phi$ meson at 0.6 < $p_{T}$ < 1.0 GeV/c in p + p 200 GeV (NSD) and Au + Au 200 GeV (0–5$\%$) collisions. Solid symbols: experimental data. Open symbols: MC simulation. Curves are the results of a Breit-Wigner function fit. Note: Two sets of MC data are shown for Au + Au 200 GeV, and see text for details.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

$\phi$ meson transverse mass distributions for different collision systems and different energies. For clarity, distributions for some centrality bins have been scaled by factors indicated in the figure. Curves represent the exponential (solid) and Levy (dashed) function fits to the distributions. Error bars are statistical only. Note that a scale factor of 1.09 is applied to the $\phi$ meson spectra for Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV in Ref. [50] to correct for the kaon identification efficiency effect missed previously.

Comparison of transverse momentum spectra shape among different 200 GeV collision systems: Au + Au (0–5$\%$), d + Au (0–20$\%$), and p + p (inelastic). The spectra are normalized by $N_{bin}$ (top panel) and $N_{part}/2$ (bottom panel).

Comparison of transverse momentum spectra shape among different 200 GeV collision systems: Au + Au (0–5$\%$), d + Au (0–20$\%$), and p + p (inelastic). The spectra are normalized by $N_{bin}$ (top panel) and $N_{part}/2$ (bottom panel).

Comparison of transverse momentum spectra shape among different 200 GeV collision systems: Au + Au (0–5$\%$), d + Au (0–20$\%$), and p + p (inelastic). The spectra are normalized by $N_{bin}$ (top panel) and $N_{part}/2$ (bottom panel).

Comparison of transverse momentum spectra shape among different 200 GeV collision systems: Au + Au (0–5$\%$), d + Au (0–20$\%$), and p + p (inelastic). The spectra are normalized by $N_{bin}$ (top panel) and $N_{part}/2$ (bottom panel).

Comparison of transverse momentum spectra shape among different 200 GeV collision systems: Au + Au (0–5$\%$), d + Au (0–20$\%$), and p + p (inelastic). The spectra are normalized by $N_{bin}$ (top panel) and $N_{part}/2$ (bottom panel).

Comparison of transverse momentum spectra shape among different 200 GeV collision systems: Au + Au (0–5$\%$), d + Au (0–20$\%$), and p + p (inelastic). The spectra are normalized by $N_{bin}$ (top panel) and $N_{part}/2$ (bottom panel).

$N_{part}$ dependence of $(dN/dy)/0.5N_{part}$ in five different collision systems: Au + Au 62.4, 130, 200 GeV; p + p 200 GeV (inelastic); and d + Au 200 GeV. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$N_{part}$ dependence of $(dN/dy)/0.5N_{part}$ in five different collision systems: Au + Au 62.4, 130, 200 GeV; p + p 200 GeV (inelastic); and d + Au 200 GeV. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$N_{part}$ dependence of $(dN/dy)/0.5N_{part}$ in five different collision systems: Au + Au 62.4, 130, 200 GeV; p + p 200 GeV (inelastic); and d + Au 200 GeV. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$N_{part}$ dependence of $(dN/dy)/0.5N_{part}$ in five different collision systems: Au + Au 62.4, 130, 200 GeV; p + p 200 GeV (inelastic); and d + Au 200 GeV. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$N_{part}$ dependence of $(dN/dy)/0.5N_{part}$ in five different collision systems: Au + Au 62.4, 130, 200 GeV; p + p 200 GeV (inelastic); and d + Au 200 GeV. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

Top panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of $<p_{T}>_{\phi}$ in different collision systems. Bottom panel: Hadron mass dependence of $<p_{T}>$ in central Au + Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV. The band and curve show two hydrodynamic model calculations for central Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV. Note: Hadron masses for the Au + Au 62.4 GeV data are shifted slightly in the $x$-axis direction for clarity, and systematic errors are included for $\phi$.

Top panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of $<p_{T}>_{\phi}$ in different collision systems. Bottom panel: Hadron mass dependence of $<p_{T}>$ in central Au + Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV. The band and curve show two hydrodynamic model calculations for central Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV. Note: Hadron masses for the Au + Au 62.4 GeV data are shifted slightly in the $x$-axis direction for clarity, and systematic errors are included for $\phi$.

Top panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of $<p_{T}>_{\phi}$ in different collision systems. Bottom panel: Hadron mass dependence of $<p_{T}>$ in central Au + Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV. The band and curve show two hydrodynamic model calculations for central Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV. Note: Hadron masses for the Au + Au 62.4 GeV data are shifted slightly in the $x$-axis direction for clarity, and systematic errors are included for $\phi$.

Top panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of $<p_{T}>_{\phi}$ in different collision systems. Bottom panel: Hadron mass dependence of $<p_{T}>$ in central Au + Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV. The band and curve show two hydrodynamic model calculations for central Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV. Note: Hadron masses for the Au + Au 62.4 GeV data are shifted slightly in the $x$-axis direction for clarity, and systematic errors are included for $\phi$.

Top panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of $<p_{T}>_{\phi}$ in different collision systems. Bottom panel: Hadron mass dependence of $<p_{T}>$ in central Au + Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV. The band and curve show two hydrodynamic model calculations for central Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV. Note: Hadron masses for the Au + Au 62.4 GeV data are shifted slightly in the $x$-axis direction for clarity, and systematic errors are included for $\phi$.

Top panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of $<p_{T}>_{\phi}$ in different collision systems. Bottom panel: Hadron mass dependence of $<p_{T}>$ in central Au + Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV. The band and curve show two hydrodynamic model calculations for central Au + Au collisions at 200 GeV. Note: Hadron masses for the Au + Au 62.4 GeV data are shifted slightly in the $x$-axis direction for clarity, and systematic errors are included for $\phi$.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of the ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in A + A (full points) and p + p (open points) collisions. Stars are data from the STARexperiment at RHIC.Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/\pi^{-}$ in different collision systems. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

Top panel: Energy dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in $A + A$ and elementary ($e + e$ and $p + p$) collisions. Stars are data from STAR experiments at RHIC. Bottom panel: $N_{part}$ dependence of ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ in different collision systems. The dashed line shows results from $UrQMD$ model calculations. Systematic errors are included for the STAR data points.

The $\Omega/\phi$ ratio vs $p_{T}$ for three centrality bins in $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV$ Au + Au collisions, where the data points for 40–60$\%$ are shifted slightly for clarity. As shown in the legend, the lines represent results from Hwa and Yang [96], Ko et al. [97], and, for SCF, Refs. [98,99].

The $\Omega/\phi$ ratio vs $p_{T}$ for three centrality bins in $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200 GeV$ Au + Au collisions, where the data points for 40–60$\%$ are shifted slightly for clarity. As shown in the legend, the lines represent results from Hwa and Yang [96], Ko et al. [97], and, for SCF, Refs. [98,99].

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{cp}$ in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions. The top and bottom panels present $R_{cp}$ from midperipheral and most-peripheral collisions, respectively. See legend for symbol and line designations. The rectangular bands showthe uncertainties of binary and participant scalings. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{cp}$ in Au + Au 200 GeV collisions. The top and bottom panels present $R_{cp}$ from midperipheral and most-peripheral collisions, respectively. See legend for symbol and line designations. The rectangular bands showthe uncertainties of binary and participant scalings. Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{cp}$ in Au + Au 62.4 and 200 GeV and d + Au 200 GeV collisions, where rectangular bands represent the uncertainties of binary and participant scalings (see legend). Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{cp}$ in Au + Au 62.4 and 200 GeV and d + Au 200 GeV collisions, where rectangular bands represent the uncertainties of binary and participant scalings (see legend). Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{cp}$ in Au + Au 62.4 and 200 GeV and d + Au 200 GeV collisions, where rectangular bands represent the uncertainties of binary and participant scalings (see legend). Statistical and systematic errors are included.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{AB}$ for $\phi$ in Au + Au 200 GeV and d + Au 200 GeV collisions. For comparison, data points for $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ in d + Au 200 GeV and $p+\bar{p}$ in d + Au 200 GeV are also shown (see legend). Rectangular bands show the uncertainties of binary (solid line) and participant (dot-dash line) scalings. Systematic errors are included for $\phi$, $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$, and $p+\bar{p}$.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the nuclear modification factor $R_{AB}$ for $\phi$ in Au + Au 200 GeV and d + Au 200 GeV collisions. For comparison, data points for $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ in d + Au 200 GeV and $p+\bar{p}$ in d + Au 200 GeV are also shown (see legend). Rectangular bands show the uncertainties of binary (solid line) and participant (dot-dash line) scalings. Systematic errors are included for $\phi$, $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$, and $p+\bar{p}$.

$p_{T}$ dependence of the elliptic flow $v_{2}$ of $\phi$, $\Lambda$, and $K_{s}^{0}$ in Au + Au collisions (0–80$\%$) at 200 GeV. Data points for $\phi$ are from the reaction plane method (full up-triangles) and invariant mass method (full circles), where data points from the reaction plane method are shifted slightly along the $x$ axis for clarity. Vertical error bars represent statistical errors, while the square bands represent systematic uncertainties. The magenta curved band represents the $v_{2}$ of $\phi$ meson from the AMPT model with a string melting mechanism [116]. The dash and dot curves represent parametrizations inspired by number-of-quark scaling ideas from Ref. [117] for NQ = 2 and NQ = 3, respectively.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ , $v_{2}$($p_{T}$), for the $\phi$ meson from different centralities. The vertical error bars represent the statistical errors, while the square bands represent the systematic uncertainties. For clarity, data points of 10–40$\%$ are shifted in the $p_{T}$ direction slightly.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ , $v_{2}$($p_{T}$), for the $\phi$ meson from different centralities. The vertical error bars represent the statistical errors, while the square bands represent the systematic uncertainties. For clarity, data points of 10–40$\%$ are shifted in the $p_{T}$ direction slightly.

The TPC mid-rapidity multiplicity distributions ($|\eta|$ < 0.5) for the corresponding E-FTPC selected centrality bins.

Uncorrected charged particle multiplicity distribution measured in the TPC within $|\eta|$ < 0.5 in pp collisions at 200 GeV.

The ratio of the transverse overlap area $S_{⊥}$ to $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$ versus $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$.

The ratio of the transverse overlap area $S_{⊥}$ to $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$ versus $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$.

The ratio of the transverse overlap area $S_{⊥}$ to $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$ versus $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

Energy loss effect for $\pi^{+-}$ (a), $K^{+-}$ (b), and p and pbar (c) at mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) as a function of particle momentum magnitude in 200 GeV pp and 62.4 GeV central 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Only negative particles are shown; energy loss for particles and antiparticles are the same. Errors shown are statistical only. The pion energy loss is already corrected by the track reconstruction algorithm.

Energy loss effect for $\pi^{+-}$ (a), $K^{+-}$ (b), and p and pbar (c) at mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) as a function of particle momentum magnitude in 200 GeV pp and 62.4 GeV central 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Only negative particles are shown; energy loss for particles and antiparticles are the same. Errors shown are statistical only. The pion energy loss is already corrected by the track reconstruction algorithm.

Energy loss effect for $\pi^{+-}$ (a), $K^{+-}$ (b), and p and pbar (c) at mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) as a function of particle momentum magnitude in 200 GeV pp and 62.4 GeV central 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Only negative particles are shown; energy loss for particles and antiparticles are the same. Errors shown are statistical only. The pion energy loss is already corrected by the track reconstruction algorithm.

Vertex-finding efficiency (ǫvtx) and fake vertex rate (δfake) as a function of the number of good global tracks (a) and the number of good primary tracks (b). Errors shown or smaller than the point size are statistical only.

Vertex-finding efficiency (ǫvtx) and fake vertex rate (δfake) as a function of the number of good global tracks (a) and the number of good primary tracks (b). Errors shown or smaller than the point size are statistical only.

The $p_{T}$ dependent correction to particle spectra due to fake vertex events, $\epsilon_{fake}(p_{T})$, in 200 GeV minimum bias pp and d+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

The $p_{T}$ dependent correction to particle spectra due to fake vertex events, $\epsilon_{fake}(p_{T})$, in 200 GeV minimum bias pp and d+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in pp (a) and d+Au collisions (b) at 200 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in pp (a) and d+Au collisions (b) at 200 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.40 < p⊥ < 0.45 GeV/c in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au. Errors shown are statistical only.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.70 < p⊥ < 0.75 GeV/c in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au. Errors shown are statistical only.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.40 < p⊥ < 0.45 GeV/c in 62.4 GeV 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.70 < p⊥ < 0.75 GeV/c in 62.4 GeV 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

Pion background fraction from weak decays ($\Lambda, K_S^0$) and $\mu^{+-}$ contamination as a function of p⊥ in minimum bias d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Errors shown are statistical only.

Pion background fraction from weak decays ($\Lambda, K_S^0$) and $\mu^{+-}$ contamination as a function of p⊥ in minimum bias d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Errors shown are statistical only.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The p and pbar spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for three centrality bins and for minimum bias events. Spectra from top to bottom are for 0-20% scaled by 4, 20-40% scaled by 2, minimum bias not scaled, and 40-100% scaled by 1/2. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the minimum bias data; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The p and pbar spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for three centrality bins and for minimum bias events. Spectra from top to bottom are for 0-20% scaled by 4, 20-40% scaled by 2, minimum bias not scaled, and 40-100% scaled by 1/2. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the minimum bias data; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The p and pbar spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for three centrality bins and for minimum bias events. Spectra from top to bottom are for 0-20% scaled by 4, 20-40% scaled by 2, minimum bias not scaled, and 40-100% scaled by 1/2. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the minimum bias data; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified pion spectra in Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV. Spectra are plotted for eight centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-6%, 6-11%, 11-18%, 18- 26%, 26-34%, 34-45%, 45-58%, and 58-85%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but they are smaller than the data point size. The curves are the Bose-Einstein fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Estimate of the product of the Bjorken energy density and the formation time ($\epsilon_{B_j}\tau$) as a function of centrality Npart. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Estimate of the product of the Bjorken energy density and the formation time ($\epsilon_{B_j}\tau$) as a function of centrality Npart. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Estimate of the product of the Bjorken energy density and the formation time ($\epsilon_{B_j}\tau$) as a function of centrality Npart. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K+/π+ and K−/π− ratios as a function of the collision energy in pp and central heavy-ion collisions.

The K+/K− ratio as a function of the collision energy in central heavy-ion collisions.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of the number of participants Npart in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of the number of participants Npart in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of the number of participants Npart in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of dNπ/dy/S⊥ in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of dNπ/dy/S⊥ in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of dNπ/dy/S⊥ in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Baryon chemical potential extracted for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

The extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

The extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

The extracted kinetic freeze-out temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Average transverse radial flow velocity extracted from the blast-wave model for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Phase diagram plot of chemical freezeout temperature versus baryon chemical potential extracted from chemical equilibrium models. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Phase diagram plot of chemical freezeout temperature versus baryon chemical potential extracted from chemical equilibrium models. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Differential cross-sections obtained from the optical and MC Glauber calculations for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Statistical errors are smaller than the point size.

Differential cross-sections obtained from the optical and MC Glauber calculations for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Statistical errors are smaller than the point size.

(Color online) Dynamical net charge fluctuations, $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, of particles produced with pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ < 0.5 scaled by (a) the multiplicity, $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. The dashed line corresponds to charge conservation effect and the solid line to the prediction for a resonance gas, (b) the number of participants, and (c) the number of binary collisions.

(Color online) Dynamical net charge fluctuations, $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, of particles produced with pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ < 0.5 scaled by (a) the multiplicity, $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. The dashed line corresponds to charge conservation effect and the solid line to the prediction for a resonance gas, (b) the number of participants, and (c) the number of binary collisions.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, normalized to their value for |$\eta$| < 1, as function of the integrated pseudorapidity range. (a) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-5%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (30-40%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ collision data at $\sqrt{}s$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, normalized to their value for |$\eta$| < 1, as function of the integrated pseudorapidity range. (a) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-5%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (30-40%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ collision data at $\sqrt{}s$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, as a function of the integrated azimuthal range $\phi$ for selected collision centralities for (a) $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, as a function of the integrated azimuthal range $\phi$ for selected collision centralities for (a) $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, as a function of the integrated azimuthal range $\phi$ for similar number of participating nucleons for $Au + Au$ and $Cu + Cu$ $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Charged particle $v_1(\eta)$ for 40-80 % centrality in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV.

Charged particle $v_1(p_t)$ in 200 GeV Au+Au for three centralities and two pseudorapidity ranges.

Charged particle $v_1(\eta)$ for mid-central (30-60%) Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV.

Charged particle $v_1$ versus centrality for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV in two pseudorapidity ranges.

Charged particle $v_1$ versus $\eta-y_{beam}$, for 30 − 60% Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV.

Charged particle $v_1$ versus $\eta-y_{beam}$, for 30 − 60% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Charged particle $v_1$ versus $\eta-y_{beam}$, for 30 − 60% Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

Charged particle $v_1$ versus $\eta-y_{beam}$, for 30 − 60% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV.

FIG. 1: (a) Raw two-particle correlation signal $Y_2$ (red), background $aB_{inc}F_2$ (solid histogram), and background systematic uncertainty from a (dashed histograms). (b) Background-subtracted two-particle correlation $\hat{Y}_2$ (red), and systematic uncertainties due to a (dashed histograms) and flow (blue histograms). (c) Raw three-particle correlation $Y_3$. (d) $ba^2Y_{inc}^2$ . (e) Sum of trig-corr-bkgd and trigger flow. Data are from 12% central Au+Au collisions. Statistical errors in (a,b) are smaller than the point size.

FIG. 1: (a) Raw two-particle correlation signal $Y_2$ (red), background $aB_{inc}F_2$ (solid histogram), and background systematic uncertainty from a (dashed histograms). (b) Background-subtracted two-particle correlation $\hat{Y}_2$ (red), and systematic uncertainties due to a (dashed histograms) and flow (blue histograms). (c) Raw three-particle correlation $Y_3$. (d) $ba^2Y_{inc}^2$ . (e) Sum of trig-corr-bkgd and trigger flow. Data are from 12% central Au+Au collisions. Statistical errors in (a,b) are smaller than the point size.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

Projections of away-side three-particle correlations along the diagonal $\Sigma$ within 0 < $\Delta$ < 0.35 (squares) and along the off-diagonal $\Delta$ within |$\Sigma$| < 0.35 (points) in (a) d+Au and (b) 12% central Au+Au collisions. The shaded areas indicate systematic uncertainties on the off-diagonal projections. The histogram in (a) is the near-side off-diagonal projection. The histogram in (b) is the away-side off-diagonal projection of our result with a = b = 1. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Projections of away-side three-particle correlations along the diagonal $\Sigma$ within 0 < $\Delta$ < 0.35 (squares) and along the off-diagonal $\Delta$ within |$\Sigma$| < 0.35 (points) in (a) d+Au and (b) 12% central Au+Au collisions. The shaded areas indicate systematic uncertainties on the off-diagonal projections. The histogram in (a) is the near-side off-diagonal projection. The histogram in (b) is the away-side off-diagonal projection of our result with a = b = 1. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Three-particle correlation strength per radian$^2$ versus ($N_{part}$/2)$^{1/3}$ where $N_{part}$ is the number of participants. Some of the data points have been displaced in $N_{part}$ for clarity.

Delta++ reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of the invariant mass for minimum bias d+Au collisions. The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Delta++ reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of the invariant mass for p+p collisions. The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Lambda* reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of pT for minimum bias d+Au collisions. The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Sigma*+- reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of pT for minimum bias d+Au collisions. The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Sigma*+- reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of pT for d+Au at 40-100% centrality. The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Sigma*+- reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of pT for d+Au at 20-40% centrality . The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Sigma*+- reconstruction efficiency times detector acceptance as a function of pT for d+Au at 0-20% centrality . The error shown is due to the available statistics in the simulation.

Raw pi+pi- invariant mass distribution at midrapidity after subtraction of the like-sign reference distribution for minimum bias d+Au collisions with the hadronic cocktail fit.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+A at 0-20 % centrality.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+A at 20-40 % centrality.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+A at 40-100 % centrality.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+A collisions.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for p+p collisions.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for high multiplicity p+p collisions.

rho0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Invariant pi+pi- mass distribution after background subtraction for minimum bias p+p collisions measured by NA27.

Mixed-event background subtracted K pi raw invariant mass distribution for a particular K*0 pT bin at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au interactions.

Mixed-event background subtracted KS*0 pi raw invariant mass distribution integrated over nvariant mass distribution for a particular K*+- pT bin at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au interactions.

K*0 mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

K*+- mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

K*0 width as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

K*+- width as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Mixed-event background subtracted p pi raw invariant mass distribution for a particular pT bin at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au interactions.

Mixed-event background subtracted p pi raw invariant mass distribution for a particular pT bin at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias p+p collisions.

Delta++ mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Delta++ width as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Delta++ mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias p+p collisions.

Delta++ width as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias p+p collisions.

Mixed-event background subtracted Lambda pi raw invariant mass distribution integrated over the Sigma* pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au interactions.

Mixed-event background subtracted p K raw invariant mass distribution integrated over the Lambda* pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au interactions.

Sigma* mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.75 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Lambda* mass as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Lambda* width as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

rho0 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 40-100% centrality.

rho0 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 20-40% centrality.

rho0 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 0-20% centrality.

rho0 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

(K*0+K*0bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

(K*0+K*0bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 0-20% centrality.

(K*0 + K*0bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 20-40% centrality.

(K*0 + K*0bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 40-100% centrality.

(K*+ + K*-)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

(K*+ +K*-)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 0-20% centrality.

(K*+ +K*-)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 20-40% centrality.

(K*+ +K*-)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 40-100% centrality.

(Delta++ + Delta--bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

(Delta++ + Delta--bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 0-20% centrality.

(Delta++ + Delta--bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 20-40% centrality.

(Delta++ + Delta--bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 40-100% centrality.

(Delta++ + Delta--bar)/2 invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias p+p collisions. The errors shown also include the systematic uncertainties.

Sigma* invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for minimum bias d+Au collisions.

Sigma* invariant yields as a function of pT at |y| < 0.5 for d+Au collisions at 0-20% centrality.