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.

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

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $m_{\rm ee}$ for $p_{\rm T,ee} < 0.1$ GeV/$c$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$.

Differential $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.4 $< m_{\rm ee} < 0.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$.

Differential $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.7 $< m_{\rm ee} < 1.1$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p_{\rm T,ee}$ for 1.1 $< m_{\rm ee} < 2.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p^{2}_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.4 $< m_{\rm ee} < 0.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p^{2}_{\rm T,ee}$ for 0.7 $< m_{\rm ee} < 1.1$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$. The quoted upper limits correspond to a 90% confidence level.

Differential excess $e^+e^-$ yield in 70--90\% Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV as a function of $p^{2}_{\rm T,ee}$ for 1.1 $< m_{\rm ee} < 2.7$ GeV/$c^{\rm 2}$. Electrons are measured within $|\eta_{\rm e}| < 0.8$ and $p_{\rm T,e} > 0.2$ GeV/$c$.

Dependence of $\overline{p}$-$\overline{d}$ correlation on pseudorapidity acceptance of $\overline{p}$ and $\overline{d}$ selection in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Results are for 20.0--30.0$\%$ collision centrality.

Dependence of $\overline{p}$-$\overline{d}$ correlation on pseudorapidity acceptance of $\overline{p}$ and $\overline{d}$ selection in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. Results are for 50.0--60.0$\%$ collision centrality.

Fig. 6b: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Away and Toward regions after the subtraction of Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ distributions in the transverse region for p-Pb collisions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. 7a: $<p_{\rm T}>$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Toward (left) and Away (right) regions after the subtraction of transverse region for pp collisions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. 7b: $<p_{\rm T}>$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Toward (left) and Away (right) regions after the subtraction of transverse region for p-Pb collisions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A1: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.15 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A2: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 1.0 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A3: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 0.15 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Fig. A4: Number density $N_{\rm ch}$ (left) and $\Sigma p_{\rm T}$ (right) distributions as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm trig}$ in Transverse, Away, and Toward regions for $p_{\rm T} >$ 1.0 GeV/$c$. The shaded areas and the error bars around the data points represent the systematic and statistical uncertainties, respectively.

Two-particle correlations $c_{1}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a rapidity separation and high-$p_{\textrm{T}}$ constraint: $\Delta \eta > 2$, $p_{\textrm{T}}$ > 0.5 GeV. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a rapidity separation: $\Delta \eta > 2$. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a high-$p_{\textrm{T}}$ constraint: $p_{\textrm{T}}$ > 0.5 GeV. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Two-particle correlations $c_{2}\{2\}$ versus $Q^2$ with a rapidity separation and high-$p_{\textrm{T}}$ constraint: $\Delta \eta > 2$, $p_{\textrm{T}}$ > 0.5 GeV. Photoproduction data are shown at $Q^2$ = 0 GeV$^2$, while NC DIS is for $Q^2$ > 5 GeV$^2$.

Normalised charged-particle multiplicity distribution $dN/dN_{\textrm{ch}}$ in photoproduction.

Normalised charged-particle transverse momentum distribution $dN/dp_{\textrm{T}}$ in photoproduction.

Normalised charged-particle pseudorapidity distribution $dN/d\eta$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_1\{2\}$ versus $|\Delta \eta|$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_2\{2\}$ versus $|\Delta \eta|$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_1\{2\}$ versus $\left< p_{\textrm{T}} \right>$ in photoproduction.

Two-particle correlations $c_2\{2\}$ versus $\left< p_{\textrm{T}} \right>$ in photoproduction.

Four-particle cumulant correlations $c_1\{4\}$ versus $p_{T,1}$ in photoproduction.

Four-particle cumulant correlations $c_2\{4\}$ versus $p_{T,1}$ in photoproduction.

HERA combined reduced cross sections $\sigma_{r,\rm NC}^{+}$ for NC $e^{+}p$ scattering at $\sqrt{s} = 225$ GeV; $\delta_{\rm stat}$, $\delta_{\rm uncor}$ and $\delta_{\rm cor}$ represent the statistical, uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematic uncertainties, respectively; $\delta_{\rm rel}$, $\delta_{\gamma p}$, $\delta_{\rm had}$ and $\delta_{1}$ to $\delta_{4}$ are the correlated sources of uncertainties arising from the combination procedure. The uncertainties are quoted in percent relative to $\sigma_{r,\rm NC}^{+}$.

HERA combined reduced cross sections $\sigma_{r,\rm NC}^{-}$ for NC $e^{-}p$ scattering at $\sqrt{s} = 318$ GeV; $\delta_{\rm stat}$, $\delta_{\rm uncor}$ and $\delta_{\rm cor}$ represent the statistical, uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematic uncertainties, respectively; $\delta_{\rm rel}$, $\delta_{\gamma p}$, $\delta_{\rm had}$ and $\delta_{1}$ to $\delta_{4}$ are the correlated sources of uncertainties arising from the combination procedure. The uncertainties are quoted in percent relative to $\sigma_{r,\rm NC}^{-}$.

HERA combined reduced cross sections $\sigma_{r,\rm CC}^{+}$ for CC $e^{+}p$ scattering at $\sqrt{s} = 318$ GeV; $\delta_{\rm stat}$, $\delta_{\rm uncor}$ and $\delta_{\rm cor}$ represent the statistical, uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematic uncertainties, respectively; $\delta_{\rm rel}$, $\delta_{\gamma p}$, $\delta_{\rm had}$ and $\delta_{1}$ to $\delta_{4}$ are the correlated sources of uncertainties arising from the combination procedure. The uncertainties are quoted in percent relative to $\sigma_{r,\rm CC}^{+}$.

HERA combined reduced cross sections $\sigma_{r,\rm CC}^{-}$ for CC $e^{-}p$ scattering at $\sqrt{s} = 318$ GeV; $\delta_{\rm stat}$, $\delta_{\rm uncor}$ and $\delta_{\rm cor}$ represent the statistical, uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematic uncertainties, respectively; $\delta_{\rm rel}$, $\delta_{\gamma p}$, $\delta_{\rm had}$ and $\delta_{1}$ to $\delta_{4}$ are the correlated sources of uncertainties arising from the combination procedure. The uncertainties are quoted in percent relative to $\sigma_{r,\rm CC}^{-}$.

Structure function $xF_3^{\gamma Z}$ for different values of $Q^2$ and $x_{\rm Bj}$.

Structure function $xF_3^{\gamma Z}$ averaged over $Q^2 \ge 1000$ GeV$^2$ at the scale 1000 GeV$^2$.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.200-1.250 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.250-1.300 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.300-1.350 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.350-1.400 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.400-1.450 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.450-1.500 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.500-1.550 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.550-1.600 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.600-1.650 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.650-1.700 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.700-1.800 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.800-1.900 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.900-2.000 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.125-1.150 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.150-1.175 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.175-1.20 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.200-1.250 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.250-1.300 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.300-1.350 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.350-1.400 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.400-1.450 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.450-1.500 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.500-1.550 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.550-1.600 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.600-1.650 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.650-1.700 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.700-1.800 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.800-1.900 GeV.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.900-2.000 GeV.

Total cross-section as a function of the incident photon energy for $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton obtained from exclusive and inclusive analysis$.

Slope parameter and horizontal level from the fits to the differential cross-sections $d\sigma/dt$ for $\omega$ mesons produced off the free proton.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.158-1.208 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.208-1.233 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.233-1.258 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.258-1.308 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.308-1.358 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.358-1.408 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.408-1.508 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.508-1.608 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.608-1.708 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.708-1.808 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.808-1.908 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.908-2.008 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.158-1.208 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.208-1.233 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.233-1.258 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.258-1.308 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.308-1.358 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.358-1.408 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.408-1.508 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.508-1.608 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.608-1.708 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.708-1.808 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.808-1.908 GeV.

Differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.908-2.008 GeV.

Slope parameter and horizontal level from the fits to the differential cross-sections $d\sigma/dt$ for $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton.

Slope parameter and horizontal level from the fits to the differential cross-sections $d\sigma/dt$ for $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound neutron.

Inclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.158-1.208 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.208-1.233 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.233-1.258 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.258-1.308 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.308-1.358 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.358-1.408 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.408-1.508 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.508-1.608 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.608-1.708 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.708-1.808 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.808-1.908 GeV.

Inlusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off deuterium versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.908-2.008 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.158-1.208 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.208-1.233 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.233-1.258 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.258-1.308 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.308-1.358 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.358-1.408 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.408-1.508 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.508-1.608 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.608-1.708 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.708-1.808 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.808-1.908 GeV.

Sum of the exclusive differential cross-sections of $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton and off the bound neutron versus $\cos(\theta^\omega_{\mathrm{c.m.}})$ and versus the momentum transfer to the nucleon, $t$, for incident photon energy $E_\gamma$ = 1.908-2.008 GeV.

Total cross-section as a function of the incident photon energy for $\omega$ mesons produced off the bound proton $\sigma_p^{\mathrm{bound}}$, off the bound neutron $\sigma_n^{\mathrm{bound}}$, the sum of the two exclusive cross-sections $\sigma_p^{\mathrm{bound}}+\sigma_n^{\mathrm{bound}}$, the quasi-free inclusive cross-section $\sigma_{\mathrm{incl}}$ and the cross-section off the neutron calculated by $\sigma_{\mathrm{incl}}-\sigma_p^{\mathrm{bound}}$.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\sigma^2/M$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions. The error bars are statistical and the caps represent systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions. The error bars are statistical and the caps represent systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions. The error bars are statistical and the caps represent systematic errors.

e+ e− invariant mass spectrum from $\sqrt{s_{{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV Au + Au minimum bias (0%–80%) collisions compared to a hadronic cocktail simulation.

Mass spectrum of the excess (data minus cocktail) in the low mass region compared to model calculations. Green brackets depict the total systematic uncertainties including those from cocktails. Systematic errors are highly correlated across all data points.

Integrated dielectron yields in the mass regions of 0.30-0.76 (rho-like), 0.76-0.80 (omega-like), and 0.98-1.05 (phi-like) GeV/c^2 compared to hadronic cocktails within the STAR acceptance as a function of centrality.

Integrated dielectron yields in the mass regions of 0.30-0.76 (rho-like), 0.76-0.80 (omega-like), and 0.98-1.05 (phi-like) GeV/c^2 compared to hadronic cocktails within the STAR acceptance as a function of dielectron $p_T$.

Yields scaled by Npart for the rho-like region with cocktail subtracted, the omega-like and phi-like regions without subtraction as a function of Npart.

Dielectron mass spectra scaled with Npart from minimum bias (0%–80%) collisions.

Dielectron mass spectra scaled with Npart from central (0%–10%) collisions.

The ratio of Npart scaled dielectron yields between the central and minimum bias collisions.

$R_{dAu}$ vs. $y$.

Comparison of our d+Au measurements to the pA measurements from E772. Ratio of $\Upsilon$ production in pA to pp scaled by mass number as a function of mass number. Shown are the 1S and 2S+3S $\Upsilon$ measurements from E772 and our 1S measurement.

Comparison of our d+Au measurements to the pA measurements from E772. Exponent $\alpha$ as a function of $x_{F}$.

Invariant mass distributions of electron pairs in the region $|y_{ee}| < 1.0$ for the centrality selections $30-60\%$.

Invariant mass distributions of electron pairs in the region $|y_{ee}| < 1.0$ for the centrality selections $10-30\%$.

Invariant mass distributions of electron pairs in the region $|y_{ee}| < 1.0$ for the centrality selections $0-10\%$.

Nuclear modification factor for $\Upsilon$(1S+2S+3S), in $|y| < 1.0$ in d+Au and Au+Au collisions as a function of $N_{part}$.

Nuclear modification factor for $\Upsilon$(1S+2S+3S), in $|y| < 0.5$, in d+Au and Au+Au collisions as a function of $N_{part}$.

Nuclear modification factor for $\Upsilon$(1S) in $|y| < 1.0$, in d+Au and Au+Au collisions as a function of $N_{part}$.

Nuclear modification factor for $\Upsilon$(1S) in $|y| < 0.5$, in d+Au and Au+Au collisions as a function of $N_{part}$.

Nuclear modification factor of quarkonium states as a function of binding energy as measured by STAR.

Total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $2 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 3$ GeV/c

Total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $3 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 4$ GeV/c

Total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $4 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 6$ GeV/c

Different contributions to total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $2 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 3$ GeV/c

Different contributions to total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $3 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 4$ GeV/c

Different contributions to total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $4 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 6$ GeV/c

Corrected cos$\theta$ distribution for $2 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 3$ GeV/c

Corrected cos$\theta$ distribution for $3 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 4$ GeV/c

Corrected cos$\theta$ distribution for $4 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 6$ GeV/c

$J/\psi$ polarization parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$ as a function of $J/\psi$ $p_{T}$ for rapidity |y|<1

The invariant yield versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 in 0-60% centrality in Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The results are compared to high-$p_T$ (3 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results from STAR [9] (solid squares) and PHENIX data [8] (open squares). Also shown is the yield in 0-60% centrality Cu+Cu collisions for low $p_T$ (solid triangles) and high $p_T$ [48] (open triangles). The models are described in the text [49, 50]. The $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions is also shown at STAR (stars) and PHENIX [51] (diamonds), and the scale is indicated on the right axis.

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 0-60% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 0-20% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 20-40% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 40-60% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield and nuclear modification factor as a function of centrality for |y| < 1 in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield $Bd^2N/(2\pi p_Tdydp_T) [(GeV/c)^{-2}]$ and nuclear modification factor as a function of transverse momentum for |y| < 1 in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield and nuclear modification factor for |y| < 1 in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Delta N_p$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=27$ GeV for 0-5 percent, 30-40 percent and 70-80 percent collision centralities at midrapidity.

$\Delta N_p$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=39$ GeV for 0-5 percent, 30-40 percent and 70-80 percent collision centralities at midrapidity.

$\Delta N_p$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV for 0-5 percent, 30-40 percent and 70-80 percent collision centralities at midrapidity.

$\Delta N_p$ multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=200$ GeV for 0-5 percent, 30-40 percent and 70-80 percent collision centralities at midrapidity.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=27$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=39$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of the cumulants of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=27$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=39$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$/Skellam and $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Collision energy and centrality dependence of the net-proton $S\sigma$ and $\kappa\sigma^2$ from Au+Au and p+p collisions at RHIC.

Collision energy and centrality dependence of the net-proton $S\sigma$ and $\kappa\sigma^2$ from Au+Au and p+p collisions at RHIC.

Collision energy and centrality dependence of the net-proton $S\sigma$ and $\kappa\sigma^2$ from Au+Au and p+p collisions at RHIC.

Collision energy and centrality dependence of the net-proton $S\sigma$ and $\kappa\sigma^2$ from Au+Au and p+p collisions at RHIC.

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=27$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=39$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of net-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=200$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=27$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=39$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=200$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=27$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=39$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Cumulants of anti-proton distribution at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}=200$ GeV. (efficiency corrected).

Comparison of data to Monte Carlo for the distributions of two-photon invariant mass (left) and energy for the higher (center) and lower (right) energy photon.

Invariant mass distribution for the two-photon system with 7 < pT < 8 GeV/c.

Signal fractions calculated within the “peak region” of 0.1 < $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 0.2 $GeV/c^{2}$. Fractions for the full dataset as well as the subsets of longitudinal and transverse polarizations are shown as a function of pT (left), and the fractions for the transversely polarized data are shown as a function of $x_{F}$ integrated over 5 < pT < 12 GeV/c (right).

Signal fractions calculated within the “peak region” of 0.1 < $M_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 0.2 $GeV/c^{2}$. Fractions for the full dataset as well as the subsets of longitudinal and transverse polarizations are shown as a function of pT (left), and the fractions for the transversely polarized data are shown as a function of $x_{F}$ integrated over 5 < pT < 12 GeV/c (right).

Upper panel, the $\pi^{0}$ cross section (blue markers) is shown compared with an NLO pQCD cal- culation with three options for the scale parameter. The lower panel presents the ratio of the data to the pT-scale theory curve, as well as the ratio of the 2pT-scale and pT/2-scale theory curves to the pT-scale curve.

Upper panel, the $\pi^{0}$ cross section (blue markers) is shown compared with an NLO pQCD cal- culation with three options for the scale parameter. The lower panel presents the ratio of the data to the pT-scale theory curve, as well as the ratio of the 2pT-scale and pT/2-scale theory curves to the pT-scale curve.

The ALL results (blue markers) are presented with the DSSV prediction and the GRSV prediction using the best fit to polarized DIS ($\Delta$ g = std) and the maximum and minimum allowed values for gluon polarization.

The ALL results (blue markers) are presented with the DSSV prediction and the GRSV prediction using the best fit to polarized DIS ($\Delta$ g = std) and the maximum and minimum allowed values for gluon polarization.

The ALL results (blue markers) are presented with the DSSV prediction and the GRSV prediction using the best fit to polarized DIS ($\Delta$ g = std) and the maximum and minimum allowed values for gluon polarization.

The AN results are plotted versus $x_{F}$ integrated over 5 < pT < 12 GeV/c (left panel) and versus pT integrated over 0.06 < |$x_{F}$| < 0.27 (right panel).

The AN results are plotted versus $x_{F}$ integrated over 5 < pT < 12 GeV/c (left panel) and versus pT integrated over 0.06 < |$x_{F}$| < 0.27 (right panel).

The AN results are plotted versus $x_{F}$ integrated over 5 < pT < 12 GeV/c (left panel) and versus pT integrated over 0.06 < |x_{F}| < 0.27 (right panel).

The AN results are plotted versus $x_{F}$ integrated over 5 < pT < 12 GeV/c (left panel) and versus pT integrated over 0.06 < |$x_{F}$| < 0.27 (right panel).

The correlation differences $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle=\delta\langle A^{2}_{UD}\rangle-\delta\langle A^{2}_{ LR}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle=\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}-\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$ as a function of $p_{T}$. The data are from 20-40% central (upper) and 0-20% central (lower) Au+Au collisions.

The charge asymmetry correlations $\delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ (left panels) and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (center panels), and correlation differences $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle=\delta\langle A^{2}_{ UD}\rangle-\delta\langle A^{2}_{ LR}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle=\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}-\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$ (right panels), as a function of the azimuthal elliptic anisotropy of high-$p_{T}$ ($p_{T}>2$~GeV/$c$) particles (upper panels) and low-$p_{T}$ ($p_{T}<2$~GeV/$c$) particles (lower panels). Data are from 20-40% Au+Au collisions. The particle $p_{T}$ range of $0.15<p_{T}<2$~GeV/$c$ is used for both EP construction and asymmetry calculation.

The charge asymmetry correlations $\delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ (left panels) and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (center panels), and correlation differences $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle=\delta\langle A^{2}_{ UD}\rangle-\delta\langle A^{2}_{ LR}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle=\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}-\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$ (right panels), as a function of the azimuthal elliptic anisotropy of high-$p_{T}$ ($p_{T}>2$~GeV/$c$) particles (upper panels) and low-$p_{T}$ ($p_{T}<2$~GeV/$c$) particles (lower panels). Data are from 20-40% Au+Au collisions. The particle $p_{T}$ range of $0.15<p_{T}<2$~GeV/$c$ is used for both EP construction and asymmetry calculation.

The wedge size dependences of charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations (upper panel), and their differences between out-of-plane and in-plane, $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (lower panel) for 20-40% central Au+Au collisions.

The wedge size dependences of charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations (upper panel), and their differences between out-of-plane and in-plane, $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (lower panel) for 20-40% central Au+Au collisions.

Charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations as a function of the wedge location, $\phi_{ w}$, in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. The wedge size is $30^{\circ}$. The curves are the characteristic $\cos(2\phi_{ w}$) to guide the eye.

The wedge size dependence of the difference between the same-sign and opposite-sign, $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$.

The values of $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$, scaled by $N_{part}$, as a function of the measured average elliptic anisotropy $<v^{obs}_{2}}>$ in Au+Au collisions. The centrality bin number is labeled by each data point, 0 for 70-80% up to 8 for 0-5%.

$\Delta=\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$, the event-by-event elliptical anisotropy of particle distributions relative to the second-harmonic event plane reconstructed from TPC tracks (left panel) and the first harmonic event plane reconstructed from the ZDC-SMD neutron signals (middle panel), in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. Right panel: Average $\Delta$ for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ relative to the TPC event plane as a function of centrality.

$\Delta=\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$, the event-by-event elliptical anisotropy of particle distributions relative to the second-harmonic event plane reconstructed from TPC tracks (left panel) and the first harmonic event plane reconstructed from the ZDC-SMD neutron signals (middle panel), in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. Right panel: Average $\Delta$ for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ relative to the TPC event plane as a function of centrality.

$\Delta=\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$, the event-by-event elliptical anisotropy of particle distributions relative to the second-harmonic event plane reconstructed from TPC tracks (left panel) and the first harmonic event plane reconstructed from the ZDC-SMD neutron signals (middle panel), in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. Right panel: Average $\Delta$ for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ relative to the TPC event plane as a function of centrality.

Left panel: $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ with a random EP in 20-40% Au+Au collisions. The lines depict the results with reconstructed EP lower right panel for comparison. Middle panel: The differences in $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ between the reconstructed EP and random EP results, respectively. Right panel: $\Delta=\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ with a random EP (open triangles).

Left panel: $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ with a random EP in 20-40% Au+Au collisions. The lines depict the results with reconstructed EP lower right panel for comparison. Middle panel: The differences in $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ between the reconstructed EP and random EP results, respectively. Right panel: $\Delta=\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ with a random EP (open triangles).

Left panel: $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ with a random EP in 20-40% Au+Au collisions. The lines depict the results with reconstructed EP lower right panel for comparison. Middle panel: The differences in $\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ and $\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ between the reconstructed EP and random EP results, respectively. Right panel: $\Delta=\Delta\langle A^{2}\rangle-\Delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ with a random EP (open triangles).

The correlation differences, $\langle A^{2}_{ LR}\rangle-\langle A^{2}_{ UD}\rangle$ and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}-\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$, scaled by the number of participants $(\pi/4)^2 N_{part}$. Also shown are $\langle \cos(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\phi_{c})\rangle/v_{2,c} \approx \langle \cos(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\psi_{ RP}) \rangle$ of same- and opposite-sign particle pairs ($\alpha$ and $\beta$) calculated from particles used for the charge asymmetry correlations with particle $c$ from those used for EP construction. The upper panel shows the default results where particles are divided according to $\eta$; the lower panel shows results with particles divided randomly into two halves and compared to published correlators.

The correlation differences, $\langle A^{2}_{ LR}\rangle-\langle A^{2}_{ UD}\rangle$ and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}-\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$, scaled by the number of participants $(\pi/4)^2 N_{part}$. Also shown are $\langle \cos(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\phi_{c})\rangle/v_{2,c} \approx \langle \cos(\phi_{\alpha}+\phi_{\beta}-2\psi_{ RP}) \rangle$ of same- and opposite-sign particle pairs ($\alpha$ and $\beta$) calculated from particles used for the charge asymmetry correlations with particle $c$ from those used for EP construction. The upper panel shows the default results where particles are divided according to $\eta$; the lower panel shows results with particles divided randomly into two halves and compared to published correlators.

Upper panel: Positively charged particle multiplicity distributions versus the azimuthal angle, $\phi$, in 30-40% central Au+Au collisions. The data are shown separately for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. The magnetic polarities of the STAR magnet have been summed and the $p_{T}$ is integrated over the range $0.15<p_{T}<2$~GeV/$c$. The inverse of these distributions, properly normalized, were used to correct for the track efficiency versus $\phi$. Lower panel: Reconstructed event-plane azimuthal angle distributions in 30-40% central Au+Au collisions. Particles within $0.15 < p_{T} < 2$~GeV/$c$ from $\eta<0$ and $\eta>0$ were used separately to reconstruct the EP.

Upper panel: Positively charged particle multiplicity distributions versus the azimuthal angle, $\phi$, in 30-40% central Au+Au collisions. The data are shown separately for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. The magnetic polarities of the STAR magnet have been summed and the $p_{T}$ is integrated over the range $0.15<p_{T}<2$~GeV/$c$. The inverse of these distributions, properly normalized, were used to correct for the track efficiency versus $\phi$. Lower panel: Reconstructed event-plane azimuthal angle distributions in 30-40% central Au+Au collisions. Particles within $0.15 < p_{T} < 2$~GeV/$c$ from $\eta<0$ and $\eta>0$ were used separately to reconstruct the EP.

The relative charge asymmetry correlations, $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}/\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$, as a function of the number of participants, $N_{part}$, for four combinations of $\eta$ ranges used for EP reconstruction and asymmetry calculation.

The asymmetry correlations, $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, before and after the corrections for the $\phi$-dependent acceptance $\times$ efficiency. The colored curves are the corresponding statistical fluctuations and detector effects. The results are separated for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. Only $\eta>0$ is shown for $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ and $\eta<0$ for $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ for clarity.

The asymmetry correlations, $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, before and after the corrections for the $\phi$-dependent acceptance $\times$ efficiency. The colored curves are the corresponding statistical fluctuations and detector effects. The results are separated for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. Only $\eta>0$ is shown for $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ and $\eta<0$ for $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ for clarity.

The asymmetry correlations, $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, before and after the corrections for the $\phi$-dependent acceptance $\times$ efficiency. The colored curves are the corresponding statistical fluctuations and detector effects. The results are separated for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. Only $\eta>0$ is shown for $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ and $\eta<0$ for $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ for clarity.

Left panel: Statistical fluctuation and detector effects in the charge asymmetry variance (multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$) from the $\eta<0$ region. The dotted curve shows the $1/N$ approximation, the dashed curve shows the statistical fluctuations $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat}}\rangle$ obtained by the (50-50) method (see the text). The solid curve connecting the solid points shows the net effect of the statistical fluctuations and detector non-uniformities, $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, obtained by the adding-$\pi$ method, and the crosses shows the same but obtained from the ``scramble'' method. See the text for details. Middle panel: The statistical fluctuation effects relative to the $1/N$ approximation (thin curves) and the effects due to the imperfect detector (thick curves). The dashed curves are for the region $\eta>0$ and the solid curves are for $\eta<0$. Right panel: The ratios of the statistical fluctuation and detector effects $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle/\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$ and $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD,stat+det}}\rangle/\langle A^{2}_{+,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, separately for the $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$ regions. The $\phi$-acceptance correction was applied for the results in this figure.

Left panel: Statistical fluctuation and detector effects in the charge asymmetry variance (multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$) from the $\eta<0$ region. The dotted curve shows the $1/N$ approximation, the dashed curve shows the statistical fluctuations $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat}}\rangle$ obtained by the (50-50) method (see the text). The solid curve connecting the solid points shows the net effect of the statistical fluctuations and detector non-uniformities, $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, obtained by the adding-$\pi$ method, and the crosses shows the same but obtained from the ``scramble'' method. See the text for details. Middle panel: The statistical fluctuation effects relative to the $1/N$ approximation (thin curves) and the effects due to the imperfect detector (thick curves). The dashed curves are for the region $\eta>0$ and the solid curves are for $\eta<0$. Right panel: The ratios of the statistical fluctuation and detector effects $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle/\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$ and $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD,stat+det}}\rangle/\langle A^{2}_{+,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, separately for the $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$ regions. The $\phi$-acceptance correction was applied for the results in this figure.

Left panel: Statistical fluctuation and detector effects in the charge asymmetry variance (multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$) from the $\eta<0$ region. The dotted curve shows the $1/N$ approximation, the dashed curve shows the statistical fluctuations $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat}}\rangle$ obtained by the (50-50) method (see the text). The solid curve connecting the solid points shows the net effect of the statistical fluctuations and detector non-uniformities, $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, obtained by the adding-$\pi$ method, and the crosses shows the same but obtained from the ``scramble'' method. See the text for details. Middle panel: The statistical fluctuation effects relative to the $1/N$ approximation (thin curves) and the effects due to the imperfect detector (thick curves). The dashed curves are for the region $\eta>0$ and the solid curves are for $\eta<0$. Right panel: The ratios of the statistical fluctuation and detector effects $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle/\langle A^{2}_{-,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$ and $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD,stat+det}}\rangle/\langle A^{2}_{+,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, separately for the $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$ regions. The $\phi$-acceptance correction was applied for the results in this figure.

The asymmetry correlations, $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, separately for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. The star and triangle depict the results from $d$+Au collisions. The net effects of the statistical fluctuations and detector non-uniformities are shown as the curves.

The asymmetry correlations, $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, separately for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. The star and triangle depict the results from $d$+Au collisions. The net effects of the statistical fluctuations and detector non-uniformities are shown as the curves.

The asymmetry correlations, $\langle A^{2}_{+,{ UD}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\langle A^{2}_{-,{ UD}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ UD}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, separately for $\eta>0$ and $\eta<0$. The star and triangle depict the results from $d$+Au collisions. The net effects of the statistical fluctuations and detector non-uniformities are shown as the curves.

The statistical and detector effect subtracted asymmetry correlations, $\delta\langle A^{2}_{+,0^{\circ}\pm\Delta\phi_{w}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\delta\langle A^{2}_{-,0^{\circ}\pm\Delta\phi_{w}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, before and after the corrections for the $\phi$-dependent acceptance $\times$ efficiency.

The statistical and detector effect subtracted asymmetry correlations, $\delta\langle A^{2}_{+,0^{\circ}\pm\Delta\phi_{w}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\delta\langle A^{2}_{-,0^{\circ}\pm\Delta\phi_{w}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, before and after the corrections for the $\phi$-dependent acceptance $\times$ efficiency.

The statistical and detector effect subtracted asymmetry correlations, $\delta\langle A^{2}_{+,0^{\circ}\pm\Delta\phi_{w}}\rangle$ (left panel), $\delta\langle A^{2}_{-,0^{\circ}\pm\Delta\phi_{w}}\rangle$ (middle panel), and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle_{ LR}$ (right panel), multiplied by the number of participants $N_{part}$, before and after the corrections for the $\phi$-dependent acceptance $\times$ efficiency.

Dynamical charge asymmetry variance after removing the statistical and detector effects, $\delta\langle A^{2}_{\pm,{ LR}}\rangle=\langle A^{2}_{\pm,{ LR}}\rangle-\langle A^{2}_{\pm,{ LR,stat+det}}\rangle$, scaled by the number of participants $N_{part}$. The results are consistent between positive and negative $\eta$ regions and between positive and negative charges.

The second-harmonic event-plane resolution of sub-events ($\eta<0$ and $\eta>0$) as a function of the number of participants.

Charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations, $\delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ (left panel) and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (middle panel), and their differences between UD\ and LR\ (right panel) as a function of the event-plane resolution $\epsilon_{ EP}(f)=\sqrt{\mean{\cos2(\psi_{{ EP},\eta>0}(f)-\psi_{{ EP},\eta<0}(f))}}$ in 20-30% central Au+Au collisions. The solid lines are free linear fits to the data, while the dashed lines are linear fits with the intercept fixed to zero at $\epsilon_{ EP}(f)=0$.

Charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations, $\delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ (left panel) and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (middle panel), and their differences between UD\ and LR\ (right panel) as a function of the event-plane resolution $\epsilon_{ EP}(f)=\sqrt{\mean{\cos2(\psi_{{ EP},\eta>0}(f)-\psi_{{ EP},\eta<0}(f))}}$ in 20-30% central Au+Au collisions. The solid lines are free linear fits to the data, while the dashed lines are linear fits with the intercept fixed to zero at $\epsilon_{ EP}(f)=0$.

TCharge multiplicity asymmetry correlations, $\delta\langle A^{2}\rangle$ (left panel) and $\delta\langle A_{+}A_{-}\rangle$ (middle panel), and their differences between UD\ and LR\ (right panel) as a function of the event-plane resolution $\epsilon_{ EP}(f)=\sqrt{\mean{\cos2(\psi_{{ EP},\eta>0}(f)-\psi_{{ EP},\eta<0}(f))}}$ in 20-30% central Au+Au collisions. The solid lines are free linear fits to the data, while the dashed lines are linear fits with the intercept fixed to zero at $\epsilon_{ EP}(f)=0$.

The TPC second-harmonic (upper left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (upper right) event-plane resolution as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. The TPC second-harmonic (lower left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (lower right) event-plane resolution for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ as a function of centrality.

The TPC second-harmonic (upper left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (upper right) event-plane resolution as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. The TPC second-harmonic (lower left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (lower right) event-plane resolution for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ as a function of centrality.

The TPC second-harmonic (upper left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (upper right) event-plane resolution as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. The TPC second-harmonic (lower left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (lower right) event-plane resolution for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ as a function of centrality.

The TPC second-harmonic (upper left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (upper right) event-plane resolution as a function of $v^{obs}_{2}$ in 20-40% central Au+Au collisions. The TPC second-harmonic (lower left) and ZDC-SMD first harmonic (lower right) event-plane resolution for events with $|v^{obs}_{2}|<0.04$ as a function of centrality.

Jet-hadron correlations after background subtraction. Shown with Gaussian fits to jet peaks and systematic uncertanty bands Au+Au(4-6 GeV).

Gaussian widths of the awayside jet peaks in p+p(10-15 GeV).

Gaussian widths of the awayside jet peaks in Au+Au(10-15 GeV).

Gaussian widths of the awayside jet peaks in p+p(20-40 GeV).

Gaussian widths of the awayside jet peaks in Au+Au(20-40 GeV).

Awayside momentum difference(DAA) shown for 10-15 GeV.