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.

$\rho^0$ production cross section determined with the data set collected with trigger B, as a function of momentum transfer $t$, fitted with a double exponential fit function in the range $t < 0.1$. The statistical errors are shown. The ratio of incoherent to coherent cross sections is measured to be $0.20 \pm 0.8$. The fit parameters are shown in Table I.

Comparison of theoretical predictions to the measured total cross section for coherent $\rho^0$ production as a functionof $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ . The measured cross section is based on the dataset collected with trigger B. The error bars show the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. See text for details.

No description provided.

No description provided.

IN THE NUCLEON-NUCLEON CENTRE-OF-MASS SYSTEM.

IN THE NUCLEON-NUCLEON CENTRE-OF-MASS SYSTEM.

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 2. (Color online) Fit decomposition of the $46 \%-56 \%$ centrality data for 62 -GeV Au-Au collisions. The top panels show from left to right the corrected data, model fit, fit residuals (data - model), and same-side 2D Gaussian. The bottom panels similarly show the away-side azimuth dipole, the nonjet azimuth quadrupole, the 1D $\eta_{\Delta}$ Gaussian, and the 2D exponential. This centrality is just below the sharp transition at $v_{\text {trans }}=3$. Fit residuals (c) are scaled up eightfold relative to the data.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) 2D data histogram from $0 \%-5 \%$ central 200 GeV Au-Au collisions $[(0,0)$ bin suppressed]. (b) Additional model component fitted to the $2 \mathrm{D}$ histogram and consisting of an AS azimuth dipole modulated by function $F\left(\eta_{\Delta}\right)$ described in the text. (c) Fit residuals including the new model component. (d) Data histogram in the first panel minus the additional model component and fitted offset. Remaining structure is described accurately by an AS dipole and SS 2D Gaussian.

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 11. (Color online) (Left) Uncorrected angular correlations from 62-GeV $37 \%-46 \%$ central Au-Au collisions showing pileup distortions, especially evident as the W-shaped nonuniformity of the AS ridge on $\eta_{\Delta}$. (Right) The same data with pileup correction applied.

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.

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.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

Nucleus is average AG107/BR80 nucleus of BR-2 emulsion.

Nucleus is average AG107/BR80 nucleus of BR-2 emulsion.

FOR P< 1. GEV DATA FOR PROTONS WITH P < .7 WERE USED.

FOR P< 1. GEV DATA FOR PROTONS WITH P < .7 WERE USED.

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.

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$^2$.

Angular distributions of the photodisintegration cross section for angle between 130 and 160 degrees in the CM.

$\rho_{3}$ 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

The ratio of like-sign to mixed-event distributions in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of the difference of the azimuthal angles (∆φ) of the two electrons in the unlike-sign pairs in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of the difference of the azimuthal angles (∆φ) of the two electrons in the like-sign pairs in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of the difference of the azimuthal angles (∆φ) of the two electrons in the mix-event pairs in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of ∆φ of the two electrons in the unlike-sign pairs for Mee > 0.4 GeV/c^2 in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of ∆φ of the two electrons in the like-sign pairs for Mee > 0.4 GeV/c^2 in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The distribution of ∆φ of the two electrons in the mix-event pairs for Mee > 0.4 GeV/c^2 in minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The di-electron continuum after background subtraction with mixed-event method without efficiency correction in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The di-electron continuum after background subtraction with like-sign method without efficiency correction in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV minimum-bias p + p collisions.

The signal over background ratio, plotted as a function of Mee for NSD p + p collisions.

The comparison of the di-electron continuum between data and simulation after efficiency correction within the STAR acceptance in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200GeV NSD p + p collisions.

Data over cocktail ratio after efficiency correction within the STAR acceptance in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200GeV NSD p + p collisions.

The ω → $e^+ e^-$ invariant yield, divided by its B.R. in $\sqrt{s}$ = 200GeV NSD p + p collisions.

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.

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/$c$.

Model calculations of pion (left panel) and proton (right panel) $v_1$(y) for 10-70$\%$ $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. QGSM model presents the basic Quark-Gluon String model with parton recombination. Hydro model presents the hydrodynamic expansion from a tilted source (Please note that proton v1 in this figure is the same as in Figure 1 right).

Charged pions (solid stars), protons (solid circles) and antiprotons (solid squares) $v_1$(y) slope (d$v_1$/dy) at midrapidity as a function of centrality for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

Proton $v_1$($y^{\prime}$) slope (d$v_1$/d$y^{\prime}$) at midrapidity as a function of center of mass collision energy, where $y^{\prime} = y/y_{beam}$.

Elliptic flow versus $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV measured with the subevent method with a pseudorapidity gap of 0.3 units compared with previously published STAR results for 200 and 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu [27] measured with full TPC event plane method $v_{2}${TPC} and full FTPC event plane method $v_{2}${FTPC}. The error bars are statistical. Results are also compared to $v_{2}$($p_{T}$) model calculations.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}(\eta)$ for charged hadrons fromCu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV. The present STAR results are compared to the measurement from the PHOBOS [29] collaboration for Cu+Cu at 22.4 GeV. The PHOBOS results include statistical and systematic errors whereas the STAR results are plotted with statistical uncertainties only, and systematic errors are discussed in Section III C. Results are also compared to $v_{2}(\eta)$ calculations from the indicated models.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}${TPC} and $v_{2}${4} as a function of centrality for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0 − 60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV, compared with previously published results from the STAR collaboration at 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV.

Measured value of TT and LT polarized cross sections extracted from the data.

Values of r_04_00 and r_1_1-1 extracted from the angular distributions.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow,v_2, as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T, from 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for various particle species and energies.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected particles re plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< pT<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p__T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2 (p_T), in 0–80% central Au+Au collisions for selected anti-particles are plotted only for the transverse momentum range of 0.2< p_T<1.6 GeV/c to emphasize the mass ordering at low p_T.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged pions as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged kaons as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow, v_2, of charged koans as a function of the transverse momentum,p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions. Different ∆v_2 ranges were used for the upper and lower panels.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of p, $\overline{p}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au. collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.

The elliptic flow,v_2 of $\Xi^{-}$ and $\overline{\Xi^{+}}$ as a function of the transverse momentum, p_T,for 0–80% central Au+Au collisions.