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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Acceptance in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

Efficiency in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

Total systematic and theoretical signal uncertainty in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

The observed CLS values in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

The number of generated GMSB signal events in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

The total signal production cross section in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane in pb Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

Expected 95% C.L. exclusion limits in the Mmess = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu > 0, Cgrav = 1 slice of GMSB in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane.

Observed 95% C.L. exclusion limits in the Mmess = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu > 0, Cgrav = 1 slice of GMSB in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits in the gluino to ttbar neutralino simplified model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits in the gluino to ttbar neutralino simplified model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits in the MSSM 24 parameter considering only gluino to stop_1+top with stop_1 to b+chargino.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits in the MSSM 24 parameter considering only gluino to stop_1+top with stop_1 to b+chargino.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits in the mSUGRA/CMSSM(m_0,M_1/2) plane for tan(beta)=10,A=0 and mu>0 model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits in the mSUGRA/CMSSM(m_0,M_1/2) plane for tan(beta)=10,A=0 and mu>0 model.

The Fourier coefficient V_n,n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| for individual n values.

The Fourier coefficient V_n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| from the 2PC anaysis for individual n values from 2 to n.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.

The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 0 TO 5%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 5 TO 10%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 10 TO 20%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 20 TO 30%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 30 TO 40%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 40 TO 50%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 50 TO 60%.

V_n vs PT for centrality 60 TO 70%.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 1 TO 2 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 2 TO 3 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 3 TO 4 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 4 TO 8 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 8 TO 12 GeV.

V_n vs Centrality for PT 12 TO 20 GeV.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.

2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.

V_nn vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

correlation funcitons in various pT bins.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.

v_{1} vs pT for different centrality selections, Figure 21.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.

Acceptance in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 2 btags signal region with Meff > 700 GeV.

Acceptance in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 1 btag signal region with Meff > 900 GeV.

Acceptance in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 2 btags signal region with Meff > 900 GeV.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 1 btag signal region with Meff > 500 GeV.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 2 btags signal region with Meff > 500 GeV.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 1 btag signal region with Meff > 700 GeV.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 2 btags signal region with Meff > 700 GeV.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 1 btag signal region with Meff > 900 GeV.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model for the 2 btags signal region with Meff > 900 GeV.

The GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gbb model showning which of the six signal regions results in the best expected limit at each point. At each point the signal region shown is used to construct the final limit.

Acceptance in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gtt model for the SR1-D signal regions.

Acceptance in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gtt model for the SR1-E signal regions.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gtt model for the SR1-D signal regions.

Efficiency in the GLUINO-NEUTRALINO plane in the Gtt model for the SR1-E signal regions.

Observed limit Obs.

Expected limit Exp.

Expected limit +1sigma Expu1s.

Figure 7 Expd1s.

Figure 7 Obs.

Figure 7 Exp.

Figure 7 Expu1s.

Figure 7 Expd1s.

.

Observed limit Obs.

Expected limit Exp.

Expected limit +1sigma Expu1s.

Expected limit +1sigma Expd1s.

Figure 9 Obs.

Figure 9 Exp.

Figure 9 Expu1s.

Figure 9 Expd1s.

Figure 9.

Figure 10 Obs.

Figure 10 Exp.

Figure 10 Expu1s.

Figure 10 Expd1s.

??.

??.

The corrected data for the power spectra S_ETA for the three different data samples at a centre-of-mass energy of 900 GeV.