The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.

Data from Figure 2, panel b, U+U, 0-0.5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel a, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel b, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel c, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel d, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel e, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 3, panel f, 0-5% Centrality, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel a, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel a, U+U, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel b, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel b, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel c, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel c, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel d, Au+Au, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 4, panel d, U+U, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, standard method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel a, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, standard, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel b, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, 2subevent method, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, standard, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Data from Figure 5, panel c, Au+Au, difference, 0.2<p_{T}<3 GeV/c

Statistical correlation coefficients for double-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$) and the absolute rapidity of the outermost jet ($\left| y \right|_\text{max}$)

Double-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$) and the absolute rapidity of the outermost jet ($\left| y \right|_\text{max}$)

Electroweak corrections to double-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$) and the absolute rapidity of the outermost jet ($\left| y \right|_\text{max}$)

Nonperturbative corrections to double-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$) and the absolute rapidity of the outermost jet ($\left| y \right|_\text{max}$)

Statistical correlation coefficients for double-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$) and the absolute rapidity of the outermost jet ($\left| y \right|_\text{max}$)

Triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Electroweak corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Nonperturbative corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Statistical correlation coefficients for triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Electroweak corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Nonperturbative corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Statistical correlation coefficients for triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet invariant mass ($m_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Electroweak corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Nonperturbative corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Statistical correlation coefficients for triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Electroweak corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Nonperturbative corrections to triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Statistical correlation coefficients for triple-differential dijet cross section for anti-$k_\text{T}$ jets with R = 0.8 as a function of the dijet average transverse momentum ($\langle p_\text{T} \rangle_{1,2}$), the total boost of dijet system ($y_\text{b}$), and the absolute rapidity separation of the two jets ($y^*$)

Correlation matrix associated to the statistical covariance matrix of the data and MC for the primary Lund jet plane density for AK8 jets in a one-dimensional representation with bin indices. The mapping between the bin indices and the physical binning can be imported from the XML file attached to this HepData record using the TUnfoldBinningXML class of ROOT (qualitatively, it corresponds to slicing the Lund plane horizontally from low kT to high kT).

Numerical data for $(K^+ + K^-)/2$ from Figure 1.

Numerical data for $K^0_S$ from Figure 2.

Numerical data for $K^0_S$ from Figure 2.

Numerical data for $(K^+ + K^-)/2$ from Figure 2.

Numerical data for $(K^+ + K^-)/2$ from Figure 2.

Numerical data for $K^0_S$ lifetime from Figure 6.

Numerical data for $K^0_S$ lifetime from Figure 6.

Numerical data for $K^0_S$ $y$-$p_T$ spectrum from Figure 7.

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 12