$\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}\eta}\right\vert_{200\mathrm{Ge\!V}}\,/\,\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}\eta}\right\vert_{130\mathrm{Ge\!V}}$ versus $\eta$ for $x^{\pm}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for , per centrality

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $x^{\pm}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

Sample correlations in $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78) for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$ and reflected in the plot.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\eta$ ($|\Delta\phi|<$ 0.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\eta$.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu, 0-12% Au+Au and 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The particle-level di-jet differential cross section. The systematic uncertainty on the data contains contributions from track finding efficiency, track transverse momentum resolution, calorimeter energy resolution, and unfolding uncertainties. For the theory, values are given for the underlying event and hadronization (UEH) correction uncertainty and the quadrature sum of the UEH and theoretical uncertainties. Both the UEH and theoretical uncertainties include contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties. An 8.8% uncertainty common to all points due to the integrated luminosity determination is also present, but not included in the systematic values quoted below.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the same-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the opposite-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the same-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the same-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the opposite-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the opposite-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.

The measured differential cross sections $\rm{d}\sigma/\rm{d}|\eta|$ of $D^{*\pm}$ and $D^\pm$ production with $20<p_T<100\,$GeV. The first and second errors are the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The systematic uncertainty fractions corresponding to the tracking ($\delta_2$) uncertainties (Table 2 of the paper) are strongly correlated. The fully correlated uncertainties linked with the luminosity measurement ($3.5\%$) and branching fractions ($1.5\%$ and $2.1\%$ for $D^{*\pm}$ and $D^\pm$, respectively) are not shown.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ integrated over rapidity range $-1.8<y*<1.3$ for the 0--90% centrality interval for the three geometric models: (a) Glauber, (b) Glauber-Gribov with $\omega_{\sigma}=0.11$ and (c) Glauber-Gribov with $\omega_{\sigma}=0.2$.

$R_{pPb}$ values as a function of $p_{T}$ in the 0--90% centrality interval averaged over $|y*|<0.5$.The $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$ value for the ATLAS centrality correction is calculated with the Glauber model. The total systematic uncertainties, which include the uncertainty in $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$, are indicated by lines of the same colour. Strict quantitative agreement is not expected as each measurement uses different rapidity intervals for the centrality determination and apply different event selection criteria to reject diffractive collisions.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields integrated over $-1.8<y*<1.3$ for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields integrated over $-1.8<y*<1.3$ for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields integrated over $-1.8<y*<1.3$ for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields integrated over $|\eta|<2.3$ for seven centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields integrated over $|\eta|<2.3$ for seven centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields integrated over $|\eta|<2.3$ for seven centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ extracted from the invariant yields for six rapidity ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

$R_{pPb}$ as a function of $y*$ extracted from the invariant yields for eight $p_{T}$ ranges, for eight centrality intervals, and for different geometrical models used to calculate $\langle T_{Pb} \rangle$.

The effective exponential slope, $b_n$, obtained from the fit of double differential photoproduction cross sections ${\rm d^2}\sigma_{\gamma p}/{\rm d}x_L{\rm d}p_{T,n}^2$ to a single exponential function in bins of $x_L$. The first uncertainty represents the fit error from the statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainty and the second one is due to the correlated systematic uncertainty.

Energy dependence of the exclusive photoproduction of a $\rho^0$ meson associated with a leading neutron, $\gamma p \to \rho^0 n \pi^+$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The global normalisation uncertainty of $4.4\%$ is not included. $\Phi_{\gamma}$ is the integral of the photon flux, Eq. (3) of paper, in a given $W_{\gamma p}$ bin.

Differential photoproduction cross section ${\rm d}\sigma_{\gamma p}/{\rm d}\eta$ for the exclusive process $\gamma p \to \rho^0 n \pi^+$ as a function of the $\rho^0$ pseudorapidity in the kinematic range $0.35 < x_L < 0.95$, $\theta_n < 0.75$ mrad and $20 < W_{\gamma p} < 100$ GeV. The statistical, uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties, $\delta_{stat}$, $\delta_{sys}^{unc}$ and $\delta_{sys}^{cor}$ respectively, are given, which does not include the global normalisation error of $4.4\%$.

Differential photoproduction cross section ${\rm d}\sigma_{\gamma p}/{\rm d}t^{\prime}$ for the exclusive process $\gamma p \to \rho^0 n \pi^+$ as a function of the $\rho^0$ four-momentum transfer squared, $t^{\prime}$, in the kinematic range $0.35 < x_L < 0.95$, $\theta_n < 0.75$ mrad and $20 < W_{\gamma p} < 100$ GeV. The statistical, uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties, $\delta_{stat}$, $\delta_{sys}^{unc}$ and $\delta_{sys}^{cor}$ respectively, are given, which does not include the global normalisation error of $4.4\%$.

Exponential slopes, $b_1$ and $b_2$, and the ratio $\sigma_1/\sigma_2$, obtained from the components of fit, Eq. (14) of paper, to the differential cross section ${\rm d}\sigma_{\gamma p}/{\rm d}t^{\prime}$ in bins of $x_L$. The errors represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

Exponential slopes, $b_1$ and $b_2$, and the ratio $\sigma_1/\sigma_2$, obtained from the components of fit, Eq. (14) of paper, to the differential cross section ${\rm d}\sigma_{\gamma p}/{\rm d}t^{\prime}$ in bins of $p_{T,n}^2$. The errors represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

Energy dependence of elastic $\rho^0$ photoproduction on the pion, $\gamma \pi^+ \to \rho^0 \pi^+$, extracted in the one-pion-exchange approximation using OPE1 sample. The first uncertainty represents the full experimental error and the second is the model error coming from the pion flux uncertainty (see text). $\Gamma_\pi(x_L)$ represents the value of the pion flux, Eqs. (5-6) of paper, integrated over the $p_{T,n}<0.2$ GeV range, at a given $x_L$.

Cross section of elastic $\rho^0$ photoproduction on the pion, $\gamma \pi^+ \to \rho^0 \pi^+$, extracted in the one-pion-exchange approximation using three different samples: full sample, OPE1 and OPE2. The first uncertainty represents the full experimental error and the second is the model error coming from the pion flux uncertainty (see text). $\Gamma_\pi$ represents the value of the pion flux, Eqs. (5-6) of paper, integrated over the corresponding $(x_L,p_{T,n})$ range.

Correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for $\sigma^{\pm}$. The statistical and integrated luminosity uncertainties are not included. The first and the last eleven indices correspond to the systematic uncertainites of $W^+$ ($\sigma^+_{1-11}$) and $W^-$ ($\sigma^-_{1-11}$) cross sections, respectively, in 11 muon pseudorapidity bins. The values are expressed as percentages.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for $\sigma^{\pm}$. The first and the last eleven indices correspond to the statistical uncertainites of $W^+$ ($\sigma^+_{1-11}$) and $W^-$ ($\sigma^-_{1-11}$) cross sections, respectively, in 11 muon pseudorapidity bins. The values are expressed as percentages.

Correlation matrix of systematic uncertainties for $\mathcal{A}$. The values are expressed as percentages.

The jet-like yield in $\mid\Delta\eta\mid<$0.78 as a function of $p_T^{trigger}$ for $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Statistical errors listed in table. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

The jet-like yield in $\mid\Delta\eta\mid<$0.78 as a function of $p_T^{trigger}$ for $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in 0-60% Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Statistical errors listed in table. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

The jet-like yield in $\mid\Delta\eta\mid<$0.78 as a function of $p_T^{trigger}$ for $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Statistical errors listed in table. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

The jet-like yield in $\mid\Delta\eta\mid<$0.78 as a function of $p_T^{trigger}$ for $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in 0-12% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Statistical errors listed in table. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

Centrality dependence of the jet-like yield of $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 3 < $p_T^{trigger}$ < 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

Centrality dependence of the jet-like yield of $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 3 < $p_T^{trigger}$ < 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

Centrality dependence of the jet-like yield of $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 3 < $p_T^{trigger}$ < 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

Centrality dependence of the jet-like yield of $K_S^0$-h and $\Lambda$-h correlations for 3 < $p_T^{trigger}$ < 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ < $p_T^{associated}$ < $p_T^{trigger}$ in minimum bias $d$+Au and 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5.4% systematic error on all points.

The combined differential $D^{*\pm}$-production cross section as a function of $Q^2$, with its uncorrelated and correlated uncertainties.

The combined differential $D^{*\pm}$-production cross section as a function of $y$, with its uncorrelated and correlated uncertainties.

The combined double-differential $D^{*\pm}$-production cross section as a function of $Q^2$ and $y$, with its uncorrelated and correlated uncertainties.