absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijets from pp collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

ratio of subleading jet RAA^pair to leading jet RAA^pair in PbPb collisions

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.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Efficiency corrected pT spectra for the different centrality bins and for the various particles. Note that 7 centrality bins have been used for the KS0 and the Λ while only 6 and 3 have been used for the Ξ and Ω, respectively. Errors are statistical only. The Λ spectra are corrected for the feed-down of the Ξ decay.

Extrapolated average transverse momenta ⟨pT ⟩ as a function of dNch/dy for different particle species in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. Statistical uncertainties are represented by the error bars at the points while the systematic uncertainties are represented by the gray bars. The π, charged K and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Extrapolated average transverse momenta ⟨pT ⟩ as a function of dNch/dy for different particle species in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. Statistical uncertainties are represented by the error bars at the points while the systematic uncertainties are represented by the gray bars. The π, charged K and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

KS0 dN/dpT spectra compared to the charged Kaon spectra for the event centrality of 0-5% and 30-40%. The charged Kaons data points are for rapidity range of |y| < 0.1 and were extracted from Ref. [14].

KS0 dN/dpT spectra compared to the charged Kaon spectra for the event centrality of 0-5% and 30-40%. The charged Kaons data points are for rapidity range of |y| < 0.1 and were extracted from Ref. [14].

KS0 dN/dpT spectra compared to the charged Kaon spectra for the event centrality of 0-5% and 30-40%. The charged Kaons data points are for rapidity range of |y| < 0.1 and were extracted from Ref. [14].

KS0 dN/dpT spectra compared to the charged Kaon spectra for the event centrality of 0-5% and 30-40%. The charged Kaons data points are for rapidity range of |y| < 0.1 and were extracted from Ref. [14].

Strange particle production yields at mid-rapidity in central Au+Au and Pb+Pb collisions versus the center of mass energy √sNN. The top panel shows results for K0S and Λ. The AGS values are from E896 [1] (centrality 0 − 5 %). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0 − 7 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0 − 5 %). For the multi-strange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom panel), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0 − 11 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0 − 20 %).

Strange particle production yields at mid-rapidity in central Au+Au and Pb+Pb collisions versus the center of mass energy √sNN. The top panel shows results for K0S and Λ. The AGS values are from E896 [1] (centrality 0 − 5 %). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0 − 7 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0 − 5 %). For the multi-strange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom panel), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0 − 11 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0 − 20 %).

Strange particle production yields at mid-rapidity in central Au+Au and Pb+Pb collisions versus the center of mass energy √sNN. The top panel shows results for K0S and Λ. The AGS values are from E896 [1] (centrality 0 − 5 %). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0 − 7 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0 − 5 %). For the multi-strange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom panel), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0 − 11 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0 − 20 %).

Strange particle production yields at mid-rapidity in central Au+Au and Pb+Pb collisions versus the center of mass energy √sNN. The top panel shows results for K0S and Λ. The AGS values are from E896 [1] (centrality 0 − 5 %). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0 − 7 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0 − 5 %). For the multi-strange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom panel), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0 − 11 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0 − 20 %).

Anti-baryon to baryon yield ratios for strange baryons versus the center of mass energy √sNN. Λ/Λ is shown in the top panel while the multi-strange baryons are on the bottom panel. The data from AGS are not corrected for the weak decay feed-down from the multistrange baryons while the data from SPS and RHIC are corrected. The lines are the results of a thermal model calculation (see text section IV A). The AGS values are from E896 [1] (centrality 0 − 5 %). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0 − 7 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0 − 5 %). For the multi- strange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom panel), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0 − 11 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0 − 20 %).

Anti-baryon to baryon yield ratios for strange baryons versus the center of mass energy √sNN. Λ/Λ is shown in the top panel while the multi-strange baryons are on the bottom panel. The data from AGS are not corrected for the weak decay feed-down from the multistrange baryons while the data from SPS and RHIC are corrected. The lines are the results of a thermal model calculation (see text section IV A). The AGS values are from E896 [1] (centrality 0 − 5 %). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0 − 7 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0 − 5 %). For the multi- strange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom panel), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0 − 11 %) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0 − 20 %).

Antibaryon-to-baryon yield ratios for strange particles and protons as a function of dNch/dy at √sNN=62.4 and 200 GeV. The p data were extracted from Ref. [14]. The √sNN=200 GeV strange hadron data were extracted from Ref. [15].

Antibaryon-to-baryon yield ratios for strange particles and protons as a function of dNch/dy at √sNN=62.4 and 200 GeV. The p data were extracted from Ref. [14]. The √sNN=200 GeV strange hadron data were extracted from Ref. [15].

Particle-yield ratios as obtained by measurements (black dots) for the most central (0–5%) Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV and statistical model predictions (lines). The ratios indicated by the dashed lines (blue) were obtained by using only π, K, and protons, whereas the ratios indicated by the full lines (green) were obtained by also using the hyperons in the fit.

Particle-yield ratios as obtained by measurements (black dots) for the most central (0–5%) Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV and statistical model predictions (lines). The ratios indicated by the dashed lines (blue) were obtained by using only π, K, and protons, whereas the ratios indicated by the full lines (green) were obtained by also using the hyperons in the fit.

Chemical freeze-out temperature Tch (a) and strangeness saturation factor γs (b) as a function of the mean number of participants.

Chemical freeze-out temperature Tch (a) and strangeness saturation factor γs (b) as a function of the mean number of participants.

Chemical freeze-out temperature Tch (a) and strangeness saturation factor γs (b) as a function of the mean number of participants.

Chemical freeze-out temperature Tch (a) and strangeness saturation factor γs (b) as a function of the mean number of participants.

Temperature and baryon chemical potential obtained from thermal model fits as a function of √sNN (see Ref. [22]). The dashed lines correspond to the parametrizations given in Ref. [22]. The solid stars show the result for √sNN=62.4 and 200 GeV.

Temperature and baryon chemical potential obtained from thermal model fits as a function of √sNN (see Ref. [22]). The dashed lines correspond to the parametrizations given in Ref. [22]. The solid stars show the result for √sNN=62.4 and 200 GeV.

Temperature and baryon chemical potential obtained from thermal model fits as a function of √sNN (see Ref. [22]). The dashed lines correspond to the parametrizations given in Ref. [22]. The solid stars show the result for √sNN=62.4 and 200 GeV.

Temperature and baryon chemical potential obtained from thermal model fits as a function of √sNN (see Ref. [22]). The dashed lines correspond to the parametrizations given in Ref. [22]. The solid stars show the result for √sNN=62.4 and 200 GeV.

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π+ as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π- as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π+ as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π- as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π+ as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π- as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π+ as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π- as a function of dNch/dy for √sNN=62.4 GeV (left) and √sNN=200 GeV (right). The π and p data were extracted from Ref. [14].

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π− as a function of √sNN. The lines are the results of the thermal model calculation (see text Sec. 4a). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0–7%) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0–5%). For the multistrange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0–11%) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0–20%).

Ratio of baryon (solid symbols) and antibaryon (open symbols) to π− as a function of √sNN. The lines are the results of the thermal model calculation (see text Sec. 4a). The SPS values are from NA49 [20] (centrality 0–7%) and the RHIC values are from STAR [4, 15] (centrality 0–5%). For the multistrange baryons Ξ and Ω (bottom), the SPS results are from NA57 [2] (centrality 0–11%) and the RHIC values are from STAR [15, 21] (centrality 0–20%).

Nuclear modification factor RCP, calculated as the ratio between 0–10% central spectra and 40–80% peripheral spectra, for π, K0S, Λ, and Ξ particles in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The π RCP values were extracted from Ref. [10]. The gray band on the right side of the plot shows the uncertainties on the estimation of the number of binary collisions and the gray band on the lower left side indicates the uncertainties on the number of participants.

Nuclear modification factor RCP, calculated as the ratio between 0–10% central spectra and 40–80% peripheral spectra, for π, K0S, Λ, and Ξ particles in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The π RCP values were extracted from Ref. [10]. The gray band on the right side of the plot shows the uncertainties on the estimation of the number of binary collisions and the gray band on the lower left side indicates the uncertainties on the number of participants.

Nuclear modification factor RCP, calculated as the ratio between 0–5% central spectra and 40–60% peripheral spectra, for Λ and Ξ particles measured in Au + Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The gray band corresponds to the equivalent RCP curve for the Λ particles measured in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV [15].

Nuclear modification factor RCP, calculated as the ratio between 0–5% central spectra and 40–60% peripheral spectra, for Λ and Ξ particles measured in Au + Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The gray band corresponds to the equivalent RCP curve for the Λ particles measured in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV [15].

Λ/K0S ratio as a function of transverse momentum for different centrality classes. 0–5% (solid circles), 40–60% (open squares), and 60–80% (solid triangles) in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

Λ/K0S ratio as a function of transverse momentum for different centrality classes. 0–5% (solid circles), 40–60% (open squares), and 60–80% (solid triangles) in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

Maximum value of the Λ/K0S ratio from Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV (solid circles) and 200 GeV (open circles) [11] as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ for different centrality classes. The lowest ⟨Npart⟩ point corresponds to p+p collisions at 200 GeV [44]. The maximum of the Λ––/K0S from Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV is shown as solid triangles.

Maximum value of the Λ/K0S ratio from Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV (solid circles) and 200 GeV (open circles) [11] as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ for different centrality classes. The lowest ⟨Npart⟩ point corresponds to p+p collisions at 200 GeV [44]. The maximum of the Λ––/K0S from Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV is shown as solid triangles.

$\rho_{3}$ 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

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.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using tof-dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 19A GeV/c (collision energy 6.27 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 30A GeV/c (collision energy 7.62 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 40A GeV/c (collision energy 8.87 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions. Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 75A GeV/c (collision energy 11.95 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions. Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions at beam momentum 150A GeV/c (collision energy 16.83 GeV). Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

Transverse momentum spectra in rapidity slices of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions. Rapidity values given in the legends correspond to the middle of the corresponding interval. Results presented in this table were obtained using dE/dx analysis method.

The beam momentum dependence of the inverse slope parameter of transverse momentum spectra at mid-rapidity (0<y< 0.2 for 40A GeV/c, 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c; -0.2<y<0.0 for 30A GeV/c) of positively charged K mesons for central 20% Be+Be collisions. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 30A GeV/c (7.62 GeV), 40AGeV/c (8.87 GeV), 75A GeV/c (11.95 GeV), 150A GeV/c (16.83 GeV).

The beam momentum dependence of the inverse slope parameter of transverse momentum spectra at mid-rapidity (0<y< 0.2 for 40A GeV/c, 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c; -0.2<y<0.0 for 30A GeV/c) of positively charged K mesons for central 20% Be+Be collisions. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 30A GeV/c (7.62 GeV), 40AGeV/c (8.87 GeV), 75A GeV/c (11.95 GeV), 150A GeV/c (16.83 GeV).

The energy dependence of the inverse slope parameter of transverse momentum spectra at mid-rapidity (0<y< 0.2 for 40A GeV/c, 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c; -0.2<y<0.0 for 30A GeV/c) of negatively charged K mesons for 20% central Be+Be collisions. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 30A GeV/c (7.62 GeV), 40AGeV/c (8.87 GeV), 75A GeV/c (11.95 GeV), 150A GeV/c (16.83 GeV).

The energy dependence of the inverse slope parameter of transverse momentum spectra at mid-rapidity (0<y< 0.2 for 40A GeV/c, 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c; -0.2<y<0.0 for 30A GeV/c) of negatively charged K mesons for 20% central Be+Be collisions. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 30A GeV/c (7.62 GeV), 40AGeV/c (8.87 GeV), 75A GeV/c (11.95 GeV), 150A GeV/c (16.83 GeV).

Rapidity spectra of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of protons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be at beam momentum of 19A GeV/c, 30A GeV/c, 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 19A GeV/c -> 6.27 GeV, 30A GeV/c -> 7.62 GeV, 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Beat beam momentum of 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Rapidity spectra of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Beat beam momentum of 40A GeV/c 75A GeV/c and 150A GeV/c. Incoming beam momentum translates to collision energy (SQRT(SNN)) as following 40A GeV/c -> 8.87 GeV, 75A GeV/c -> 11.95 GeV, 150A GeV/c -> 16.83 GeV.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of K+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of K- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of PI+ produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of PI- produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

Collision energy dependence of mean multiplicities of antiprotons produced in the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

The energy dependence of the K+/PI+ particle yields ratio at mid-rapidity for the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

The energy dependence of the K+/PI+ particle yields ratio at mid-rapidity for the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

The energy dependence of the K+/PI+ particle yields ratio at full acceptance for the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

The energy dependence of the K+/PI+ particle yields ratio at full acceptance for the 20% most central Be+Be collisions.

The JER for R = 0.2 jets in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of $2|\Psi_2-\phi^{reco}|$ for centrality selections of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%.

The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 20-40% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 5-10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 20-40% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 5-10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 20-40% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 5-10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v2 for pT = 71--398 GeV jets as a function of centrality.

The systematic uncertainties in v3 for pT = 71--398 GeV jets as a function of centrality.

The systematic uncertainties in v4 for pT = 71--398 GeV jets as a function of centrality.

Angular distribution of jets as a function of the observed psi2 plane for jets with 71 < pT < 79 GeV in the 10-20% centrality bin.

Angular distribution of jets as a function of the observed psi3 plane for jets with 71 < pT < 79 GeV in the 10-20% centrality bin.

Angular distribution of jets as a function of the observed psi4 plane for jets with 71 < pT < 79 GeV in the 10-20% centrality bin.

The v2 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of centrality for jets in several pT ranges.

The v2 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of pT for 0-5%, 5-10%, and 20-40% centrality collisions.

The v2, v3, and v4 as a function of centrality for jets with pT = 71-398 GeV.

The v3 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of centrality for jets in several pT ranges.

The v4 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of centrality for jets in several pT ranges.

The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.

The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.

The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 20-40% centrality collisions.

The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 20-40% centrality collisions.

The v2 for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.

The v3 for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.

R2max as a function of pT (filled circles). Also shown is 1 - 4v2/(1+2v2).

R3max as a function of pT (filled circles). Also shown is 1 - 4v3/(1+2v3).

The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 40-60% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 40-60% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 40-60% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 10-20% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 10-20% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 10-20% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 0-5% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 0-5% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 0-5% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.

The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 40-60% centrality collisions.

The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 5-10% centrality collisions.

The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 0-5% centrality collisions.

The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 40-60% centrality collisions.

The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 5-10% centrality collisions.

The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 0-5% centrality collisions.

The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The correlation function C, C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$ and the relative azimuthal angle ∆φ in radians for 30-40% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Relative statistical errors range from 0.8% in peripheral collisions to 0.9% in the most central collisions at the peak of the distribution.

The correlation function C, C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$ and the relative azimuthal angle ∆φ in radians for 0-5% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV..Relative statistical errors range from 0.8% in peripheral collisions to 0.9% in the most central collisions at the peak of the distribution.

The correlation function C, C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$ and the relative azimuthal angle ∆φ in radians for 0-5% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV..Relative statistical errors range from 0.8% in peripheral collisions to 0.9% in the most central collisions at the peak of the distribution.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 70-80% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The correlation function C is plottedin units of (GeV/c)$^2$.The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The solid line shows the fit obtained with Eq.2. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline, b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 70-80% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The correlation function C is plottedin units of (GeV/c)$^2$.The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The solid line shows the fit obtained with Eq.2. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline, b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 30-40% centrality. Statistical errors at(\Deltaeta_1,Deltaeta_2~(0,0) are approximately 0.084 for Au+Au. The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline,b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 30-40% centrality. Statistical errors at(\Deltaeta_1,Deltaeta_2~(0,0) are approximately 0.084 for Au+Au. The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline,b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 0-5% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The correlation functionCis plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The solid line shows the fit obtained with Eq.2. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline,b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 0-5% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The correlation functionCis plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The solid line shows the fit obtained with Eq.2. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline,b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

RMS as function of the number of participating nucleons for the correlation function C, for nine centrality classes in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dotted line represents a lower limit estimate of the RMS explained in the text and the shaded band represents systematic uncertainties on the RMS.

RMS as function of the number of participating nucleons for the correlation function C, for nine centrality classes in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dotted line represents a lower limit estimate of the RMS explained in the text and the shaded band represents systematic uncertainties on the RMS.

The K$\pi$ pair invariant mass distribution integrated over the $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ =62.4 GeV after mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (top left) pT = 0.4–0.6 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (top right) pT = 0.6–0.8 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 62.4 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (bottom left) pT = 0.8–1.0 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (bottom right) pT = 1.0–1.2 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 62.4 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The signal-to-background ratio for $K^{*0}$ measurements as a function of $p_T$ for different collision centrality bins (0-10%, 10-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%) in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV.

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The $K^{*0}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au (|$\eta$| < 0.8) collisions at 200 GeV for different collision centrality bins (0-20% ,20-40% , 40-60%)

The $K^{*0}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in Cu+Cu (|$\eta$| < 1.0) collisions at 200 GeV for different collision centrality bins (0-20% ,20-40% , 40-60%)

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%) in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%) in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity $⟨p_T⟩$ of $\pi$, K, p and $K^{*0}$ as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ in Au+Au collisions divided by $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ in Cu+Cu collisions divided by $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ in d+Au collisions divided by $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ ratio in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ in Au+Au collisions divided by $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ in Cu+Cu collisions divided by $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ in d+Au collisions divided by $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

The $K^{*0}$ $v_2$ (Run IV) as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $v_2$ (Run II) as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ ~$R_{CP}$~ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.