Showing 10 of 49 results
Measurements of inclusive jet suppression in heavy ion collisions at the LHC provide direct sensitivity to the physics of jet quenching. In a sample of lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately 7 inverse microbarns, ATLAS has measured jets with a calorimeter over the pseudorapidity interval |$\eta$| < 2.1 and over the transverse momentum range 38 < pT < 210 GeV. Jets were reconstructed using the anti-$k_t$ algorithm with values for the distance parameter that determines the nominal jet radius of R = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5. The centrality dependence of the jet yield is characterized by the jet "central-to-peripheral ratio," $R_{cp}$. Jet production is found to be suppressed by approximately a factor of two in the 10% most central collisions relative to peripheral collisions. $R_{cp}$ varies smoothly with centrality as characterized by the number of participating nucleons. The observed suppression is only weakly dependent on jet radius and transverse momentum. These results provide the first direct measurement of inclusive jet suppression in heavy ion collisions and complement previous measurements of dijet transverse energy imbalance at the LHC.
Glauber model calculation of the mean numbers of Npart and its associated errors, the mean Ncoll ratios, and Rcoll with fractional errors as a function of the centrality bins.
The Rcp values as a function of jet PT for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the collision centrality in the range 0 - 10 %.
The Rcp values as a function of jet PT for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the collision centrality in the range 10 - 20 %.
The Rcp values as a function of jet PT for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the collision centrality in the range 20 - 30 %.
The Rcp values as a function of jet PT for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the collision centrality in the range 30 - 40 %.
The Rcp values as a function of jet PT for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the collision centrality in the range 40 - 50 %.
The Rcp values as a function of jet PT for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the collision centrality in the range 50 - 60 %.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 38.36 - 44.21 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 44.21 - 50.94 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 50.94 - 58.70 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 58.70 - 67.64 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 67.64 - 77.94 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 77.94 - 89.81 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 89.81 - 103.5 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 103.5 - 119.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 119.3 - 137.4 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 137.4 - 158.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 158.3 - 182.5 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of the mean number of participating nucleons, NPART, for the four R values, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 for the jet PT range 182.5 - 210.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 38.36 - 44.21 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 38.36 - 44.21 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 44.21 - 50.94 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 44.21 - 50.94 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 50.94 - 58.70 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 50.94 - 58.70 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 58.70 - 67.64 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 58.70 - 67.64 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 67.64 - 77.94 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 67.64 - 77.94 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 77.94 - 89.81 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 77.94 - 89.81 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 89.81 - 103.5 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 89.81 - 103.5 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 103.5 - 119.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 103.5 - 119.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 119.3 - 137.4 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 119.3 - 137.4 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 137.4 - 158.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 137.4 - 158.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 158.3 - 182.5 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 158.3 - 182.5 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 0 - 10 %, 10 - 20 % and 20 - 30 % for the jet PT range 182.5 - 210.3 GeV.
The Rcp values as a function of R for the three centrality ranges 30 - 40 %, 40 - 50 % and 50 - 60 % for the jet PT range 182.5 - 210.3 GeV.
The ratios of Rcp between R=0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 and R=0.2 jets as a function of the jet PT for the centrality range 0 - 10 %.
The ratios of Rcp between R=0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 and R=0.2 jets as a function of the jet PT for the centrality range 10 - 20 %.
The ratios of Rcp between R=0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 and R=0.2 jets as a function of the jet PT for the centrality range 20 - 30 %.
The ratios of Rcp between R=0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 and R=0.2 jets as a function of the jet PT for the centrality range 30 - 40 %.
The ratios of Rcp between R=0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 and R=0.2 jets as a function of the jet PT for the centrality range 40 - 50 %.
The ratios of Rcp between R=0.3, 0.4 and 0.5 and R=0.2 jets as a function of the jet PT for the centrality range 50 - 60 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.2 and centrality range 0 - 10 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.3 and centrality range 0 - 10 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.4 and centrality range 0 - 10 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.5 and centrality range 0 - 10 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.2 and centrality range 10 - 20 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.3 and centrality range 10 - 20 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.4 and centrality range 10 - 20 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.5 and centrality range 10 - 20 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.2 and centrality range 20 - 30 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.3 and centrality range 20 - 30 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.4 and centrality range 20 - 30 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.5 and centrality range 20 - 30 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.2 and centrality range 30 - 40 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.3 and centrality range 30 - 40 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.4 and centrality range 30 - 40 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.5 and centrality range 30 - 40 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.2 and centrality range 40 - 50 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.3 and centrality range 40 - 50 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.4 and centrality range 40 - 50 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.5 and centrality range 40 - 50 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.2 and centrality range 50 - 60 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.3 and centrality range 50 - 60 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.4 and centrality range 50 - 60 %.
The covariance matrix for statistcal correlations for R = 0.5 and centrality range 50 - 60 %.
Azimuthal anisotropies of muons from charm and bottom hadron decays are measured in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}= 5.02$ TeV. The data were collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2018 with integrated luminosities of $0.5~\mathrm{nb}^{-1}$ and $1.4~\mathrm{nb^{-1}}$, respectively. The kinematic selection for heavy-flavor muons requires transverse momentum $4 < p_\mathrm{T} < 30$ GeV and pseudorapidity $|\eta|<2.0$. The dominant sources of muons in this $p_\mathrm{T}$ range are semi-leptonic decays of charm and bottom hadrons. These heavy-flavor muons are separated from light-hadron decay muons and punch-through hadrons using the momentum imbalance between the measurements in the tracking detector and in the muon spectrometers. Azimuthal anisotropies, quantified by flow coefficients, are measured via the event-plane method for inclusive heavy-flavor muons as a function of the muon $p_\mathrm{T}$ and in intervals of Pb+Pb collision centrality. Heavy-flavor muons are separated into contributions from charm and bottom hadron decays using the muon transverse impact parameter with respect to the event primary vertex. Non-zero elliptic ($v_{2}$) and triangular ($v_{3}$) flow coefficients are extracted for charm and bottom muons, with the charm muon coefficients larger than those for bottom muons for all Pb+Pb collision centralities. The results indicate substantial modification to the charm and bottom quark angular distributions through interactions in the quark-gluon plasma produced in these Pb+Pb collisions, with smaller modifications for the bottom quarks as expected theoretically due to their larger mass.
Summary of results for Inclusive HF muon v2 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for Inclusive HF muon v3 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm muon v2 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for bottom muon v2 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm muon v3 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for bottom muon v3 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Measurements are presented from proton-proton collisions at centre-of-mass energies of sqrt(s) = 0.9, 2.36 and 7 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Events were collected using a single-arm minimum-bias trigger. The charged-particle multiplicity, its dependence on transverse momentum and pseudorapidity and the relationship between the mean transverse momentum and charged-particle multiplicity are measured. Measurements in different regions of phase-space are shown, providing diffraction-reduced measurements as well as more inclusive ones. The observed distributions are corrected to well-defined phase-space regions, using model-independent corrections. The results are compared to each other and to various Monte Carlo models, including a new AMBT1 PYTHIA 6 tune. In all the kinematic regions considered, the particle multiplicities are higher than predicted by the Monte Carlo models. The central charged-particle multiplicity per event and unit of pseudorapidity, for tracks with pT >100 MeV, is measured to be 3.483 +- 0.009 (stat) +- 0.106 (syst) at sqrt(s) = 0.9 TeV and 5.630 +- 0.003 (stat) +- 0.169 (syst) at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV.
The average charged-particle muliplicity per unit of rapidity for ETARAP=0 as a function of the centre-of-mass energy.
The average charged-particle muliplicity per unit of rapidity in the pseudorapidity region -2.5 to 2.5 for events with 2 or more charged particles as a function of the centre-of-mass energy.
Correlations between the elliptic or triangular flow coefficients $v_m$ ($m$=2 or 3) and other flow harmonics $v_n$ ($n$=2 to 5) are measured using $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV Pb+Pb collision data collected in 2010 by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated lumonisity of 7 $\mu$b$^{-1}$. The $v_m$-$v_n$ correlations are measured in midrapidity as a function of centrality, and, for events within the same centrality interval, as a function of event ellipticity or triangularity defined in a forward rapidity region. For events within the same centrality interval, $v_3$ is found to be anticorrelated with $v_2$ and this anticorrelation is consistent with similar anticorrelations between the corresponding eccentricities $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$. On the other hand, it is observed that $v_4$ increases strongly with $v_2$, and $v_5$ increases strongly with both $v_2$ and $v_3$. The trend and strength of the $v_m$-$v_n$ correlations for $n$=4 and 5 are found to disagree with $\epsilon_m$-$\epsilon_n$ correlations predicted by initial-geometry models. Instead, these correlations are found to be consistent with the combined effects of a linear contribution to $v_n$ and a nonlinear term that is a function of $v_2^2$ or of $v_2v_3$, as predicted by hydrodynamic models. A simple two-component fit is used to separate these two contributions. The extracted linear and nonlinear contributions to $v_4$ and $v_5$ are found to be consistent with previously measured event-plane correlations.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_2$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-5%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 5-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-15%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 15-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-25%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 25-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-35%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 35-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-45%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 45-50%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 50-55%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 55-60%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 60-65%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 65-70%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 0-10%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 10-20%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 20-30%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 30-40%.
$v_{2}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{3}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{4}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{5}$ data for various $q_3$ bins, Centrality 40-50%.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
linear fit result of $v_{2}$ - $v_{3}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{2}$ correlation for various q3 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{4}$ correlation within each centrality.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_4$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_5$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q2 event-shape selection.
$v_5$ decomposed into linear and nonlinear contributions based on q3 event-shape selection.
RMS eccentricity scaled v_n.
RMS eccentricity scaled v_n.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{5}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{2}$ - $v_{5}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{5}$ inclusive correlation in 5% centrality intervals.
$v_{3}$ - $v_{5}$ correlation for various q2 bins within each centrality.
A measurement of $\textit{W}$ boson production in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=$2.76 TeV is presented. It is based on the analysis of data collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC in 2011 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 0.14 $\mathrm{nb}^{-1}$ and 0.15 $\mathrm{nb}^{-1}$ in the muon and electron decay channels, respectively. The differential production yields and lepton charge asymmetry are each measured as a function of the average number of participating nucleons $< N_{\mathrm{part}} >$ and absolute pseudorapidity of the charged lepton. The results are compared to predictions based on next-to-leading-order QCD calculations. These measurements are, in principle, sensitive to possible nuclear modifications to the parton distribution functions and also provide information on scaling of $\textit{W}$ boson production in multi-nucleon systems.
Ratio of W+ and W- candidates in $W\rightarrow \ell \nu_{\ell}$ as a function of the mean number of participants $N_{part}$.
$W^\pm$ boson production yield per binary collision as a function of the mean number of participants $N_{part}$.
Differential production yield per binary collision for $W^{+}$ bosons as a function of $|\eta_\ell|$.
Differential production yield per binary collision for $W^{-}$ bosons as a function of $|\eta_\ell|$.
The lepton charge asymmetry $A_{\ell}$ from $W^\pm$ bosons as a function of absolute pseudorapidity.
The inclusive jet cross-section has been measured in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV in a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 0.20pb-1 collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2011. Jets are identified using the anti-kt algorithm with two radius parameters of 0.4 and 0.6. The inclusive jet double-differential cross-section is presented as a function of the jet transverse momentum pT and jet rapidity y, covering a range of 20 <= pT < 430 GeV and |y| < 4.4. The ratio of the cross-section to the inclusive jet cross-section measurement at sqrt(s)=7 TeV, published by the ATLAS Collaboration, is calculated as a function of both transverse momentum and the dimensionless quantity xT = 2 pT / sqrt(s), in bins of jet rapidity. The systematic uncertainties on the ratios are significantly reduced due to the cancellation of correlated uncertainties in the two measurements. Results are compared to the prediction from next-to-leading order perturbative QCD calculations corrected for non-perturbative effects, and next-to-leading order Monte Carlo simulation. Furthermore, the ATLAS jet cross-section measurements at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV and sqrt(s)=7 TeV are analysed within a framework of next-to-leading order perturbative QCD calculations to determine parton distribution functions of the proton, taking into account the correlations between the measurements.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin |y| < 0.3 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.3 <= |y| < 0.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.8 <= |y| < 1.2 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 1.2 <= |y| < 2.1 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.1 <= |y| < 2.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.8 <= |y| < 3.6 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 3.6 <= |y| < 4.4 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin |y| < 0.3 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.3 <= |y| < 0.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.8 <= |y| < 1.2 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 1.2 <= |y| < 2.1 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.1 <= |y| < 2.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.8 <= |y| < 3.6 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 3.6 <= |y| < 4.4 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet XT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin |y| < 0.3 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.3 <= |y| < 0.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.8 <= |y| < 1.2 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 1.2 <= |y| < 2.1 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.1 <= |y| < 2.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.8 <= |y| < 3.6 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 3.6 <= |y| < 4.4 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.4 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin |y| < 0.3 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.3 <= |y| < 0.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 0.8 <= |y| < 1.2 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 1.2 <= |y| < 2.1 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.1 <= |y| < 2.8 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 2.8 <= |y| < 3.6 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The measured ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.76 TeV to the one at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in the rapidity bin 3.6 <= |y| < 4.4 for anti-kt jets with R = 0.6 as a function of the jet PT. The first (sys) error is the combined correlated systematic error and the second the combined uncorrelated systematic error, excluding the luminosity uncertainty. Also shown are the multiplicative non-perturbative corrections, NPcorr.
The ATLAS experiment has observed 1995 Z boson candidates in data corresponding to 0.15 inverse nb of integrated luminosity obtained in the 2011 LHC Pb+Pb run at sqrt(s_NN)=2.76 TeV. The Z bosons are reconstructed via di-electron and di-muon decay channels, with a background contamination of less than 3%. Results from the two channels are consistent and are combined. Within the statistical and systematic uncertainties, the per-event Z boson yield is proportional to the number of binary collisions estimated by the Glauber model. The elliptic anisotropy of the azimuthal distribution of the Z boson with respect to the event plane is found to be consistent with zero.
The corrected per-event rapidity distribution of Z bosons over the centrality region 0-80%.
The corrected per-event transverse momentum distribution of Z bosons in the centrality region 0-5%.
The corrected per-event transverse momentum distribution of Z bosons in the centrality region 5-10%.
The corrected per-event transverse momentum distribution of Z bosons in the centrality region 10-20%.
The corrected per-event transverse momentum distribution of Z bosons in the centrality region 20-40%.
The corrected per-event transverse momentum distribution of Z bosons in the centrality region 40-80%.
Combined results for the centrality (Npart) dependence of Z boson yields divided by Ncoll for the PT range > 0 GeV/c. The systematic error includes the uncertainty in Ncoll.
Combined results for the centrality (Npart) dependence of Z boson yields divided by Ncoll for the PT range 0 to 10 GeV/c. The systematic error includes the uncertainty in Ncoll.
Combined results for the centrality (Npart) dependence of Z boson yields divided by Ncoll for the PT range 10 to 30 GeV/c. The systematic error includes the uncertainty in Ncoll.
Combined results for the centrality (Npart) dependence of Z boson yields divided by Ncoll for the PT range > 30 GeV/c. The systematic error includes the uncertainty in Ncoll.
Differential measurements of charged particle azimuthal anisotropy are presented for lead-lead collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, based on an integrated luminosity of approximately 8 mb^-1. This anisotropy is characterized via a Fourier expansion of the distribution of charged particles in azimuthal angle (phi), with the coefficients v_n denoting the magnitude of the anisotropy. Significant v_2-v_6 values are obtained as a function of transverse momentum (0.5<pT<20 GeV), pseudorapidity (|eta|<2.5) and centrality using an event plane method. The v_n values for n>=3 are found to vary weakly with both eta and centrality, and their pT dependencies are found to follow an approximate scaling relation, v_n^{1/n}(pT) \propto v_2^{1/2}(pT). A Fourier analysis of the charged particle pair distribution in relative azimuthal angle (Dphi=phi_a-phi_b) is performed to extract the coefficients v_{n,n}=<cos (n Dphi)>. For pairs of charged particles with a large pseudorapidity gap (|Deta=eta_a-eta_b|>2) and one particle with pT<3 GeV, the v_{2,2}-v_{6,6} values are found to factorize as v_{n,n}(pT^a,pT^b) ~ v_n(pT^a)v_n(pT^b) in central and mid-central events. Such factorization suggests that these values of v_{2,2}-v_{6,6} are primarily due to the response of the created matter to the fluctuations in the geometry of the initial state. A detailed study shows that the v_{1,1}(pT^a,pT^b) data are consistent with the combined contributions from a rapidity-even v_1 and global momentum conservation. A two-component fit is used to extract the v_1 contribution. The extracted v_1 is observed to cross zero at pT\sim1.0 GeV, reaches a maximum at 4-5 GeV with a value comparable to that for v_3, and decreases at higher pT.
The EP Resolution Factor vs. Centrality for n values from2 to 6.
The Chi Reolution Factor vs. Centrality for n values from 2 to 6.
The one-dimensional Delta(PHI) correlation function vs Delta(PHI) for |DETARAP| in the range 2 to 5 summed over all n values from 1 to 6.
The Fourier coefficient V_n,n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| for individual n values.
The Fourier coefficient V_n vs. |Delta(ETARAP)| from the 2PC anaysis for individual n values from 2 to n.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 0.5 TO 1 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 1 TO 2 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 2 TO 3 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 3 TO 4 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 0 TO 5%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 5 TO 10%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 10 TO 20%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 20 TO 30%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 30 TO 40%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 40 TO 50%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 50 TO 60%.
The Fourier coefiiciant V_n vs eta for PT 4 TO 8 GeV and centrality 60 TO 70%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 0 TO 5%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 5 TO 10%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 10 TO 20%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 20 TO 30%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 30 TO 40%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 40 TO 50%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 50 TO 60%.
V_n vs PT for centrality 60 TO 70%.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 1 TO 2 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 2 TO 3 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 3 TO 4 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 4 TO 8 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 8 TO 12 GeV.
V_n vs Centrality for PT 12 TO 20 GeV.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.
2PC.V_n vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 1 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 5 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 5 TO 10 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 0 TO 10 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 10 TO 20 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 20 TO 30 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 30 TO 40 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 40 TO 50 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 50 TO 60 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 60 TO 70 %.
V_nn vs n for Centrality 70 TO 80 %.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
correlation funcitons in various pT bins.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1,1} vs eta for different combinations of pTa and pTb. Figure 18.
v_{1} vs pT for different centrality selections, Figure 21.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_n extracted from 2PC method utilizing the factorization relation.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
v_ vs pta for various centrality pta combinations.
In order to study further the long-range correlations ("ridge") observed recently in p+Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) =5.02 TeV, the second-order azimuthal anisotropy parameter of charged particles, v_2, has been measured with the cumulant method using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. In a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately 1 microb^(-1), the parameter v_2 has been obtained using two- and four-particle cumulants over the pseudorapidity range |eta|<2.5. The results are presented as a function of transverse momentum and the event activity, defined in terms of the transverse energy summed over 3.1<eta<4.9 in the direction of the Pb beam. They show features characteristic of collective anisotropic flow, similar to that observed in Pb+Pb collisions. A comparison is made to results obtained using two-particle correlation methods, and to predictions from hydrodynamic models of p+Pb collisions. Despite the small transverse spatial extent of the p+Pb collision system, the large magnitude of v_2 and its similarity to hydrodynamic predictions provide additional evidence for the importance of final-state effects in p+Pb reactions.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 25-40 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 40-55 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 55-80 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the two-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 25-40 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 40-55 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of 55-80 GeV.
The second flow harmonic measured with the four-particle cumulants as a function of transverse momentum in the event activity bin of >80 GeV.
The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with two-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.
The second-order harmonic, v2, integrated over pT and eta, calculated with four-particle cumulants as a function of Sum ET^Pb.
The correlations between flow harmonics $v_n$ for $n=2$, 3 and 4 and mean transverse momentum $[p_\mathrm{T}]$ in $^{129}$Xe+$^{129}$Xe and $^{208}$Pb+$^{208}$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.44$ TeV and 5.02 TeV, respectively, are measured using charged particles with the ATLAS detector. The correlations are sensitive to the shape and size of the initial geometry, nuclear deformation, and initial momentum anisotropy. The effects from non-flow and centrality fluctuations are minimized, respectively, via a subevent cumulant method and event activity selection based on particle production in the very forward rapidity. The results show strong dependences on centrality, harmonic number $n$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and pseudorapidity range. Current models describe qualitatively the overall centrality- and system-dependent trends but fail to quantitatively reproduce all the data. In the central collisions, where models generally show good agreement, the $v_2$-$[p_\mathrm{T}]$ correlations are sensitive to the triaxiality of the quadruple deformation. The comparison of model to the Pb+Pb and Xe+Xe data suggests that the $^{129}$Xe nucleus is a highly deformed triaxial ellipsoid that is neither a prolate nor an oblate shape. This provides strong evidence for a triaxial deformation of $^{129}$Xe nucleus using high-energy heavy-ion collision.
$\rho_{2}$ 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 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
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.