Showing 10 of 46 results
Measurements of the suppression and correlations of dijets is performed using 3 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ of Xe+Xe data at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.44$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Dijets with jets reconstructed using the $R=0.4$ anti-$k_t$ algorithm are measured differentially in jet $p_{\text{T}}$ over the range of 32 GeV to 398 GeV and the centrality of the collisions. Significant dijet momentum imbalance is found in the most central Xe+Xe collisions, which decreases in more peripheral collisions. Results from the measurement of per-pair normalized and absolutely normalized dijet $p_{\text{T}}$ balance are compared with previous Pb+Pb measurements at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} =5.02$ TeV. The differences between the dijet suppression in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb are further quantified by the ratio of pair nuclear-modification factors. The results are found to be consistent with those measured in Pb+Pb data when compared in classes of the same event activity and when taking into account the difference between the center-of-mass energies of the initial parton scattering process in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions. These results should provide input for a better understanding of the role of energy density, system size, path length, and fluctuations in the parton energy loss.
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
Studies of the correlations of the two highest transverse momentum (leading) jets in individual Pb+Pb collision events can provide information about the mechanism of jet quenching by the hot and dense matter created in such collisions. In Pb+Pb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_\text{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV, measurements of the leading dijet transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$) correlations are presented. Additionally, measurements in Pb+Pb collisions of the dijet pair nuclear modification factors projected along leading and subleading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ are made. The measurements are performed using the ATLAS detector at the LHC with 260 pb$^{-1}$ of pp data collected in 2017 and 2.2 nb$^{-1}$ of Pb+Pb data collected in 2015 and 2018. An unfolding procedure is applied to the two-dimensional leading and subleading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distributions to account for experimental effects in the measurement of both jets. Results are provided for dijets with leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ greater than 100 GeV. Measurements of the dijet-yield-normalized $x_{\mathrm{J}}$ distributions in Pb+Pb collisions show an increased fraction of imbalanced jets compared to pp collisions; these measurements are in agreement with previous measurements of the same quantity at 2.76 TeV in the overlapping kinematic range. Measurements of the absolutely-normalized dijet rate in Pb+Pb and pp collisions are also presented, and show that balanced dijets are significantly more suppressed than imbalanced dijets in Pb+Pb collisions. It is observed in the measurements of the pair nuclear modification factors that the subleading jets are significantly suppressed relative to leading jets with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ between 100 and 316 GeV for all centralities in Pb+Pb collisions.
This paper presents measurements of charged-hadron spectra obtained in $pp$, $p$+Pb, and Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ or $\sqrt{s_{_\text{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV, and in Xe+Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_\text{NN}}}=5.44$ TeV. The data recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC have total integrated luminosities of 25 pb${}^{-1}$, 28 nb${}^{-1}$, 0.50 nb${}^{-1}$, and 3 $\mu$b${}^{-1}$, respectively. The nuclear modification factors $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ and $R_\text{AA}$ are obtained by comparing the spectra in heavy-ion and $pp$ collisions in a wide range of charged-particle transverse momenta and pseudorapidity. The nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ shows a moderate enhancement above unity with a maximum at $p_{\mathrm{T}} \approx 3$ GeV; the enhancement is stronger in the Pb-going direction. The nuclear modification factors in both Pb+Pb and Xe+Xe collisions feature a significant, centrality-dependent suppression. They show a similar distinct $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-dependence with a local maximum at $p_{\mathrm{T}} \approx 2$ GeV and a local minimum at $p_{\mathrm{T}} \approx 7$ GeV. This dependence is more distinguishable in more central collisions. No significant $|\eta|$-dependence is found. A comprehensive comparison with several theoretical predictions is also provided. They typically describe $R_\text{AA}$ better in central collisions and in the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ range from about 10 to 100 GeV.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br><b>charged-hadron spectra:</b> <br><i>pp reference:</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table1">for p+Pb</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table10">for Pb+Pb</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table19">for Xe+Xe</a> <br><i>p+Pb:</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table2">0-5%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table3">5-10%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table4">10-20%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table5">20-30%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table6">30-40%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table7">40-60%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table8">60-90%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table9">0-90%</a> <br><i>Pb+Pb:</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table11">0-5%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table12">5-10%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table13">10-20%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table14">20-30%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table15">30-40%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table16">40-50%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table17">50-60%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table18">60-80%</a> <br><i>Xe+Xe:</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table20">0-5%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table21">5-10%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table22">10-20%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table23">20-30%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table24">30-40%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table25">40-50%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table26">50-60%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table27">60-80%</a> </br>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br><b>nuclear modification factors (p<sub>T</sub>):</b> <br><i>R<sub>pPb</sub>:</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table28">0-5%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table29">5-10%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table30">10-20%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table31">20-30%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table32">30-40%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table33">40-60%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table34">60-90%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table35">0-90%</a> <br><i>R<sub>AA</sub> (Pb+Pb):</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table36">0-5%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table37">5-10%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table38">10-20%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table39">20-30%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table40">30-40%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table41">40-50%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table42">50-60%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table43">60-80%</a> <br><i>R<sub>AA</sub> (Xe+Xe):</i> <a href="?version=1&table=Table44">0-5%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table45">5-10%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table46">10-20%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table47">20-30%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table48">30-40%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table49">40-50%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table50">50-60%</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table51">60-80%</a> </br>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br><b>nuclear modification factors (y*/eta):</b> <br><i>R<sub>pPb</sub>:</i> <br> 0-5%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table52">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table53">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table54">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table55">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 5-10%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table56">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table57">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table58">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table59">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 10-20%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table60">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table61">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table62">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table63">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 20-30%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table64">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table65">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table66">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table67">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 30-40%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table68">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table69">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table70">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table71">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 40-60%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table72">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table73">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table74">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table75">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 60-90%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table76">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table77">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table78">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table79">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br> 0-90%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table80">0.66-0.755GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table81">2.95-3.35GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table82">7.65-8.8GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table83">15.1-17.3GeV</a> <br><i>R<sub>AA</sub> (Pb+Pb):</i> <br> 0-5%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table84">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table85">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table86">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table87">60-95GeV</a> <br> 5-10%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table88">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table89">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table90">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table91">60-95GeV</a> <br> 10-20%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table92">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table93">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table94">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table95">60-95GeV</a> <br> 20-30%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table96">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table97">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table98">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table99">60-95GeV</a> <br> 30-40%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table100">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table101">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table102">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table103">60-95GeV</a> <br> 40-50%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table104">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table105">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table106">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table107">60-95GeV</a> <br> 50-60%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table108">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table109">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table110">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table111">60-95GeV</a> <br> 60-80%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table112">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table113">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table114">20-23GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table115">60-95GeV</a> <br><i>R<sub>AA</sub> (Xe+Xe):</i> <br> 0-5%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table116">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table117">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table118">20-23GeV</a> <br> 5-10%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table119">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table120">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table121">20-23GeV</a> <br> 10-20%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table122">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table123">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table124">20-23GeV</a> <br> 20-30%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table125">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table126">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table127">20-23GeV</a> <br> 30-40%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table128">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table129">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table130">20-23GeV</a> <br> 40-50%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table131">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table132">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table133">20-23GeV</a> <br> 50-60%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table134">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table135">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table136">20-23GeV</a> <br> 60-80%: <a href="?version=1&table=Table137">1.7-1.95GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table138">6.7-7.65GeV</a> <a href="?version=1&table=Table139">20-23GeV</a> <br>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.
The azimuthal variation of jet yields in heavy-ion collisions provides information about the path-length dependence of the energy loss experienced by partons passing through the hot, dense nuclear matter known as the quark-gluon plasma. This paper presents the azimuthal anisotropy coefficients $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ measured for jets in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 5.02 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The measurement uses data collected in 2015 and 2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 2.2 nb$^{-1}$. The $v_n$ values are measured as a function of the transverse momentum of the jets between 71 GeV and 398 GeV and the event centrality. A nonzero value of $v_2$ is observed in all but the most central collisions. The value of $v_2$ is largest for jets with lower transverse momentum, with values up to 0.05 in mid-central collisions. A smaller, nonzero value of $v_3$ of approximately 0.01 is measured with no significant dependence on jet $p_T$ or centrality, suggesting that fluctuations in the initial state play a small but distinct role in jet energy loss. No significant deviation of $v_4$ from zero is observed in the measured kinematic region.
The JES for R = 0.2 jets in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of $p_T^{truth}$ for centrality selections of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%.
The JER for R = 0.2 jets in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of $p_T^{truth}$ for centrality selections of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%.
The JES for R = 0.2 jets in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of $2|\Psi_2-\phi^{reco}|$ for centrality selections of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%.
The JER for R = 0.2 jets in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of $2|\Psi_2-\phi^{reco}|$ for centrality selections of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%.
The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 20-40% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 5-10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 20-40% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 5-10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 20-40% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 5-10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v2 for pT = 71--398 GeV jets as a function of centrality.
The systematic uncertainties in v3 for pT = 71--398 GeV jets as a function of centrality.
The systematic uncertainties in v4 for pT = 71--398 GeV jets as a function of centrality.
Angular distribution of jets as a function of the observed psi2 plane for jets with 71 < pT < 79 GeV in the 10-20% centrality bin.
Angular distribution of jets as a function of the observed psi3 plane for jets with 71 < pT < 79 GeV in the 10-20% centrality bin.
Angular distribution of jets as a function of the observed psi4 plane for jets with 71 < pT < 79 GeV in the 10-20% centrality bin.
The v2 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of centrality for jets in several pT ranges.
The v2 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of pT for 0-5%, 5-10%, and 20-40% centrality collisions.
The v2, v3, and v4 as a function of centrality for jets with pT = 71-398 GeV.
The v3 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of centrality for jets in several pT ranges.
The v4 values for R = 0.2 jets as a function of centrality for jets in several pT ranges.
The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.
The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.
The v2 as a function of pT for jets in 20-40% centrality collisions.
The v3 as a function of pT for jets in 20-40% centrality collisions.
The v2 for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.
The v3 for jets in 10-20% centrality collisions.
R2max as a function of pT (filled circles). Also shown is 1 - 4v2/(1+2v2).
R3max as a function of pT (filled circles). Also shown is 1 - 4v3/(1+2v3).
The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 40-60% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 40-60% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 40-60% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 10-20% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 10-20% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 10-20% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v2 for 0-5% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v3 for 0-5% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
The systematic uncertainties in v4 for 0-5% centrality Pb+Pb collisions as a function of pT.
Jet quenching is the process of color-charged partons losing energy via interactions with quark-gluon plasma droplets created in heavy-ion collisions. The collective expansion of such droplets is well described by viscous hydrodynamics. Similar evidence of collectivity is consistently observed in smaller collision systems, including $pp$ and $p$+Pb collisions. In contrast, while jet quenching is observed in Pb+Pb collisions, no evidence has been found in these small systems to date, raising fundamental questions about the nature of the system created in these collisions. The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider has measured the yield of charged hadrons correlated with reconstructed jets in 0.36 nb$^{-1}$ of $p$+Pb and 3.6 pb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at 5.02 TeV. The yields of charged hadrons with $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{ch} >0.5$ GeV near and opposite in azimuth to jets with $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{jet} > 30$ or $60$ GeV, and the ratios of these yields between $p$+Pb and $pp$ collisions, $I_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$, are reported. The collision centrality of $p$+Pb events is categorized by the energy deposited by forward neutrons from the struck nucleus. The $I_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ values are consistent with unity within a few percent for hadrons with $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{ch} >4$ GeV at all centralities. These data provide new, strong constraints which preclude almost any parton energy loss in central $p$+Pb collisions.
Measurements of charged-particle fragmentation functions of jets produced in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions can provide insight into the modification of parton showers in the hot, dense medium created in the collisions. ATLAS has measured jets in $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC using a data set recorded in 2011 with an integrated luminosity of 0.14 nb$^{-1}$. Jets were reconstructed using the anti-$k_{t}$ algorithm with distance parameter values $R$ = 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4. Distributions of charged-particle transverse momentum and longitudinal momentum fraction are reported for seven bins in collision centrality for $R=0.4$ jets with $p_{{T}}^{\mathrm{jet}}> 100$ GeV. Commensurate minimum $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values are used for the other radii. Ratios of fragment distributions in each centrality bin to those measured in the most peripheral bin are presented. These ratios show a reduction of fragment yield in central collisions relative to peripheral collisions at intermediate $z$ values, $0.04 \lesssim z \lesssim 0.2$ and an enhancement in fragment yield for $z \lesssim 0.04$. A smaller, less significant enhancement is observed at large $z$ and large $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in central collisions.
Differences of D(Z) distributions in different centralities with respect to peripheral events for R = 0.3 jets. The errors represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Differences of D(Z) distributions in different centralities with respect to peripheral events for R = 0.2 jets. The errors represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(z) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.4 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.3 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
D(pt) distribution for R=0.2 jets.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(z) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.4 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.3 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Ratio of D(pt) distributions for R=0.2 jets for central to peripheral events.
Measurements of the centrality and rapidity dependence of inclusive jet production in $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV proton--lead ($p$+Pb) collisions and the jet cross-section in $\sqrt{s} = 2.76$ TeV proton--proton collisions are presented. These quantities are measured in datasets corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 27.8 nb$^{-1}$ and 4.0 pb$^{-1}$, respectively, recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2013. The $p$+Pb collision centrality was characterised using the total transverse energy measured in the pseudorapidity interval $-4.9 < \eta < -3.2$ in the direction of the lead beam. Results are presented for the double-differential per-collision yields as a function of jet rapidity and transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) for minimum-bias and centrality-selected $p$+Pb collisions, and are compared to the jet rate from the geometric expectation. The total jet yield in minimum-bias events is slightly enhanced above the expectation in a $p_\mathrm{T}$-dependent manner but is consistent with the expectation within uncertainties. The ratios of jet spectra from different centrality selections show a strong modification of jet production at all $p_\mathrm{T}$ at forward rapidities and for large $p_\mathrm{T}$ at mid-rapidity, which manifests as a suppression of the jet yield in central events and an enhancement in peripheral events. These effects imply that the factorisation between hard and soft processes is violated at an unexpected level in proton-nucleus collisions. Furthermore, the modifications at forward rapidities are found to be a function of the total jet energy only, implying that the violations may have a simple dependence on the hard parton-parton kinematics.
The $R_{\mathrm{coll}}$ and $T_{p\mathrm{A}}$ values and their uncertainties in each centrality bin.
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Per-event jet yields in 0-90% p+Pb collisions, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +3.6 to +4.4 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.8 to +3.6 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RCP vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60%/60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 0-10% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 10-20% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 20-30% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 30-40% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 40-60% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +2.1 to +2.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +1.2 to +2.1 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.8 to +1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity +0.3 to +0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.3 to +0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -0.8 to -0.3 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -1.2 to -0.8 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
Jet RpPb vs. pT*cosh(y*) for 60-90% p+Pb events, within the centre of mass rapidity -2.1 to -1.2 (positive denotes downstream proton direction).
The relationship between jet production in the central region and the underlying-event activity in a pseudorapidity-separated region is studied in 4.0 pb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s} = 2.76$ TeV $pp$ collision data recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The underlying event is characterised through measurements of the average value of the sum of the transverse energy at large pseudorapidity downstream of one of the protons, which are reported here as a function of hard-scattering kinematic variables. The hard scattering is characterised by the average transverse momentum and pseudorapidity of the two highest transverse momentum jets in the event. The dijet kinematics are used to estimate, on an event-by-event basis, the scaled longitudinal momenta of the hard-scattered partons in the target and projectile beam-protons moving toward and away from the region measuring transverse energy, respectively. Transverse energy production at large pseudorapidity is observed to decrease with a linear dependence on the longitudinal momentum fraction in the target proton and to depend only weakly on that in the projectile proton. The results are compared to the predictions of various Monte Carlo event generators, which qualitatively reproduce the trends observed in data but generally underpredict the overall level of transverse energy at forward pseudorapidity.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +2.1 < eta^dijet < +2.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +1.2 < eta^dijet < +2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.8 < eta^dijet < +1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.8 < eta^dijet < -0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -1.2 < eta^dijet < -0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.1 < eta^dijet < -1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.8 < eta^dijet < -2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +2.1 < eta^dijet < +2.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +1.2 < eta^dijet < +2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.8 < eta^dijet < +1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for +0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.3 < eta^dijet < +0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -0.8 < eta^dijet < -0.3.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -1.2 < eta^dijet < -0.8.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.1 < eta^dijet < -1.2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of dijet pT^avg, shown here for -2.8 < eta^dijet < -2.1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-2 < x_targ < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-1 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-2 < x_proj < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-1 < x_proj < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, <SumET>. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-2 < x_targ < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-1 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_proj, shown here for 10^-3 < x_targ < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 10^-2.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-2 < x_proj < 10^-1.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-1 < x_proj < 1$.
Mean value of the sum of the transverse energy in -4.9 < eta < -3.2 in pp collisions, divided by a reference value (see text), <SumET>/<SumET>^ref. Reported as a function of x_targ, shown here for 10^-3 < x_proj < 1$.
Measurements of two-particle correlation functions and the first five azimuthal harmonics, $v_1$ to $v_5$, are presented, using 28 $\mathrm{nb}^{-1}$ of $p$+Pb collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Significant long-range "ridge-like" correlations are observed for pairs with small relative azimuthal angle ($|\Delta\phi|<\pi/3$) and back-to-back pairs ($|\Delta\phi| > 2\pi/3$) over the transverse momentum range $0.4 < p_{\rm T} < 12$ GeV and in different intervals of event activity. The event activity is defined by either the number of reconstructed tracks or the total transverse energy on the Pb-fragmentation side. The azimuthal structure of such long-range correlations is Fourier decomposed to obtain the harmonics $v_n$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ and event activity. The extracted $v_n$ values for $n=2$ to 5 decrease with $n$. The $v_2$ and $v_3$ values are found to be positive in the measured $p_{\rm T}$ range. The $v_1$ is also measured as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ and is observed to change sign around $p_{\rm T}\approx 1.5$-2.0 GeV and then increase to about 0.1 for $p_{\rm T}>4$ GeV. The $v_2(p_{\rm T})$, $v_3(p_{\rm T})$ and $v_4(p_{\rm T})$ are compared to the $v_n$ coefficients in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} =2.76$ TeV with similar event multiplicities. Reasonable agreement is observed after accounting for the difference in the average $p_{\rm T}$ of particles produced in the two collision systems.
The distributions of $N_{ch}^{rec}$ for MB and MB+HMT after applying an event-by-event weight, errors are statistical.
The distributions of $E_{T}^{Pb}$ [GeV] for MB and MB+HMT after applying an event-by-event weight, errors are statistical.
Per-trigger yield in 2D, $Y$($\Delta\phi$,$\Delta\eta$), for events with $E_{T}^{Pb} <$ 10 GeV and $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 200 and recoil-subtracted per-trigger yield, $Y^{sub}$($\Delta\phi$,$\Delta\eta$) for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 200. Errors are statistical.
$v_{2,2}^{unsub}$ and $v_{2,2}$ as a function of $\Delta\eta$ calculated from the 2-D per-trigger yields in figure 4(a) and 4(b), respectively.
$v_{3,3}^{unsub}$ and $v_{3,3}$ as a function of $\Delta\eta$ calculated from the 2-D per-trigger yields in figure 4(a) and 4(b), respectively.
$v_{4,4}^{unsub}$ and $v_{4,4}$ as a function of $\Delta\eta$ calculated from the 2-D per-trigger yields in figure 4(a) and 4(b), respectively.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
The per-trigger yield distributions $Y^{corr}(\Delta\phi)$ and $Y^{recoil}(\Delta\phi)$ for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220 in the long-range region $|\Delta\eta| >$ 2.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the near-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the near-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the near-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the near-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the near-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the away-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the away-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the away-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the away-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
Integrated per-trigger yield, $Y_{int}$, on the away-side as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV.
The integrated per-trigger yield, Y_{int}, on the near-side, the away-side and their difference and Y_{int} from the recoil as a function of event activity. Errors are statistical.
The integrated per-trigger yield, Y_{int}, on the near-side, the away-side and their difference and Y_{int} from the recoil as a function of event activity. Errors are statistical.
The Fourier coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ extracted from the correlation functions, before and after the subtraction of the recoil component.
The Fourier coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ extracted from the correlation functions, before and after the subtraction of the recoil component.
The Fourier coefficients $v_{n}$ as a function of $p_{T}^{a}$ extracted from the correlation functions, before and after the subtraction of the recoil component.
$v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ and $v_{5}$ as a function of $p_T^a$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV for different $N_{ch}^{rec}$ intervals.
$v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ and $v_{5}$ as a function of $p_T^a$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV for different $N_{ch}^{rec}$ intervals.
$v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ and $v_{5}$ as a function of $p_T^a$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV for different $N_{ch}^{rec}$ intervals.
$v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ and $v_{5}$ as a function of $p_T^a$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV for different $N_{ch}^{rec}$ intervals.
$v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ and $v_{5}$ as a function of $p_T^a$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV for different $N_{ch}^{rec}$ intervals.
$v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, $v_{4}$ and $v_{5}$ as a function of $p_T^a$ for 1 $< p_{T}^{b} <$ 3 GeV for different $N_{ch}^{rec}$ intervals.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{2}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The values of factorization variable $r_{3}$ defined by Eq.(11) before and after the subtraction of the recoil component. Errors are total experimental uncertainties.
The centrality dependence of $v_{2}$ as a function of $N_{ch}^{rec}$. Values from before and after the recoil subtraction are included.
The centrality dependence of $v_{3}$ as a function of $N_{ch}^{rec}$. Values from before and after the recoil subtraction are included.
The centrality dependence of $v_{4}$ as a function of $N_{ch}^{rec}$. Values from before and after the recoil subtraction are included.
The centrality dependence of $v_{2}$ as a function of $E_{T}^{Pb}$. Values from before and after the recoil subtraction are included.
The centrality dependence of $v_{3}$ as a function of $E_{T}^{Pb}$. Values from before and after the recoil subtraction are included.
The centrality dependence of $v_{4}$ as a function of $E_{T}^{Pb}$. Values from before and after the recoil subtraction are included.
The $v_{2}$ as a function of $E_{T}^{Pb}$ obtained indirectly by mapping from the $N_{ch}^{rec}-dependence of $v_{2}$ using the correlation data shown in Fig. 2(b).
The $v_{3}$ as a function of $E_{T}^{Pb}$ obtained indirectly by mapping from the $N_{ch}^{rec}-dependence of $v_{3}$ using the correlation data shown in Fig. 2(b).
The first-order harmonic of 2PC before recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}^{unsub}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC before recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}^{unsub}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC before recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}^{unsub}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC before recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}^{unsub}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC before recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}^{unsub}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC before recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}^{unsub}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC after recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC after recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC after recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC after recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC after recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic of 2PC after recoil subtraction, $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic $v_1$ obtained using factorization from $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic $v_1$ obtained using factorization from $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
The first-order harmonic $v_1$ obtained using factorization from $v_{1,1}$, as a function of $p_T^a$ for different $p_T^b$ ranges for events with $N_{ch}^{rec} \geq$ 220.
$v_{2}$ for Pb+Pb collisions in 55-60% centrality interval obtained using an EP method.
$v_{2}$ for Pb+Pb collisions in 55-60% centrality interval obtained using an EP method, after the scaling.
$v_{3}$ for Pb+Pb collisions in 55-60% centrality interval obtained using an EP method.
$v_{3}$ for Pb+Pb collisions in 55-60% centrality interval obtained using an EP method, after the scaling.
$v_{4}$ for Pb+Pb collisions in 55-60% centrality interval obtained using an EP method.
$v_{4}$ for Pb+Pb collisions in 55-60% centrality interval obtained using an EP method, after the scaling.
Correlation between $E_{T}^{FCal}$ and $N_{ch}^{rec}$ for MB events (without weighting) and MB+HMT events (with weighting), errors are statistical.
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 and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch 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.