Non photonic electron yield in minimum bias D+AU collisions versus $p_{T}$.

Non photonic electron yield in AU+AU collisions versus PT, for a centrality range of 40-80% To obtain a differential cross-section in mb/(GeV2), multiply listed data by 30 Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 40-80%.

Non photonic electron yield in AU+AU collisions versus PT, for a centrality range of 10-40% To obtain a differential cross-section in mb/(GeV2), multiply listed data by 30 Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 10-40%.

Non photonic electron yield in AU+AU collisions versus PT, for a centrality range of 0-5% To obtain a differential cross-section in mb/(GeV2), multiply listed data by 30 Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 0-5%.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in minimum bias D+AU reactions Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in minimum bias d+Au reactions.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in AU+AU reactions in the centrality range of 0-5% Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in Au+Au reactions in the centrality range of 0-5%.

The v2 of KS0 as a function of pT for 30%–70%, 5%–30%, and 0%–5% of the collision cross section. The error bars represent statistical errors only. The nonflow systematic errors for the 30%–70%, 5%– 30%, and 0%–5% centralities are 25%, 20%, and 80%, respectively.

The v2 of Lambda+Lambdabar as a function of pT for 30%–70%, 5%–30%, and 0%–5% of the collision cross section. The error bars represent statistical errors only. The nonflow systematic errors for the 30%–70%, 5%– 30%, and 0%–5% centralities are 25%, 20%, and 80%, respectively.

The ratio RCP for KS0 at midrapidity calculated using centrality intervals, 0%–5% vs 40%–60% and 0%–5% vs 60%–80% of the collision cross section. The error bars shown on the points include both statistical and systematic errors.

The ratio RCP for Lambda+Lambdabar at midrapidity calculated using centrality intervals, 0%–5% vs 40%–60% and 0%–5% vs 60%–80% of the collision cross section. The error bars shown on the points include both statistical and systematic errors.

The v2 parameter for KS0 scaled by the number of constituent quarks (n) and plotted versus pT/n. The error bars shown include statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties from the background. The additional nonflow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%.

The v2 parameter for Lambda+Lambdabar scaled by the number of constituent quarks (n) and plotted versus pT/n. The error bars shown include statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties from the background. The additional nonflow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

1D correlation function for pi+pi- compared to standard, Bowler-Sinyukov, and a thoretical calculation that includes Coulomb and strong interactions.

Momentum resolution for pions at midrapidity expressed by the widths dp_T/p_T, dphi and dtheta as a function of p.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, RP uncorrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, RP res. corrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, RP uncorrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, RP res. uncorrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, fixed lambda.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, lambda varied.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, lambda fixed.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, lambda varied.

Fourier coefficients as a function of the maximum fraction of merged hits for the 5% most central events and kT between 150 and 250 MeV/c.

Projections of the 3 dimensional correlation function and fits to Eq. (10) and with the Edgeworth expansion to Eq. (17) to 6th order.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for fits to Eq. (10) and to Eq. (17) with no expansion.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for fits to Eq. (10) and to Eq. (17) upto 4th order expansion.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for fits to Eq. (10) and to Eq. (17) upto 6th order expansion.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for pi+pi+ and pi-pi- correlation functions.

HBT parameters from STAR and PHENIX at the same beam energy for the 0-30% most central events.

Energy dependence of the pi- HBT parameters for central Au+Au, Pb+Pb, and Pb+Au collisions at midrapidity and k_T ~ 0.2 GeV/c.

HBT parameters vs. m_T for 6 different centralities.

Fourier coefficients of azimuthal oscillations of HBT radii vs. numer of participating nucleons, for pi+ and pi- pairs separately (0.25 < kT < 0.35 GeV/c).

Comparison between the HBT radii obtained from the azimuthally integrated (traditional) HBT analysis and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients from the azimuthally-sensitive HBT analysis.

HBT radius parametres for 6 different centralities.

Extracted parameters R' and alpha, from the power-law fits to the HBT radius parameters.

Extracted freeze-out source radius extracted from a blast wave fit; source radius Rgeom from fits to Rside; and 2*Rside for the lowest k_T bin as a function of the number of participants.

HBT parameter Rside.

R - Rinitial (top panel) and R/Rinitial (bottom panel) for the azimuthally integrated analysis for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. number of participants.

R - Rinitial (top panel) and R/Rinitial (bottom panel) for in the x (in-plane) and y (out-of-plane) directions for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. number of participants.

R - Rinitial for the azimuthally integrated analysis for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. (dN/dy)/Rinitial.

R - Rinitial in the x (in-plane) direction for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. (dN/dy)/Rinitial.

R - Rinitial in the y (out-of-plane) direction for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. (dN/dy)/Rinitial.

Longitudinal HBT radius Rl.

Evolution time tau vs. number of participants as extracted from a fit to Rl, lines in Fig. 26 (triangles), and from a blast wave fit to HBT parameters and spectra (circles).

R - Rinital for the azimuthally integrated analysis and for the in-plane and out-of-plane directions vs. beta_T,max*tau.

R - Rinital for the azimuthally integrated analysis and for the in-plane and out-of-plane directions vs. beta_T,max*tau.

R - Rinital for the azimuthally integrated analysis and for the in-plane and out-of-plane directions vs. beta_T,max*tau.

Emission duration time dTau vs. number of participants as extracted using a blast wave fit to HBT parameters and spectra.

Final source eccentricity as calculated from the Fourier coefficients (2R_{s,2}^2/R_{s,0}^2) and from the final in-plane and out-of-plane radii vs. initial eccentricity.

Fit results from a fit to data using Eq. 11 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations and Eq. 15 for non-femtoscopic ones (EMCIC fit from Figure 6 in the paper)

Fit results from a fit to 1D correlation function using Eq. 6 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations (standard fit from Figure 7 in the paper)

Fit results from a fit to 1D correlation function using Eq. 6 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations and Eq. 12 for non-femtoscopic ones (delta - q fit from Figure 7 in the paper)

Fit results from a fit to 1D correlation function using Eq. 6 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations and Eq. 15 for non-femtoscopic ones (EMCIC fit from Figure 7 in the paper). The non-femtoscopic parameters M1−4 were not varied, but kept fixed to the values in Table IV

Multiplicity dependence of fit results to 1D correlation function for different fit parameterizations (Figure 8 in the paper).

Multiplicity dependence of fit parameters to two-dimensional correlation functions using Equations 7 and 8. To consistently compare to previous measurements, Omega was set to unity (c.f. Equation 5).

Upper plot: points are measured $p/E_{tower}$ electron peak position as a function of the distance to the center of the tower. The solid line is from a calculation based on a full GEANT simulation of the detector response to electrons. Lower plot: points show measured energy deposited by electrons in the tower as a function of the momentum for distances to the center of the tower smaller than 2.0 cm. The first point is the electron equivalent energy of the minimum ionizing particles. The solid line is a second order polynomial fit of the data.

Spatial profiles of energy deposition in the EMC as a function of distance ($d$) from the hit point to the center of the tower for $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ from simulations and for positive and negative hadrons from data. The arrow indicates the distance corresponding to the border of a tower in 0 < $\eta$ < 0.2. An overall agreement between the shapes of the profiles is observed, with a small normalization difference.

Total Transverse Energy for 0 < $\eta$ < 1. The minimum bias distribution is presented as well as the distributions for the different centrality bins (see table III). The shaded area corresponds to the 5% most central bin. The main axis scale corresponds to the $E_{T}$ measured in the detector acceptance and the bottom axis is corrected to represent the extrapolation to full azimuthal acceptance.

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta|_{\eta=0.5}$⟩ per $N_{part}$ pair vs. $N_{part}$. Upper panel: $N_{part}$ is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model [27](solid), the EKRT saturation model [7] (dotted, Eq. 8) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of $N_{part}$. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on $N_{part}$ calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for $N_{part}$. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta|_{\eta=0.5}$⟩ per $N_{part}$ pair vs. $N_{part}$. Upper panel: $N_{part}$ is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model [27](solid), the EKRT saturation model [7] (dotted, Eq. 8) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of $N_{part}$. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on $N_{part}$ calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for $N_{part}$. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.

$dE_{T}/dy$ (see text for details) per $N_{part}$ pair vs $sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central events. In this figure $dE_{T}/dy/(0.5N_{part})$ is seen to grow logarithmicaly with $sqrt{s_{NN}}$. The error bar in the STAR point represents the total systematic uncertainty. The solid line is a EKRT model prediction [7], corrected for $d\eta/dy$, for central Au+Au collisions.

Upper panel - ⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $N_{part}$. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of $N_{part}$ [37].

Upper panel - ⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $N_{part}$. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of $N_{part}$ [37].

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central events. The error bar in the STAR point corresponds to the systematic uncertaintiy. A constant value of ∼ 800 MeV per charged particle, within errors, characterizes transverse energy production over this full energy range.

Energy dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the transverse energy for a number of systems spanning SPS to RHIC energy for central events.

(Color online) Measured dynamical $K/\pi$ fluctuations in terms of $\nu_{dyn,K\pi}$ for 62.4 and 200 GeV Au+Au compared with $\sigma^{2}_{dyn}$ from central Pb+Pb collisions at 6.3, 7.6, 8.8, 12.3, and 17.3 GeV from NA49 [7]. Statistical errors are shown for the STAR data. Statistical and systematic errors are shown for the NA49 results. The solid line corresponds to a fit to the STAR data of the form $c + d/(dN/d\eta)$.

(Color online) The dN/dη scaled dynamical $K/\pi$ fluctuations for summed charges (stars), same signs (circles), and opposite signs (squares) as a function of $dN/d\eta$. The errors shown are statistical. The open and filled symbols refer to Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV respectively. The dash-dot, dotted, and dashed lines represents HIJING calculations for summed charges, same signs, and opposite signs respectively.

Analyzing powers A_N(-x_F) in x_F bins at < eta > =3.3 and x_F < 0.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) for events with scaled pi^0 longitudinal momentum x_F > 0.4.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) for events with scaled pi^0 longitudinal momentum x_F < -0.4.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) in 0.25 < x_F < 0.30 bin.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) in 0.30 < x_F < 0.35 bin.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) in 0.35 < x_F < 0.40 bin.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) in 0.40 < x_F < 0.47 bin.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) in 0.47 < x_F < 0.56 bin.

Analyzing powers versus pi^0 transverse momentum (p_T) in 0.56 < x_F < 0.80 bin.

Balance functions in pseudorapidity windows -1 < eta < 1 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c.

Balance functions in pseudorapidity windows -1.3 < eta < 1.3 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < -0.2.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.8 < eta < 0.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.4 < eta < 0.4.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 0.8.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0.2 < eta < 1.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 60-80% centrality.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 30-60% centrality.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 10-30% centrality.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 0-10% centrality.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c.

Average transverse momentum per event for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the 5% most central collisions.

$<\Delta p_{t,i}\Delta p_{t,j}>$ as a function of centrality and incident energy for Au+Au collisions compared with HIJING results.

(d$N/\textrm{d}\eta)<\Delta p_{t,i}\Delta p_{t,j}>$ as a function of centrality and incident energy for Au+Au collisions compared with HIJING results.

$(<\Delta p_{t,i}\Delta p_{t,j}>)^{1/2}/<<p_{t}>>$ as a function of centrality and incident energy for Au+Au collisions compared with HIJING results.

$(<\Delta p_{t,i}\Delta p_{t,j}>)^{1/2}/<<p_{t}>>$ as a function of incident energy for 0-5% most central Au+Au collisions compared with CERES results.

RCP (pT) vs. pT for (h+ + h−)/2. Calculations are described in the text.