Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in Au + Au collisions for 5-10 $\otimes$ 2-3, 4-5 $\otimes$ 4-5, 5-10 $\otimes$ 3-5, and 5-10 $\otimes$ 5-10 GeV/c.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for p + p collisions for four trigger selections.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for Au + Au collisions for four trigger selections.

RHS versus $N_{part}$ for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/$c$. Shaded bars (brackets) represent $p_T$ -correlated uncertainties due to elliptic flow (ZYAM procedure). The most left point is from p+p.

Per-trigger yield $\Delta\phi$ distribution and corresponding fits for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/c in 0-5% Au+Au collisions.

a) D versus centrality from FIT 1 and FIT2 for 2 - 3 GeV/$c$ bin. The error bars are the statistical errors; The shaded bars and brackets are the systematic errors due to $v_2$. b) The fraction of the shoulder Gaussian yield relative to the total away-side yield as function of centrality determined from FIT2.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % Au + Au.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % p + p.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus $N_{part}$ for five successively increasing $p^a_T$ $\otimes$ $p^b_T$. The most left point in each panel represents the value from p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central Au + Au collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central p + p collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\eta$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\phi$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the head region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the away-side shoulder region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the near-side region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the head region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the away-side shoulder region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the near-side region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3-4 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4-5 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3-4 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4-5 GeV/c.

The near-side pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p^b_T$ for various ranges of $p^a_T$.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 20-40%.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 40-60%.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 60-92%.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 20-40% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 40-60% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 60-92% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 0-20 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 20-40 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 40-60 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 60-92 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in p + p collisions.

$\pi^0$ invariant yields for different centralities. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

$\pi^0$ invariant yields for different centralities. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ for the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions and PQM model calculations for different values of $<\bar{q}>$. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Integrated nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$ as a function of collision centrality.

Measured $\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for the 0-10% most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV in comparison to a jet quenching calculation. The error (tot.) includes the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainties and the point-to-point uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties.

Measured $\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for the 0-10% most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV in comparison to a jet quenching calculation. The error (tot.) includes the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainties and the point-to-point uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties.

Measured $\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for the 0-10% most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200.0 GeV in comparison to a jet quenching calculation. The error (tot.) includes the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainties and the point-to-point uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties.

The average $R_{AA}$ in the interval 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV. The error (sys.) includes the normalization and $<N_{coll}>$ uncertainties for a typical $N_{coll}$ uncertainty of 12%.

The average $R_{AA}$ in the interval 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. The error (sys.) includes the normalization and $<N_{coll}>$ uncertainties for a typical $N_{coll}$ uncertainty of 12%.

The average $R_{AA}$ in the interval 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error (sys.) includes the normalization and $<N_{coll}>$ uncertainties for a typical $N_{coll}$ uncertainty of 12%.

The invariant mass distribution for the coherently produced $\rho^{0}$ candidates obtained from the topology sample with the cut on the $\rho^{0}$ transverse momentum $p_{T}$ < 150 MeV/c. The hatched area is the contribution from the combinatorial background. The solid line corresponds to Eq. 3 which encompasses the Breit-Wigner (dashed), the mass independent contribution from the direct $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ production (dash-dotted), and the interference term(dotted).

The ratio |B/A| as a function of $y_{\rho^{0}}$ for the minimum bias data, obtained by fitting Eq.3 to the invariant mass distributions in bins of $y_{\rho^{0}}$.

Coherent $\rho^{0}$ production cross-section for the minimum bias data set as a function of $y_{\rho^{0}}$ (black dots) overlaid by the $d\sigma/dy$ distribution predicted by the KN model [22] (solid line).

$\rho^{0}$ production cross-section as a function of the momentum transfer squared $t$, together with the fit of Eq. 5. The fit parameters are shown in Table I.

Comparison of theoretical predictions to the measured differential cross-section for coherent $\rho^{0}$ production. The statistical errors are shown by the solid vertical line at each data point. The sum of the statistical and systematic error bars is shown by the grey band.

Projections of the two dimensional efficiency corrected $\Phi_{h}$ vs $cos(\Theta_{h})$ distributions obtained with the minimum bias data set. The solid line shows the result of the two-dimensional fit to the data with Eq. 6 and the coefficients given in Tab. III.

Projections of the two dimensional efficiency corrected $\Phi_{h}$ vs $cos(\Theta_{h})$ distributions obtained with the minimum bias data set. The solid line shows the result of the two-dimensional fit to the data with Eq. 6 and the coefficients given in Tab. III.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{x2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{x2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x6}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x6}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{y6}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{y6}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x2y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x2y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{y4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{y4}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x2y4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x2y4}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x4y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x4y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Source function profile $S(r_x)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_x)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Source function profile $S(r_y)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_y)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Source function profile $S(r_z)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_z)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_x)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_x)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_y)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_y)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_z)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_z)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_x)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_x)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_y)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_y)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_z)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_z)$ in PCMS.

$\Delta$$t_{LCM}$ from Therminator events compared with various assumptions for $\Delta\tau$ and resonance emissions.

$\Delta$$t_{LCM}$ from Therminator events compared with various assumptions for $\Delta\tau$ and resonance emissions.

<p>Jet-pair distributions for associated baryons for $1 < p_{T,assoc} < 1.3\ \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1.6 < p_{T,assoc} < 2.0\ \mathrm{GeV}/c$. Results are for a hadron trigger $2.5 < p_T < 4.0\ \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and centrality selections of 0-20% and 20-40%.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated mesons for near-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated mesons for away-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated baryons for near-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated baryons for away-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Ratio of jet-associated baryons to jet-associated mesons for near-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Ratio of jet-associated baryons to jet-associated mesons for away-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus PT at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus PT at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus centrality at backward rapidity (-2.2<y<-1.2) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus centrality at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus centrality at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus rapidity in D+AU collisions, over 3 bins of rapidity.

Nuclear modification factor versus rapidity in D+AU collisions, over 5 bins of rapidity.

Nuclear modification factor versus PT at backward rapidity (-2.2<y<-1.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus PT at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus PT at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus centrality at backward rapidity (-2.2<y<-1.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus centrality at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus centrality at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

Mean PT^2 versus rapidity, extracted from a fit to the data, for DEUT + Au reactions. The mean value of PT^2 is calculated from the data for PT < 5 Gev/c.

Mean PT^2 versus rapidity, extracted from a fit to the data, for P + P reactions. The mean value of PT^2 is calculated from the data for PT < 5 Gev/c.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter,integrated over the whole domain of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter for different ranges of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter, integrated over the whole domain of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter for different ranges of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

(a) The solid curve represents the fraction of $\Delta G$ for GRSV-std that has $x > x_{min}$ for scale $Q^{2}$ = 100 $GeV^{2}/c^{2}$. The histograms show the $x_{gluon}$ sampled in the lowest and highest jet $p_{T}$ bins. (b) Confidence levels for several gluon polarization distributions, characterized by their $\Delta G$ at an input scale of 0.4 $GeV^{2}/c^{2}$ [4, 14, 23].

(a) The solid curve represents the fraction of $\Delta G$ for GRSV-std that has $x > x_{min}$ for scale $Q^{2}$ = 100 $GeV^{2}/c^{2}$. The histograms show the $x_{gluon}$ sampled in the lowest and highest jet $p_{T}$ bins. (b) Confidence levels for several gluon polarization distributions, characterized by their $\Delta G$ at an input scale of 0.4 $GeV^{2}/c^{2}$ [4, 14, 23].

(Color online) $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ spectra on the deuteron and on the gold side in $d$ + Au minimum bias collisions. The data points on the gold side are multiplied by 2 for better visibility. The statistical errors are smaller than the points marking the measurements. The curves show a fit with a Boltzmann function in transverse mass to the data points.

(Color online) (a) Comparison of the measured $\overline{\Lambda}$ yield with model calculations. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic er- rors including the overall normalization uncertainty. In both panels the target and projectile beam rapidities are indicated by arrows.

(Color online) (b) Comparison of the net $\Lambda$ yield with model calculations. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic er- rors including the overall normalization uncertainty. In both panels the target and projectile beam rapidities are indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Minimum bias $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio compared to model calculations. On the deuteron side HIJING/BB shows the best agreement with the results, while on the Au side only AMPT and EPOS give a satisfactory description of the data.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

(Color online) Net $\Lambda dN/dy$ for central, mid-central and peripheral events on both the deuteron and the Au side of the collision. The data are compared to calculations of the distribution of net baryons obtained with the Multichain model [16] with $\alpha$ = 2.9, scaled by 0.1 to account for the conversion from net baryons to net $\Lambda$. An overall scale uncertainty of 10% on the model curves from this conversion is not shown. See text for details.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 825 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 875 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 925 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 975 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1025 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1075 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1125 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1175 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1225 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1275 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1325 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1375 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1425 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1475 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1525 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1575 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1625 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1675 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1725 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1775 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1825 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1875 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1925 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 1975 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2025 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2075 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2125 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2175 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2225 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2275 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2325 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2375 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2425 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2475 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2525 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2575 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2625 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2675 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2725 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2775 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2825 MeV.

Differential cross section for indicent photon energy 2875 MeV.