Centrality dependence of $⟨p^{trunc}_T⟩$, the average $p_T$ of charged particles with $p_T$ above a threshold $p^{min}_T$ minus the threshold $p^{min}_T$. Shown are values for two $p^{min}_T$ cuts, one at $p_T >$ 0.5 GeV/$c$ representing all data presented in Fig. 2 and the other one at $p_T >$ 2 GeV/$c$.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for the 60-80%, 30-60%, 15-30%, and 5-15% centrality selections compared to the one for the most central sample (0-5%). Due to insufficient statistics $R_{AA}$ is not shown for the 80-92% sample.

The top panel gives the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ for three exclusive $p_T$ regions as a function of the centrality of the collision. The lower panel shows essentially the same quantity but normalized to the number of participant pairs rather than to the number of binary collisions. The dotted line indicates the expectation for scaling with the number of binary collisions (top) or with the number of participants (bottom). Only statistical errors are shown. The systematic error on the scale and the centrality dependence are identical to the errors shown in Fig. 5. These errors are correlated, i.e. take their maximum or minimum value simultaneously for all centrality and $p_T$ selections. In addition, there are also $p_T$ dependent systematic errors, which are given in Table 1. The systematic errors do not alter the trends in the data.

The mid-rapidity kaon multiplicity densities ($dN/dy$) and mT exponential inverse slopes (T in MeV) as a function of negative hadron multiplicity with $|η|<0.5$ ($dNh-/dη$). Quoted errors are uncorrelated errors (first) and correlated systematic errors (second). Systematic error on $dNh-/dη$ is $7\%$.

The mid-rapidity kaon multiplicity densities ($dN/dy$) and mT exponential inverse slopes (T in MeV) as a function of negative hadron multiplicity with $|η|<0.5$ ($dNh-/dη$). Quoted errors are uncorrelated errors (first) and correlated systematic errors (second). Systematic error on $dNh-/dη$ is $7\%$.

Central 0-6% K/π yield ratios.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

Elliptic flow as determined from the fits to the $q$ distributions in different centrality bins. The circles are from the standard method with random subevents. For the squares, all the centralities were fit separately. For the triangles, centrality bins 2-8 were fit with the same value of the nonflow parameter.

Measured elliptic flow vs centrality for $Au+Au$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV. The circles show the conventional $v_{2}$ with estimated systematic uncertainty due to nonflow [37], the stars show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the generating function, the crosses show the conventional $v_{2}$ from quarter events, and the squares show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the four-subevent method.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Elliptic flow vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

Elliptic flow vs transverse momentum from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from the fourth-order cumulant divided by $v_{2}$, from the conventional method as a function of $p_{t}$, averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from quarter events divided by the conventional $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{t}$. In both cases, event planes were constructed from low-$p_{t}$ (< 0.5 GeV/c) particles. The data are averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

$v_{2}/\varepsilon$ as a function of charged particle density in $Au+Au$ collisions. Data are from E877 at the AGS (squares), NA49 at the SPS (circles), and STAR at RHIC (stars). The AGS and SPS data have been obtained by conventional flow analysis. The STAR measurements are at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV, and correspond to the final corrected elliptic flow based on fourth-order cumulants, and we assume $dN/dy=1.15dN/d\eta$. The horizontal shaded bands indicate the hydrodynamic limits for different beam energies [44].

The inelastic J/PSI production cross section as a function of PT**2.

Low Z inelastic J/PSI cross section as a function of W.

Low Z inelastic J/PSI cross section as a function of PT**2.

Inelastic J/PSI cross section for the full Z range. The data come from two different data sets with the points at Z = 0.38 being statistically correlated.

PHI to K*0 ratio measured in this study.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the laboratory frame PT**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame rapidity Y*.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame PT**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the laboratory frame rapidity Y.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of Q**2 for laboratory PT**2 > 6.4 GeV**2 and Q**2 > 12 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of Z for laboratory PT**2 > 6.4 GeV**2 and Q**2 > 12 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of W for laboratort PT**2 > 6.4 GeV**2 and Q**2 > 12 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the laboratory frame PT**2 for laboratory PT**2 > 6.4 GeV**2 and Q**2 > 12 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame rapidity Y* for laboratory PT**2 > 6.4 GeV**2 and Q**2 > 12 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame PT**2 for laboratory PT**2 > 6.4 GeV**2 and Q**2 > 12 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction double differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame PT**2 and Z for the Z range 0.3 to 0.6.

J/PSI leptoproduction double differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame PT**2 and Z for the Z range 0.6 to 0.75.

J/PSI leptoproduction double differential cross section as a function of the centre-of-mass frame PT**2 and Z for Z range 0.75 to 0.9.

J/PSI leptoproduction double differential cross section as a function of Q**2 and Z for the Z range 0.3 to 0.6.

J/PSI leptoproduction double differential cross section as a function of Q**2 and Z for the Z range 0.6 to 0.75.

J/PSI leptoproduction double differential cross section as a function of Q**2 and Z for the Z range 0.75 to 0.9.

J/PSI photoproduction cross section at a mean Q**2 of 10.6 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of COS(THETA*). for the Z range 0.75 to 0.9.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of COS(THETA*) in the Q**2 range 2 to 6.5 GeV**2.

J/PSI leptoproduction differential cross section as a function of COS(THETA*) in the Q**2 range 6.5 to 100 GeV**2.

$v_2$ vs Fixed $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

$v_2$ vs Assorted $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

$v_2$ vs Assorted $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

The centrality dependence of $A_2$ for two different $p_T$ selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation in Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 10$%, dominated by the normalization of the correction function and the model determination of$ \varepsilon$.

The centrality dependence of $A_2$ for two different $p_T$ selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation in Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 10$%, dominated by the normalization of the correction function and the model determination of$ \varepsilon$.

Spectra of inclusive $\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) for minimum-bias events.

Spectra of inclusive feed-down corrected protons (antiprotons) for minimum-bias events.

Inclusive $\Lambda$ and feed-down corrected proton yields for minimum bias and for the 5% most central events. Systematic errors are 17% for protons and 16% for $\Lambda$

Inclusive $\Lambda$ and feed-down corrected average transverse momentum for minimum bias and for the 5% most central events. Systematic errors are 17% for protons and 16% for $\Lambda$

Inclusive $\Lambda$ and feed-down corrected slope parameters for minimum bias and for the 5% most central events. Systematic errors are 17% for protons and 16% for $\Lambda$

Total measured and predicted baryon yields for minimum-bias and for the 5% most central events. The proton yields are corrected for feed-down. The systematic errors are 24% for the protons and 23% for the $\Lambda$

The differential cross section dsig/dmx measured with the LPS method for the Q**2 range 0.17 to 0.70.

The differential cross section dsig/dmx measured with the LPS method for the Q**2 range 3 to 9.

The differential cross section dsig/dmx measured with the LPS method for the Q**2 range 9 to 80.

The differential cross section dsig/dmx measured with the M_X**2 method forthe Q**2 range 0.220 to 0.324 in two M_X**2 ranges.

The differential cross section dsig/dmx measured with the M_X**2 method forthe Q**2 range 0.324 to 0.476 in two M_X**2 ranges.

The differential cross section dsig/dmx measured with the M_X**2 method forthe Q**2 range 0.476 to 0.700 in two M_X**2 ranges.