'The relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'ratios of the measured data to the power law as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The ratios of the measured data to UrQMD calculations as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'The UrQMD calculations of relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'Comparison of a model incorporating a Boltzmann-Langevin approach to the calculation of thermalization effects for the relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of $N_{part}$'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of collision energy for the 0-5\% centrality bin'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of collision energy for the 0-5\% centrality bin'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of collision energy for the 0-5\% centrality bin'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of collision energy for the 0-5\% centrality bin'

'relative dynamical correlation as a function of collision energy for the 0-5\% centrality bin'

(a) Centrality dependence of $v^{even}_{1}$ for $0.4 \lt p_{T} \lt 0.7$ GeV/c for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}} = 200, 39$ and $19.6$ GeV; (b) $K$ vs. $\langle N_{ch} \rangle^{-1}$ for the $v^{even}_{1}$ values shown in (a). The $\langle N_{ch} \rangle$ values correspond to the centrality intervals indicated in panel (a).

Comparison of the $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}$ dependence of $v^{even}_{1}$ and $v_3$ for $0.4 \lt p_{T} \lt 0.7$ GeV/c in 0-10 central Au+Au collisions.

Raw $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV for 0–5%, 30–40%, and 70–80% collision centralities at midrapidity. The distributions are not corrected for the finite centrality bin width effect nor the reconstruction efficiency.

Raw $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV for 0–5%, 30–40%, and 70–80% collision centralities at midrapidity. The distributions are not corrected for the finite centrality bin width effect nor the reconstruction efficiency.

Raw $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV for 0–5%, 30–40%, and 70–80% collision centralities at midrapidity. The distributions are not corrected for the finite centrality bin width effect nor the reconstruction efficiency.

Raw $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV for 0–5%, 30–40%, and 70–80% collision centralities at midrapidity. The distributions are not corrected for the finite centrality bin width effect nor the reconstruction efficiency.

Raw $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV for 0–5%, 30–40%, and 70–80% collision centralities at midrapidity. The distributions are not corrected for the finite centrality bin width effect nor the reconstruction efficiency.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of cumulants (C1, C2, C3, and C4) of $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collision centrality dependence of the $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ distributions in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collisions energy dependence of $M/\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ multiplicity distributions from 0–5% most central and 70–80% peripheral collisions in Au+Au collisions at \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collisions energy dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_k$ multiplicity distributions from 0–5% most central and 70–80% peripheral collisions in Au+Au collisions at \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Collisions energy dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_k$ multiplicity distributions from 0–5% most central and 70–80% peripheral collisions in Au+Au collisions at \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV. The error bars are statistical uncertainties and the caps represent systematic uncertainties.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K^{+}$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K^{-}$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K^{-}$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K^{-}$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K^{-}$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K_0^s$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K_0^s$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K_0^s$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $K_0^s$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\Lambda$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\Lambda$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\Lambda$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\Lambda$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39 and 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 5%–10% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39 and 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 7.7 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39 and 62.4 GeV.

Directed flow $v_1$ as a function of rapidity $y$ for $\phi$ in 40%–80% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV.

Directed flow slope $dv_1/dy$ as a function of beam energy in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions.

Directed flow slope $dv_1/dy$ as a function of beam energy in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions.

Directed flow slope $dv_1/dy$ as a function of beam energy in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions.

Directed flow slope $dv_1/dy$ as a function of beam energy in 10%–40% central Au+Au collisions.

Identified particle (Kaon Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Kaon Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Proton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Antiproton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 3.0 - 3.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.

Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 4.0 - 4.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.

Glauber Fit Parameters

Nch at each Collision Energy (GeV)

Ncoll at each Collision Energy (GeV)

Npart at each Collision Energy (GeV)

The value of $\sigma^{NN}_{inel}$ used in the Monte Carlo Glauber simulation at each collision energy

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

The $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ for 20-30% central Au + Au collisions at midrapidity for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 19.6 GeV, 27 GeV and 39 GeV.

$\varepsilon$ (Glauber) as a function of $p_T$ for various collision centralities (10-20%, 30-40% and 50-60%) in Au + Au collisions at midrapidity for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 19.6 GeV, 27 GeV and 39 GeV.

$\varepsilon$ (CGC) as a function of $p_T$ for various collision centralities (10-20%, 30-40% and 50-60%) in Au + Au collisions at midrapidity for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 19.6 GeV, 27 GeV and 39 GeV.

$v_2${EtaSubs} as a function of $p_T$ for various collision centralities (10-20%, 30-40% and 50-60%) in Au + Au collisions at midrapidity for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 19.6 GeV, 27 GeV and 39 GeV.

The $v_2${EP} vs. $\eta$ for 10-40% centrality in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 19.6 GeV, 27 GeV and 39 GeV.

The $v_2${EP} vs. $\eta$ for 10-40% centrality in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

The $v_2${4} vs. $p_T$ at midrapidity for various collision energies ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, 11.5 GeV, 19.6 GeV, 27 GeV and 39 GeV).

The $v_2${4} vs. $p_T$ at midrapidity for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

The $v_2${4} vs. $p_T$ at midrapidity for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) v2{2} and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{2\}$ for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 (top panel) and 62.4 (bottom panel) GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.The statistical errors are smaller than the marker size and not visible for most of the data.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < pT < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The systematic errors are shown as narrow lines with wide caps at the end and statistical errors are shown as thick lines with narrow caps at the end. Statistical errors are not visible for most of the points.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Cu+Cu collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/c. The most central points (two points for Cu+Cu 62.4 GeV) gives $v_2\{4\}^4 < 0$ for all the data sets. The negative values are probably due to large fluctuations in agreement with Eq. (1). These may include contributions from impact parameter spread and finite multiplicity bin width.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) $v_2\{4\}$ and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{4\}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.

(Left) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 200 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations.

(Right) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations. The statistical and systematic errors are shown as in previous figures.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The STAR data compared to PHOBOS data [34] on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ with $\delta_2$ for $\Delta\eta > 2$ taken to be zero (see Fig. 6 from Ref. [34]). The shaded band shows the errors quoted from Ref. [34].

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

Sample correlations in $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78) for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$ and reflected in the plot.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\eta$ ($|\Delta\phi|<$ 0.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\eta$.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu, 0-12% Au+Au and 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 2. (Color online) Fit decomposition of the $46 \%-56 \%$ centrality data for 62 -GeV Au-Au collisions. The top panels show from left to right the corrected data, model fit, fit residuals (data - model), and same-side 2D Gaussian. The bottom panels similarly show the away-side azimuth dipole, the nonjet azimuth quadrupole, the 1D $\eta_{\Delta}$ Gaussian, and the 2D exponential. This centrality is just below the sharp transition at $v_{\text {trans }}=3$. Fit residuals (c) are scaled up eightfold relative to the data.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) 2D data histogram from $0 \%-5 \%$ central 200 GeV Au-Au collisions $[(0,0)$ bin suppressed]. (b) Additional model component fitted to the $2 \mathrm{D}$ histogram and consisting of an AS azimuth dipole modulated by function $F\left(\eta_{\Delta}\right)$ described in the text. (c) Fit residuals including the new model component. (d) Data histogram in the first panel minus the additional model component and fitted offset. Remaining structure is described accurately by an AS dipole and SS 2D Gaussian.

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 11. (Color online) (Left) Uncorrected angular correlations from 62-GeV $37 \%-46 \%$ central Au-Au collisions showing pileup distortions, especially evident as the W-shaped nonuniformity of the AS ridge on $\eta_{\Delta}$. (Right) The same data with pileup correction applied.

$\rho^0$ production cross section determined with the data set collected with trigger B, as a function of momentum transfer $t$, fitted with a double exponential fit function in the range $t < 0.1$. The statistical errors are shown. The ratio of incoherent to coherent cross sections is measured to be $0.20 \pm 0.8$. The fit parameters are shown in Table I.

Comparison of theoretical predictions to the measured total cross section for coherent $\rho^0$ production as a functionof $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ . The measured cross section is based on the dataset collected with trigger B. The error bars show the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. See text for details.