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.

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>

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the PI0-ETA system for beam energies 0.970 to 1.200 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the PI0-ETA system for beam energies 1.200 to 1.450 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the PI0-ETA system for beam energies 1.450 to 1.650 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the P-PI0 system for beam energies 0.970 to 1.200 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the P-PI0 system for beam energies 1.200 to 1.450 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the P-PI0 system for beam energies 1.450 to 1.650 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the P-ETA system for beam energies 0.970 to 1.200 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the P-ETA system for beam energies 1.200 to 1.450 GeV.

Measured beam asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the P-ETA system for beam energies 1.450 to 1.650 GeV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons with $|\eta| < 1.0$ in 10–40$%$ $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, from the Lee-Yang Zero method (solid circles) with Sum Generating Function.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons with $|\eta| < 1.0$ in 0–80$%$ $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, from the Event Plane method.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the Event Plane method ($v_{2}${EP}) (open circles). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.0$ was used.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the 4 Cumulant method ($v_{2}${4}) (solid squares). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.0$ was used.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the Lee-Yang Zero method with Sum Generating Function ($v_{2}$) (solid circles). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.3$ was used.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the Lee-Yang Zero method with Product Generating Function ($v_{2}$) (open stars). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.3$ was used.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using $\eta$-subevent method (open crosses), are shown in (a) for $\Lambda$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using Event Plane method (open circles), are shown in (a) for $\Lambda$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using $\eta$-subevent method (open crosses), are shown in (b) for $K_{S}^{0}$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using Event Plane method (open circles), are shown in (b) for $K_{S}^{0}$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using Lee-Yang Zero method with Sum Generating Function (solid circles), are shown in (a) and (b) for $\Lambda$ and $K_{S}^{0}$ respectively. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ of $K_{S}^{0}$ (open circles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$, (b) $40–80\%$, (c) $10–40\%$ and (d) $0–10\%$ centralities in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ (open squares) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$, (b) $40–80\%$, (c) $10–40\%$ and (d) $0–10\%$ centralities in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (b) $40–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (c) $10–40\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (d) $0–10\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Omega^{-}+\bar{\Omega}^{+}$ (filled circles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Omega^{-}+\bar{\Omega}^{+}$ (filled circles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (d) $0–10\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $p+\bar{p}$ (filled squares) and $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ (filled stars) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

Fig12d inset $\Lambda$ (open squares) expansion at low $p_{T}$

Fig12d inset for $K_{S}^{0}$ (filled circles) expansion at low $p_{T}$

Fig13 Centrality dependence of $v_{2}$ versus number of participants $N_{part}$ for charged hadrons (crosses) in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For identified particle's value, $v_{2}$ in Tab. II scaled by participant eccentricity in Tab. I versus number of participant in Tab. I.

Fig14 $p_{T}$ dependence of $v_{2}$ of $K_{S}^{0}$ at 200 GeV.

Fig14 $p_{T}$ dependence of $v_{2}$ of $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.