HBT parameters of charge-combined kaon pairs, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 3.

$R_o/R_s$ of positive pion pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

$R_o/R_s$ of negative pion pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

$R_o/R_s$ of charge-combined kaon pairs shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty [absolute value] $\pm$ systematic uncertainty [%] for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 4.

Azimuthal angle dependence of HBT radii of charged kaons, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the centrality bins shown in Fig. 8.

Azimuthal angle dependence of HBT radii of charged pions, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Oscillation amplitudes relative to the event plane for charged pions, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Oscillation amplitudes relative to the event plane for charged kaons, shown as value $\pm$ statistical uncertainty $\pm$ systematic uncertainty for the 0%–20% and 20%–60% centrality bins.

Summary of extracted parameters in the blast-wave model fit for two fitting conditions. The $T_f$ and $\rho_0$ parameters were obtained by fits to $p_T$ spectra, and the other parameters were obtained by a simultaneous fit to $v_2$ and the HBT radii.

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.

Bertsch-Pratt radius parameters versus the cube root of the number of participants ($N^{1/3}_{part}$) for $\pi^+\pi^+$ (blue squares) and $\pi^-\pi^-$ (red triangle) for the fits to a core-halo structure by Eq. (2) with statistical error bars and systematic error bands, in the 0.2 GeV/$c$ < $k_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ range, with $<k_T>$ ~ 0.45 GeV/$c$. The solid line shows to $p_0$+$p_1$*$N^{1/3}_{part}$ for both signs.

Bertsch-Pratt radius parameters versus the cube root of the number of participants ($N^{1/3}_{part}$) for $\pi^+\pi^+$ (blue squares) and $\pi^-\pi^-$ (red triangle) for the fits to a core-halo structure by Eq. (2) with statistical error bars and systematic error bands, in the 0.2 GeV/$c$ < $k_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ range, with $<k_T>$ ~ 0.45 GeV/$c$. The solid line shows to $p_0$+$p_1$*$N^{1/3}_{part}$ for both signs.