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].

Correlation matrix of negative systematic uncertainties.

The measured values of the X distribution.

The measured values of the LN(1/X) distribution.

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $\mathrm{Centrality}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $y$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}\ (\mathrm{interpolated})$, $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

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.

Analysing power measurements for a 98 GeV PI- beam (standard track).

Analysing power measurements for a 87 GeV PI- beam (standard track).

Analysing power measurements for a 87 GeV PI- beam (short track).

Analysing power measurements for a 67 GeV PI- beam (standard track).

Analysing power measurements for a 67 GeV PI- beam (short track).

Analysing power measurements for a 57 GeV PI- beam (short track).

Inclusive jet cross section DSIG/DET in the Q**2 regions 125-500 and 250-500 GeV**2 for jets of hadrons in the Breit frame.

Inclusive jet cross section DSIG/DET in the Q**2 regions 500-1000 and 1000-2000 GeV**2 for jets of hadrons in the Breit frame.

Inclusive jet cross section DSIG/DET in the Q**2 regions 2000-5000 and > 5000 GeV**2 for jets of hadrons in the Breit frame.

Values of the strong coupling constant ALHPA_S, at the Z0 mass, as determined from the QCD fit to the measured DSIG/DQ**2.

Values of the strong coupling constant ALHPA_S, at the Z0 mass, as determined from the QCD fit to the measured DSIG/DET.

Values of the strong coupling constant ALHPA_S, as a function of the jet ET, as determined from the QCD fit to the measured DSIG/DET.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 185 to 240 and 240 to 310 GeV**2.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 310 to 410 and 410 to 530 GeV**2.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 530 to 710 and 710 to 900 GeV**2.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 900 to 1300 and 1300 to 1800 GeV**2.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 1800 to 2500 and 2500 to 3500GeV**2.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 3500 to 5600 and 5600 to 9000GeV**2.

The reduced cross section in the Q**2 regions 9000 to 15000 ,15000 to 25000and 125000 to 50000 GeV**2.

The structure function XF3 determined tegether with the ZEUS E+ P data at the mean Q**2 values of 1500 and 3000 GeV**2.

The structure function XF3 determined tegether with the ZEUS E+ P data at the mean Q**2 values of 5000 and 8000 GeV**2.

The structure function XF3 determined tegether with the ZEUS E+ P data at the mean Q**2 values of 12000 and 30000 GeV**2.

Details of the systematic uncertainties for the cross section DSIG/DQ**2 measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties for the cross section DSIG/DX measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties for the cross section DSIG/DX measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties for the cross section DSIG/DY measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.

Details of the systematic uncertainties in the reduced cross section measurement.