Transverse single-spin asymmetry of $J/\psi$ mesons plotted against $J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Systematic uncertainties $\delta$$A^f_N$ Type B and $\delta$$A^P_N$ Type B are due to the geometric scale factor and the polarization, respectively.

Transverse single-spin asymmetry of $J/\psi$ mesons plotted against $J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Systematic uncertainties $\delta$$A^f_N$ Type B and $\delta$$A^P_N$ Type B are due to the geometric scale factor and the polarization, respectively.

Transverse single-spin asymmetry of $J/\psi$ mesons plotted against $J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Systematic uncertainties $\delta$$A^f_N$ Type B and $\delta$$A^P_N$ Type B are due to the geometric scale factor and the polarization, respectively.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges and $R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in the same $p_T$ ranges.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges and $R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in the same $p_T$ ranges.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ and $R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges compared with WHDG model.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges compared with various models.

$R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges compared with various models.

$R_{AA}$ for $\phi$ integrated at $p_T$ > 2.2 GeV/$c$ in Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions vs. $N_{part}$. The global uncertainty related to the $p$+$p$ reference normalization is shown as a box on the right in the figure from the paper.

$R_{AA}$ for $\phi$ integrated at $p_T$ > 2.2 GeV/$c$ in Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions vs. $N_{part}$. The global uncertainty related to the $p$+$p$ reference normalization is shown as a box on the right in the figure from the paper.

$R_{dA}$ vs. $p_T$ for $\phi$, $\pi^0$, and ($p$+$\bar{p}$) for 0-20% centrality $d$+Au collisions, and $R_{dA}$ vs. $p_T$ for $\phi$, $\pi^0$, and ($p$+$\bar{p}$) for 60-88% peripheral $d$+Au collisions. The global uncertainty of ~ 10% related to the $p$+$p$ reference normalization is not shown.

Away-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in $p+p$ collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

$p+p$ yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

The double helicity asymmetry for neutral pion production at $\sqrt{s}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function $p_T$ (GeV/$c$). Error bars are statistical uncertainties. The point-to-point experimental systematic uncertainties are negligible. Not included in the figure/table are the correlated for all points scale systematic uncertainty of 14% (scales both the values and point-to-point uncertainties by the same factor).

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV $p$+$p$ collisions.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of centrality for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The scaled variance as a funciton of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

J/psi-->e+e- invariant yield in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at mid-rapidity for the 60-94 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi-->mu+mu- invariant yield in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at forward rapidity for the 0-20, 20-40, 40-60 and 60-94 centrality ranges. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi-->e+e- average momentum squared in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at forward rapidity (p_T integrated). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value.

J/psi-->mu+mu- average momentum squared in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at forward rapidity (p_T integrated). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value.

J/psi-->mu+mu- and J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at forward and mid-rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi-->mu+mu- and J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of y at forward and mid-rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at mid-rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi-->mu+mu- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at forward rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi-->mu+mu- in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $N_{part}$ at forward rapidity expressed as a ratio with respect to J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification at mid-rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in Au + Au collisions for 5-10 $\otimes$ 2-3, 4-5 $\otimes$ 4-5, 5-10 $\otimes$ 3-5, and 5-10 $\otimes$ 5-10 GeV/c.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for p + p collisions for four trigger selections.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for Au + Au collisions for four trigger selections.

RHS versus $N_{part}$ for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/$c$. Shaded bars (brackets) represent $p_T$ -correlated uncertainties due to elliptic flow (ZYAM procedure). The most left point is from p+p.

Per-trigger yield $\Delta\phi$ distribution and corresponding fits for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/c in 0-5% Au+Au collisions.

a) D versus centrality from FIT 1 and FIT2 for 2 - 3 GeV/$c$ bin. The error bars are the statistical errors; The shaded bars and brackets are the systematic errors due to $v_2$. b) The fraction of the shoulder Gaussian yield relative to the total away-side yield as function of centrality determined from FIT2.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % Au + Au.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % p + p.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus $N_{part}$ for five successively increasing $p^a_T$ $\otimes$ $p^b_T$. The most left point in each panel represents the value from p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central Au + Au collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central p + p collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\eta$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\phi$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the head region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the away-side shoulder region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the near-side region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the head region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the away-side shoulder region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the near-side region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3-4 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4-5 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3-4 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4-5 GeV/c.

The near-side pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p^b_T$ for various ranges of $p^a_T$.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 20-40%.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 40-60%.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 60-92%.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 20-40% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 40-60% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 60-92% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 0-20 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 20-40 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 40-60 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 60-92 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in p + p collisions.