PHI to K*0 ratio measured in this study.

Differential elliptic flow of pions for different centrality bins. The systematic uncertainty is smallest for the centrality region with the best reaction plane resolution and is estimated to be 20% for the most central bin, 8% for the mid-central bin, and 22% for the most peripheral bin.

Differential elliptic flow of protons + antiprotons for different centrality bins. The systematic uncertainty is smallest for the centrality region with the best reaction plane resolution and is estimated to be 20% for the most central bin, 8% for the mid-central bin, and 22% for the most peripheral bin.

mT dependence of HBT parameters for high multiplicity (0-12%) collisions in pi+ pi+ channel. They are Coulomb corrected (5 fm Gaussian source assumed), corrected for merging effects ("bad systematic" for STAR-HBT insiders), and corrected for finite-momentum-resolution effects. Systematic errors are estimated by the size of the merging correction and the effect of varying source size used in the Coulomb correction by +/- 1 fm.

For plotting purposes, it is often useful to know what is the average pT or mT for singles and low-Q pairs. These are listed in table below.

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.

The balance function versus $\Delta y$ for identified pion pairs from a) central and peripheral Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV, and b) HIJING events simulated in GEANT [16]. To guide the eye, Gaussian fits excluding the lowest two bins in $\Delta y$ are shown. The error bars shown are statistical. The balance function for HIJING events is independent of centrality.

The balance function versus $\Delta y$ for identified pion pairs from a) central and peripheral Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV, and b) HIJING events simulated in GEANT [16]. To guide the eye, Gaussian fits excluding the lowest two bins in $\Delta y$ are shown. The error bars shown are statistical. The balance function for HIJING events is independent of centrality.

The width of the balance function for identified charged pions, $⟨\Delta y⟩$, as a function of normalized impact parameter $(b/b_{max})$. Error bars shown are statistical. The width of the balance function from HIJING events is shown as a band whose height reflects the statistical uncertainty.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $4<p_T^{\rm trig}<6$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $4<p_T^{\rm trig}<6$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $3<p_T^{\rm trig}<4$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $3<p_T^{\rm trig}<4$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Ratio of Au+Au and p+p for small-angle ($|\Delta\phi|$<0.75 rad) and back-to-back ($|\Delta\phi|$<2.24 rad) azimuthal regions versus number of participating nucleons ($N_{\rm part}$) for trigger particle intervals $4<p_T^{\rm trig}<6$ GeV/$c$ and $3<p_T^{\rm trig}<4$ GeV/$c$.

Systematic uncertainty on number of participating nucleons ($N_{\rm part}$) in Au+Au collisions.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $Corr_{\gamma\,-ch}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $Corr_{\gamma\,-ch}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $\omega_{\gamma}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $\omega_{\gamma}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $v_{dyn}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $v_{dyn}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the same side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the same side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the away-side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the away-side.

The correlation between positive and negative charged particles measured by the FTPC and photons measured by the PMD using $v_{dyn}$ for real events.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for first order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for first order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for second order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for second order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for third order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for third order of m.

The moments $r_{m,1}$(m=1-3) for real and mixed events as a function of order m in a fixed multiplicity bin of 47$\langle \sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }\langle 54$.