Efficiency corrected two-particle azimuthal distributions for minimum bias and central d+Au collisions, and for p+p collisions. Curves are fits using Eq. 3, with parameters given in Table I. Trigger particles are selected with 4 GeV/c < $p_{T}$ (trig) < 6 GeV/c, while associated particles are selected within 2 GeV/c < $p_{T}$ < $p_{T}$ (trig), with |$\eta$| < 0.7 for both sets. Only statistical errors are listed. Normalization uncertainties are less than 5%.

Comparison of two-particle azimuthal distributions for central d+Au collisions to those seen in p+p and central Au+Au collisions. The respective pedestals have been subtracted. Trigger particles are selected with 4 GeV/c < $p_{T}$ (trig) < 6 GeV/c, while associated particles are selected within 2 GeV/c < $p_{T}$ < $p_{T}$ (trig), with |$\eta$| < 0.7 for both sets. Only statistical errors are listed. Normalization uncertainties are less than 5%.

Differential cross section as a function of the ratio of the virtualities of the two photons.

Differential cross section as a function of the acolinearity angle PHI between the scattered electrons.

Differential cross section as a function of the acolinearity angle DEL(PHI) between the scattered electrons.

Differential cross section as a function of W of the hadronic system.

Differential cross section as a function of the Bjorken X.

Differential cross section as a function of the DIS Y variable.

Differential cross section as a function of LOG(S/S0).

RCP (pT) vs. pT for (h+ + h−)/2. Calculations are described in the text.

Transverse momentum differential distributions for the three observed D* decay modes.

Pseudorapidity differential distributions for the three observed D* decay modes.

The combined transverse momentum distribution for charged D* production.

The combined pseudorapidity distribution for charged D* production.

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.

The ratios Anti-Λ/Λ, K+/K-, and Anti-Ξ+/Ξ- as a function of pT

Anti-baryon to baryon ratios measured by STAR

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 mid-rapidity kaon multiplicity densities ($dN/dy$) and mT exponential inverse slopes (T in MeV) as a function of negative hadron multiplicity with $|η|<0.5$ ($dNh-/dη$). Quoted errors are uncorrelated errors (first) and correlated systematic errors (second). Systematic error on $dNh-/dη$ is $7\%$.

The mid-rapidity kaon multiplicity densities ($dN/dy$) and mT exponential inverse slopes (T in MeV) as a function of negative hadron multiplicity with $|η|<0.5$ ($dNh-/dη$). Quoted errors are uncorrelated errors (first) and correlated systematic errors (second). Systematic error on $dNh-/dη$ is $7\%$.

Central 0-6% K/π yield ratios.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

Elliptic flow as determined from the fits to the $q$ distributions in different centrality bins. The circles are from the standard method with random subevents. For the squares, all the centralities were fit separately. For the triangles, centrality bins 2-8 were fit with the same value of the nonflow parameter.

Measured elliptic flow vs centrality for $Au+Au$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV. The circles show the conventional $v_{2}$ with estimated systematic uncertainty due to nonflow [37], the stars show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the generating function, the crosses show the conventional $v_{2}$ from quarter events, and the squares show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the four-subevent method.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Elliptic flow vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

Elliptic flow vs transverse momentum from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from the fourth-order cumulant divided by $v_{2}$, from the conventional method as a function of $p_{t}$, averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from quarter events divided by the conventional $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{t}$. In both cases, event planes were constructed from low-$p_{t}$ (< 0.5 GeV/c) particles. The data are averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

$v_{2}/\varepsilon$ as a function of charged particle density in $Au+Au$ collisions. Data are from E877 at the AGS (squares), NA49 at the SPS (circles), and STAR at RHIC (stars). The AGS and SPS data have been obtained by conventional flow analysis. The STAR measurements are at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV, and correspond to the final corrected elliptic flow based on fourth-order cumulants, and we assume $dN/dy=1.15dN/d\eta$. The horizontal shaded bands indicate the hydrodynamic limits for different beam energies [44].