Background-subtracted charge-independent (AAT ) correlated hadron pair density in 40-80% Au+Au collisions for 3<p(t)⊥<10 GeV/cand 1<p(a)⊥<3 GeV/c. The results are for near-side correlated hadrons within |∆φ1,2|<0.7, and corrected for the 3-particle ∆η-∆η acceptance. Statistical errors at (∆η1,∆η2)∼(0,0)are approximately 0.058 for Au+Au respectively..

Background-subtracted charge-independent (AAT ) correlated hadron pair density in 0-12% Au+Au collisions for 3<p(t)⊥<10 GeV/cand 1<p(a)⊥<3 GeV/c. The results are for near-side correlated hadrons within |∆φ1,2|<0.7, and corrected for the 3-particle ∆η-∆η acceptance. Statistical errors at (∆η1,∆η2)∼(0,0)are approximately 0.084 for Au+Au respectively..

The average correlated hadron pair density per trigger particle as a function of R for all charges in minimum 0-12% Au+Au collision. The average〈ˆP〉for AAT as a function of R = $\sqrt{∆η21+ ∆η22}$. The average density is peaked at R∼0 and decreases with R for all systems. In 0-12% Au+Au collisions, the average denstiy drops more slowly andbecomes approximately constant aboveR>1, indicatingthe presence of the ridge.

The average correlated hadron pair density per trigger particle as a function of R for all charges in minimum 40-80% Au+Au collision. The average〈ˆP〉for AAT as a function of R = $\sqrt{∆η21+ ∆η22}$. The average density is peaked at R∼0 and decreases with R for all systems. For 40-80% Au+Au collisions the average density at R>1 is consistent with zero, indicating no ridge contribution

The average correlated hadron pair density per trigger particle as a function of R for all charges in minimum d+Au collision. The average〈ˆP〉for AAT as a function of R = $\sqrt{∆η21+ ∆η22}$. The average density is peaked at R∼0 and decreases with R for all systems. For d+Au collisions the average density at R>1 is consistent with zero, indicating no ridge contribution

Radial dependence of average 3-particle correlation pair density for 0-12% Au+Au (like-sign triplets) data. The results are shown in Fig. 3(b) Indeed, no jet-like component is apparent in A^±A^±T^±.The A^±A^±T^∓ result contains both jet-like and ridge components.

Radial dependence of average 3-particle correlation pair density for 40-80% Au+Au (like-sign triplets) data. The contribution from other charge combinations, namely A^±A^∓ T^±, are simply the difference between AAT in Fig.3(a) and (A^±A^±T^± + A^±A^± T^∓) in Fig. 3(b). We found this to be equal to twice the A^±A^± T^∓contribution within errors.

Radial dependence of average 3-particle correlation pair density for d+Au (AAT) data. We expect the ridge contributions in the correlated pair density to be the same in all charge combinations. We verified this for large ∆η correlatedpair densities within our current statistics, as can be seen from Fig. 3(b). Therefore the total ridge particle pair density (ˆPrr) can be obtained as four times A^±A^±T^±. The remaining jet-like signal, the sum of jet-like correlated particle pairs (ˆPjj) and cross pairs of a jet-like and a ridge particle (ˆPjr), can then be obtained by subtracting the total ridge from AAT.

for same-sign associated particles (A^\pm A^\pm T^\pm and A^\pm A^\pm T^\mp) in 0-12% Au+Au collisions Systematic uncertainties are shown in the shaded boxes due to background normalization and in the solid curves due to flow.

The R dependence of the average〈ˆPrr〉and〈ˆPjj〉+〈ˆPjr〉in 0-12% Au+Au collisions.The ridge pair density is consistent with a constant 60.14±0.02 (χ2/ndf=5.8/7). Gaussian fits indicate a best fit value σ = 2.1 (χ2/ndf=4.8/6, solid curve) and σ >1.4 (dashed curve) with 84% confidence level. On the otherhand, the jet-like component is narrow with a Gaussianσ=0.34+0.13−0.09(χ2/ndf=0.8/6, dominated by statistical errors), comparing well to those from the correlated single hadron density.

The average correlated hadron pair density per trigger particle in 0-12% Au+Au collisions for the jet-like andridge components as a function of R. The solid curves are Gaussian fits. The dashed curve is a Gaussian fit with a fixed σ=1.4 to the ridge data. The systematic uncertainities on the ridge data are shown in shaded boxes due to background normalization and in open boxes due to flow.

The R dependence of the average in 0-12% Au+Au collisions.for the ridge as a function of ξ within R<1.4. The solid curves are Gaussian fits. To investigate possible structures in the ridge, we show in Fig. 4(b) the average ridge particle pair density as a function of ξ = arctan(∆η2/∆η1) within R<1.4. The data are consistent with a uniform distribution in ξ(χ2/ndf=1.7/7). This suggests that the ridge particles are uncorrelated in ∆η not only with the trigger particle but also between themselves. In other words,the ridge appears to be uniform in ∆η event-by-event.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $\gamma_{dir}$ triggers, measured in 0-10% Au+Au collisions. The associated charged particles have $z_{T} = 0.4-0.9$. The errors denoted 'syst' are systematic errors correlated in $z_{T}$. The errors denoted 'syst uncorr' are point-to-point systematic errors.

(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.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 1.90 GeV**2 and W = 1.91 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 1.90 GeV**2 and W = 1.94 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 1.90 GeV**2 and W = 2.00 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 1.90 GeV**2 and W = 2.14 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 2.35 GeV**2 and W = 1.80 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 2.35 GeV**2 and W = 1.85 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 2.35 GeV**2 and W = 1.98 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

Unseparated cross section for Q**2 = 2.35 GeV**2 and W = 2.08 GeV.. Errors contain both statistical only.

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.9-1.1$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.05-3.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.4-3.6$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.2-0.0$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.0-0.2$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.7-0.9$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.9-1.1$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.05-3.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.4-3.6$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.15-0.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.55-2.65$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.65-2.75$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.25-3.35$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.15-0.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.55-2.65$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.65-2.75$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.25-3.35$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $y$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{K}^{-}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$T_{\mathrm{K^{+}}}$,$T_{\mathrm{K^{-}}}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{p}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

Anti-particle to particle ratios, as a function of transverse momentum for pions (a) and protons (b). Data for the four centrality classes show little centrality dependence. Errors are statistical only.

(Color online) (a) Nuclear modification factor, RAA, for charged pions ($\pi^{+}+\pi^{−}$) in Cu+Cu (filled symbols) and Au+Au (open symbols) collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV. Error bands are shown for most peripheral and most central Cu+Cu data to represent evolution of the systematic uncertainties for this dataset. Error boxes at $R_{AA}$=1 represent Cu+Cu scale uncertainties due to the number of collisions and from $pp$ spectra normalization.

(Color online) (b) Integrated pion $R_{AA}$ over the range $5<p_{T}<8$ GeV/c versus $N_{part}$. The bands represent the systematic uncertainty on ratios. An additional scale error due to $pp$ normalization (∼14%) is not shown.

(Color online) (a) Nuclear modification factor, RAA, for protons and anti-protons ($p + \overline{p}$) in Cu+Cu (filled symbols) and Au+Au (open symbols) collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV. Error band is shown for most central Cu+Cu data to represent characteristic systematic uncertainties for Cu+Cu data. Error boxes at $R_{AA}$=1 represent Cu+Cu scale uncertainties due to the number of collisions and from pp spectra normalization.

(Color online) (a) Ratio of protons and anti-protons to charged pions, versus transverse momentum, for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV. For clarity, only one systematic error band is shown for Cu+Cu data (most central events), uncertainties on data in other centrality bins are similar in magnitude. Systematic errors for Au+Au data are not shown, for details see [9].

(Color online) (b) Average $(p+\overline{p})/(\pi^{+}+\pi^{-})$ ratio for $3<p_{T}<4$ GeV/c is shown as function of centrality ($N_{part}$) for Cu+Cu and Au+Au data. Error band represents the $pp$ measurement with uncertainty.