Sample correlations in $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78) for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$ and reflected in the plot.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\eta$ ($|\Delta\phi|<$ 0.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\eta$.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu, 0-12% Au+Au and 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ invariant mass spectra from Cu+Cu $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$K^0_S$ invariant mass spectra from Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ invariant mass spectra from Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have not been feed down subtracted from weak decays. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$K^0_S$, $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$, spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) and Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed down subtracted from weak decays. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Xi + \bar{\Xi}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Xi + \bar{\Xi}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

The enhancement factor for (multi-) strange particles in Cu+Cu $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed-down subtracted in all cases. The black bars show the normalization uncertainties, and the uncertainties for the heavy-ion points are the combined statistical and systematic errors. Curves described in the text, where $B_{K} = 2.0$, $B_{\Lambda} = 2.4$, $B_{\Xi} = 5.0$ and $B_{\Omega} = 12.1$.

The enhancement factor for (multi-) strange particles in Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed-down subtracted in all cases. The black bars show the normalization uncertainties, and the uncertainties for the heavy-ion points are the combined statistical and systematic errors. Curves described in the text, where $B_{K} = 2.0$, $B_{\Lambda} = 2.4$, $B_{\Xi} = 5.0$ and $B_{\Omega} = 12.1$.

Ratio of particle yields in central Cu+Cu and midcentral Au+Au collisions when $\langle N_{part} \rangle = 99$ in each case for $|y| < 0.5$. $\pi$ yields are from elsewhere [17]. Boxed uncertainties are from the Glauber calculations and are correlated for every particle. $\langle N_{part>1} \rangle$ refers to the parameterization shown by eq. 1, while the EPOS and AMPT models are described in the text. The default settings are used for each model. The vertical lines show the remaining independent statistical and systematic uncertainties.

(Color online) Distribution of the product of the TPC reconstructed charge sign and 1/$p_{T}$ for candidates satisfying all the W signal selection criteria and $E^{e}_{T}$ > 25 GeV.

(Color online) Distributions of the invariant mass of pairs of oppositely charged $e^{\pm}$ candidates after sequentially applying the selection criteria described in Sec. IV A to both $e^{\pm}$ candidates.

(Color online) Distributions of the invariant mass of $Z/\gamma^{*} \to e^{+}e^{−}$ candidate events satisfying all selection criteria described in Sec. IVC. The $Z/\gamma^{*} \to e^{+}e^{−}$ MC distribution (dashed line) is shown for comparison. Note the larger bin widths relative to Fig. 7

(Color online) $E^{e}_{T}$ distribution of $W^{+}$ (top) and $W^{−}$ (bottom) candidate events, background components, and $W \to e\nu$ MC signal for comparison. Note the factor of two difference in the vertical scales.

(Color online) $E^{e}_{T}$ distribution of $W^{+}$ (top) and $W^{−}$ (bottom) candidate events, background components, and $W \to e\nu$ MC signal for comparison. Note the factor of two difference in the vertical scales.

(Color online) Lepton pseudorapidity distribution of $W^{+}$ (left) and $W^{−}$ (right) candidate events, background components, and $W \to e\nu$ MC signal for comparison.

(Color online) Lepton pseudorapidity distribution of $W^{+}$ (left) and $W^{−}$ (right) candidate events, background components, and $W \to e\nu$ MC signal for comparison.

(Color online) W cross section ratio, $R_{W}$, for the two $e^{\pm}$ pseudorapidity bins. Theory calculations at NLO from the fewz program using the MSTW08 and CTEQ 6.6 PDF sets (with 90% confidence level error eigenvector uncertainties) are shown for comparison.

(Color online) Invariant mass distribution of coherently produced $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$: The filled circles are the measured points with the statistical errors, the gray filled histogram is the background estimated from charged four-prongs (cf. Fig. 2). The thick black line shows the fit of a modified $S$-wave Breit-Wigner on top of a second order polynomial background (thin black line; cf. Eq. (5)) taking into account the detector acceptance in the region $|y| < 1$ (rising dashed line). The dotted curve represents the signal curve without background.

(Color online) Invariant mass distribution of coherently produced $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ pairs. The filled circles are the measured points with statistical errors. The thick black line shows the fit taking into account the detector acceptance in the region $|y| < 1$. The non-interfering combinatorial background is represented by the thin black line, which is a fit to the like-sign invariant mass distribution scaled by a factor estimated from the $p_{T}$ distribution (gray filled histogram). The dotted curve shows the Breit-Wigner without background, the dashed line the interfering background component that is assumed to be mass-independent. The dash-dotted curve is the Söding interference term of the two [31].

(Color online) High mass region of the $m_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}$ spectrum with tighter cuts applied in order to suppress background: The filled circles are the measured values with statistical errors. No significant enhancement is seen in the region around 1540 MeV/$c^{2}$ where the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ invariant mass spectrum exhibits a peak. The thick solid line shows the fit of a modified $S$-wave Breit-Wigner (cf. Eq. (5)) with parameters fixed to the values extracted from the fit of the $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ invariant mass distribution on top of an $S$-wave Breit-Wigner that describes the tail of the $\rho^{0}$(770) (thin solid line) taking into account the detector acceptance. The dashed curve represents the signal curve without the $\rho^{0}$ tail.

$D_s^{\pm}$ invariant yield as a function of $p_{T}$ in 40-80% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-10% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 10-40% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.0 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/c, 2.0 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 40-80% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 10-20% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

$D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio as a function of $p_{T}$ in 20-40% centrality bin of Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}}$ = 200 GeV. The $p_T$ bins are 1.5 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/c, 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/c, 3.5 < $p_T$ < 5.0 GeV/c and 5.0 < $p_T$ < 8.0 GeV/c.

The integrated $D_{s}/D^{0}$ yield ratio within 1.5 < $p_{T}$ < 5.0 GeV/c as a function of collision centrality. The centrality bins are 60-80%, 40-60%, 20-40%, 10-20% and 0-10%.

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 2. (Color online) Fit decomposition of the $46 \%-56 \%$ centrality data for 62 -GeV Au-Au collisions. The top panels show from left to right the corrected data, model fit, fit residuals (data - model), and same-side 2D Gaussian. The bottom panels similarly show the away-side azimuth dipole, the nonjet azimuth quadrupole, the 1D $\eta_{\Delta}$ Gaussian, and the 2D exponential. This centrality is just below the sharp transition at $v_{\text {trans }}=3$. Fit residuals (c) are scaled up eightfold relative to the data.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) 2D data histogram from $0 \%-5 \%$ central 200 GeV Au-Au collisions $[(0,0)$ bin suppressed]. (b) Additional model component fitted to the $2 \mathrm{D}$ histogram and consisting of an AS azimuth dipole modulated by function $F\left(\eta_{\Delta}\right)$ described in the text. (c) Fit residuals including the new model component. (d) Data histogram in the first panel minus the additional model component and fitted offset. Remaining structure is described accurately by an AS dipole and SS 2D Gaussian.

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 11. (Color online) (Left) Uncorrected angular correlations from 62-GeV $37 \%-46 \%$ central Au-Au collisions showing pileup distortions, especially evident as the W-shaped nonuniformity of the AS ridge on $\eta_{\Delta}$. (Right) The same data with pileup correction applied.

Elliptic flow versus $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV measured with the subevent method with a pseudorapidity gap of 0.3 units compared with previously published STAR results for 200 and 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu [27] measured with full TPC event plane method $v_{2}${TPC} and full FTPC event plane method $v_{2}${FTPC}. The error bars are statistical. Results are also compared to $v_{2}$($p_{T}$) model calculations.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}(\eta)$ for charged hadrons fromCu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV. The present STAR results are compared to the measurement from the PHOBOS [29] collaboration for Cu+Cu at 22.4 GeV. The PHOBOS results include statistical and systematic errors whereas the STAR results are plotted with statistical uncertainties only, and systematic errors are discussed in Section III C. Results are also compared to $v_{2}(\eta)$ calculations from the indicated models.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}${TPC} and $v_{2}${4} as a function of centrality for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0 − 60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV, compared with previously published results from the STAR collaboration at 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 50-60% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 40-50% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 30-40% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 20-30% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 10-20% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 0-10% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 integrated over pT and eta vs centrality in Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV for the various methods.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 integrated over pT and eta vs centrality in Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV for the various methods.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 50-60% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 40-50% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 30-40% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 20-30% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 10-20% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 0-10% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 0-60% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.3.

K0S azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

K0S azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-20% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

K0S azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 20-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Lambda azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Lambda azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-20% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Lambda azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 20-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Xi azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

phi azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Balance functions in pseudorapidity windows -1 < eta < 1 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c.

Balance functions in pseudorapidity windows -1.3 < eta < 1.3 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < -0.2.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.8 < eta < 0.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.4 < eta < 0.4.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 0.8.

Balance functions observed at five different positions of pseudorapidity windows with |eta_w|=0.8 for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0.2 < eta < 1.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

Scaled balance function obtained for various pseudorapidity window widths and positions for 0.15 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.3 < eta < 0.3.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and 0 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 0.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -0.5 < eta < 0.5.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1 < eta < 1.

B_s(d eta) based on B(d eta|eta_w) values measured in different pseudorapidity windows for particles in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c and -1.3 < eta < 1.3.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 60-80% centrality.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 30-60% centrality.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 10-30% centrality.

The pT dependence of the width of the BF in 0-10% centrality.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 0.15 < pT < 0.4 GEV/c.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 0.4 < pT < 0.7 GEV/c.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 0.7 < pT < 1 GEV/c.

The centrality dependence of the width of the BF in 1 < pT < 2 GEV/c.

Coordinates of the 2-sigma contour plot for the cross section of Drell-Yan pairs (first column) and bottom-antibottom quark pairs (second column).

Coordinates of the 1-sigma contour plot for the cross section of Drell-Yan pairs (first column) and bottom-antibottom quark pairs (second column).

The STAR measurement of the midrapidity Upsilon(1S+2S+3S)cross section times branching ratio into electrons (star).

Evolution of the Upsilon(1S+2S+3S) cross section with center-of-mass energy.