$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 0-50%.

v2(4) vs. p_T for pions for 20 - 60% centrality

v2(4) vs. p_T for kaons for 20 - 60% centrality

v2(4) vs. p_T for anti-protons for 20 - 60% centrality

v2(2) vs. centrality for pions

v2(2) vs. centrality for kaons

v2(2) vs. centrality for anti-protons

v2 vs. p_T for particles identified in the RICH (min. bias) for pions+kaons and protons/antiprotons

v2 for Kshort for min. bias

v2 for kaons from kinks for min. bias

v2 for kaons from dE/dx for min. bias

v2 for Lambda+Lambdabar for min. bias [PRL/92/052302/2004]. The PHENIX data are from [PRL/91/182301/2003]. The hydro calculations are from [P. Huovinen/private communication].

v2 for charged pions for min. bias. kaon data points are from Figure 9.

v2 for anti-protons for min. bias. kaon data points are from Figure 9.

Azimuthal correlations (\sum_i cos(2(\phi_pT -\phi_i))) in Au+Au collisions as a function of p_T along with results from p+p collisions.

Azimuthal correlations (\sum_i cos(2(\phi_pT -\phi_i))) from d+Au as a function of p_T for min bias collisions.

Azimuthal correlations (\sum_i cos(2(\phi_pT -\phi_i))) from d+Au as a function of p_T for three centralities.

Charged hadron v2 and v4{EP_2} as a function of pseudorapidity for minimum bias.

v2(2) and v2(4) vs. pseudorapidity

v2(2) and v2(4) vs. pseudorapidity,FTPC only

v2(4) 20-70% in TPC+FTPC and v2(2) 20-70% in FTPC.

MC v2 with FTPC momentum resolution.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 0-5% in standard and modified event plane methods.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 5-10% in standard and modified event plane methods.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 10-20% in standard and modified event plane methods.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 20-30% in standard and modified event plane methods.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 30-40% in standard and modified event plane methods.

Charged hadron v2 for the centrality bin 40-60% in standard and modified event plane methods.

Charged hadron v2{2} from modified reaction plane method and two-particle cumulant results (after subtracting the correlations measured in p+p collisions) for centrality bin 20-60% .

v4(EP2) for charged hadrons min. bias

v4(EP2) vs. centrality for charged hadrons

v4(EP2) for pions in min. bias

v4(EP2) for protons in min. bias

v4(EP2) for kaons in min. bias

v4(EP2) for Lambda in min. bias

Charged hadron v4{EP_2} as a function of pseudorapidity for minimum bias (TPC only).

charged hadrons high p_T (3 - 6 GeV/c) v4(3)

charged hadron integrated v2 as a function of centrality for the different methods

charged hadron v2(6) vs. centrality bin. v2(2) and v2(4) are from Figure 29(a).

g2 as a function of centrality from 200 GeV, 130 GeV,NA49 and q-dist methods. The solid points are from the cumulant method, while open circles are from the q distribution method. Please note that centrality percentage differs from different method. For 200 GeV-cumulant (0, 64.1, 53.9,44.7,35.2,25.4,15.1,7.7,0), for 200 GeV-q-dist (73.8,64.1,53.9,44.7,35.2,25.4,15.1,7.7,2.3), for 130 GeV (65,47,36,27.5,20,13,7.5,2.5,0) and for 17 GeV (0,0,0,61.2,38.2,29.1,18.2,8.5,3.8).

wounded nucleons as a function of centrality from 200 GeV, 130 GeV,NA49 and q-dist methods.Please note that centrality percentage differs from different method. For 200 GeV-cumulant (0, 64.1, 53.9,44.7,35.2,25.4,15.1,7.7,0), for 200 GeV-q-dist (73.8,64.1,53.9,44.7,35.2,25.4,15.1,7.7,2.3), for 130 GeV (65,47,36,27.5,20,13,7.5,2.5,0) and for 17 GeV (0,0,0,61.2,38.2,29.1,18.2,8.5,3.8).

v2/n for pions for three centrality bins

v2/n for protons for three centrality bins

v2/n for Kshort for three centrality bins

v2/n for Lambda + Lambda bar for three centrality bins

Blast Wave parameters rho_2 from pion v2(2),pion v2 and hadron v2

Blast Wave parameters rho_4 from hadron v2

Blast Wave parameters epsilon from pion v2(2),pion v2, hadron v2 and initial

Blast Wave parameters rho_0 from pion v2(2),pion v2 and hadron v2

Blast Wave parameters T from pion v2(2),pion v2 and hadron v2

$F_{p_T}$ (in percent) of non-random fluctuations as a function of the $p_T$ range over which $M_{p_T}$ is calculated, 0.2 GeV/$c$ < $p_T$ < $p^{max}_T$, for the 20-25% centrality class ($N_{part}$ = 181.6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$v_2$ vs Fixed $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

$v_2$ vs Assorted $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

$v_2$ vs Assorted $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

The centrality dependence of $A_2$ for two different $p_T$ selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation in Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 10$%, dominated by the normalization of the correction function and the model determination of$ \varepsilon$.

The centrality dependence of $A_2$ for two different $p_T$ selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation in Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 10$%, dominated by the normalization of the correction function and the model determination of$ \varepsilon$.