FIG. 2: a) left side: The correlation data for the ratio of the histograms of same-event-pairs to mixed-event-pairs for unlike-sign charged pairs, shown in a two-dimensional (2-D) perspective plot $\Delta\phi$ - $\Delta\eta$. The plot was normalized to a mean of 1. b) right side: The similar correlation data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 5 :“(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 5: “(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non photonic electrons yield versus transverse momentum in D+AU collisions.

Non photonic electrons yield versus transverse momentum in P+P collisions.

D0 differential yield at mid rapidity and corresponding calculated differential charm cross section at midrapidity.

Sum of the non photonic electrons/positrons and D0 differential yield at mid rapidity and corresponding calculated differential charm cross section at midrapidity.

Total charm cross section per nucleon nucleon collision IN D+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

The v2 of KS0 as a function of pT for 30%–70%, 5%–30%, and 0%–5% of the collision cross section. The error bars represent statistical errors only. The nonflow systematic errors for the 30%–70%, 5%– 30%, and 0%–5% centralities are 25%, 20%, and 80%, respectively.

The v2 of Lambda+Lambdabar as a function of pT for 30%–70%, 5%–30%, and 0%–5% of the collision cross section. The error bars represent statistical errors only. The nonflow systematic errors for the 30%–70%, 5%– 30%, and 0%–5% centralities are 25%, 20%, and 80%, respectively.

The ratio RCP for KS0 at midrapidity calculated using centrality intervals, 0%–5% vs 40%–60% and 0%–5% vs 60%–80% of the collision cross section. The error bars shown on the points include both statistical and systematic errors.

The ratio RCP for Lambda+Lambdabar at midrapidity calculated using centrality intervals, 0%–5% vs 40%–60% and 0%–5% vs 60%–80% of the collision cross section. The error bars shown on the points include both statistical and systematic errors.

The v2 parameter for KS0 scaled by the number of constituent quarks (n) and plotted versus pT/n. The error bars shown include statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties from the background. The additional nonflow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%.

The v2 parameter for Lambda+Lambdabar scaled by the number of constituent quarks (n) and plotted versus pT/n. The error bars shown include statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties from the background. The additional nonflow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

HBT parameters for the three possible fitting procedures to the correlation functions described in this paper depending on how Coulomb interaction is taken into account from the 0-5% most central events.

1D correlation function for pi+pi- compared to standard, Bowler-Sinyukov, and a thoretical calculation that includes Coulomb and strong interactions.

Momentum resolution for pions at midrapidity expressed by the widths dp_T/p_T, dphi and dtheta as a function of p.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, RP uncorrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, RP res. corrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, RP uncorrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, without and with the reaction plane resolution applied, for two different centrality-kT ranges. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, RP res. uncorrected.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, fixed lambda.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 20-30%, 0.15 < kT < 0.25, lambda varied.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, lambda fixed.

Squared HBT radii relative to the reaction plane angle, for the case where the lambda parameter is averaged and fixed in the fit, and the case where lambda is a free fit parameter for each Phi. 10-20%, 0.35 < kT < 0.45, lambda varied.

Fourier coefficients as a function of the maximum fraction of merged hits for the 5% most central events and kT between 150 and 250 MeV/c.

Projections of the 3 dimensional correlation function and fits to Eq. (10) and with the Edgeworth expansion to Eq. (17) to 6th order.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for fits to Eq. (10) and to Eq. (17) with no expansion.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for fits to Eq. (10) and to Eq. (17) upto 4th order expansion.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for fits to Eq. (10) and to Eq. (17) upto 6th order expansion.

HBT parameters for the 0-5% most central events for pi+pi+ and pi-pi- correlation functions.

HBT parameters from STAR and PHENIX at the same beam energy for the 0-30% most central events.

Energy dependence of the pi- HBT parameters for central Au+Au, Pb+Pb, and Pb+Au collisions at midrapidity and k_T ~ 0.2 GeV/c.

HBT parameters vs. m_T for 6 different centralities.

Fourier coefficients of azimuthal oscillations of HBT radii vs. numer of participating nucleons, for pi+ and pi- pairs separately (0.25 < kT < 0.35 GeV/c).

Comparison between the HBT radii obtained from the azimuthally integrated (traditional) HBT analysis and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients from the azimuthally-sensitive HBT analysis.

HBT radius parametres for 6 different centralities.

Extracted parameters R' and alpha, from the power-law fits to the HBT radius parameters.

Extracted freeze-out source radius extracted from a blast wave fit; source radius Rgeom from fits to Rside; and 2*Rside for the lowest k_T bin as a function of the number of participants.

HBT parameter Rside.

R - Rinitial (top panel) and R/Rinitial (bottom panel) for the azimuthally integrated analysis for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. number of participants.

R - Rinitial (top panel) and R/Rinitial (bottom panel) for in the x (in-plane) and y (out-of-plane) directions for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. number of participants.

R - Rinitial for the azimuthally integrated analysis for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. (dN/dy)/Rinitial.

R - Rinitial in the x (in-plane) direction for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. (dN/dy)/Rinitial.

R - Rinitial in the y (out-of-plane) direction for the azimuthally-sensitive case vs. (dN/dy)/Rinitial.

Longitudinal HBT radius Rl.

Evolution time tau vs. number of participants as extracted from a fit to Rl, lines in Fig. 26 (triangles), and from a blast wave fit to HBT parameters and spectra (circles).

R - Rinital for the azimuthally integrated analysis and for the in-plane and out-of-plane directions vs. beta_T,max*tau.

R - Rinital for the azimuthally integrated analysis and for the in-plane and out-of-plane directions vs. beta_T,max*tau.

R - Rinital for the azimuthally integrated analysis and for the in-plane and out-of-plane directions vs. beta_T,max*tau.

Emission duration time dTau vs. number of participants as extracted using a blast wave fit to HBT parameters and spectra.

Final source eccentricity as calculated from the Fourier coefficients (2R_{s,2}^2/R_{s,0}^2) and from the final in-plane and out-of-plane radii vs. initial eccentricity.

Corrected mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) pT spectra for $K^{+}$, $K^{−}$, $K^{0}_{S}$, Λ, Ξ, and Ω. Λ spectra that have been corrected for feed-down are shown as open symbols in the Λ panel. The dashed lines are fits using Equation 11 except for the $\Omega+\overline{\Omega}$ where the fit uses Equation 9. The error bars displayed include systematic errors while the fits were done using statistical errors only for all species except the charged kaons.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) ratios of $\overline{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ to $\Xi^{-}$ vs $p_{T}$. The dashed lines in 10(b) and 10(c) are the errorweighted means over the measured $p_{T}$ range, 0.882±0.017 for $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$, 0.921±0.062 for $\overline{\Xi}/\Xi$. Figure 10(a) shows the $p_{T}$ averaged ratio for our measured species compared with measurements from Au+Au. The error bars are statistical only. The dashed line in 10(a) is at unity for reference.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) ratios of $\overline{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ to $\Xi^{-}$ vs $p_{T}$. The dashed lines in 10(b) and 10(c) are the errorweighted means over the measured $p_{T}$ range, 0.882±0.017 for $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$, 0.921±0.062 for $\overline{\Xi}/\Xi$. Figure 10(a) shows the $p_{T}$ averaged ratio for our measured species compared with measurements from Au+Au. The error bars are statistical only. The dashed line in 10(a) is at unity for reference.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) ratios of $\overline{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ to $\Xi^{-}$ vs $p_{T}$. The dashed lines in 10(b) and 10(c) are the errorweighted means over the measured $p_{T}$ range, 0.882±0.017 for $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$, 0.921±0.062 for $\overline{\Xi}/\Xi$. Figure 10(a) shows the $p_{T}$ averaged ratio for our measured species compared with measurements from Au+Au. The error bars are statistical only. The dashed line in 10(a) is at unity for reference.

⟨$p_{T}$⟩ vs particle mass for different particles measured by STAR. Error bars include systematic errors. The ISR parameterization is given in reference [32]

⟨$p_{T}$⟩ vs charged multiplicity for $K^{+}$, $K^{−}$, $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi+\overline{\Xi}$. The points for $\Xi+\overline{\Xi}$ have been determined using only the measured region. The error bars are statistical only. See text for more details.

Ratios of multiplicity binned spectra to minimum bias spectra ($R_{pp}$) for $K^{0}_{S}$ and Λ and the ratio of the Λ spectrum to the $K^{0}_{S}$ spectrum in each multiplicity bin. See text for further details.

Ratios of multiplicity binned spectra to minimum bias spectra ($R_{pp}$) for $K^{0}_{S}$ and Λ and the ratio of the Λ spectrum to the $K^{0}_{S}$ spectrum in each multiplicity bin. See text for further details.

Ratios of multiplicity binned spectra to minimum bias spectra ($R_{pp}$) for $K^{0}_{S}$ and Λ and the ratio of the Λ spectrum to the $K^{0}_{S}$ spectrum in each multiplicity bin. See text for further details.

Parameters of ratio data to statistical model fit using THERMUS. Filled circles are ratios from $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV collisions in STAR. Solid lines are the results from the statis- tical model fit. All ratios to the left of the vertical line were used in the fit. The $(\Omega^{-}+\overline{\Omega^{+}})/\Xi^{-}$ ratio was then predicted from the fit results. The dashed lines in the lower panel are guides for the eye at 1 σ.

Parameters of ratio data to statistical model fit using THERMUS. Filled circles are ratios from $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV collisions in STAR. Solid lines are the results from the statis- tical model fit. All ratios to the left of the vertical line were used in the fit. The $(\Omega^{-}+\overline{\Omega^{+}})/\Xi^{-}$ ratio was then predicted from the fit results. The dashed lines in the lower panel are guides for the eye at 1 σ.

Upper plot: points are measured $p/E_{tower}$ electron peak position as a function of the distance to the center of the tower. The solid line is from a calculation based on a full GEANT simulation of the detector response to electrons. Lower plot: points show measured energy deposited by electrons in the tower as a function of the momentum for distances to the center of the tower smaller than 2.0 cm. The first point is the electron equivalent energy of the minimum ionizing particles. The solid line is a second order polynomial fit of the data.

Mean values from GEANT simulations of the energy deposited in the EMC by various hadronic species as a function of momentum.

Spatial profiles of energy deposition in the EMC as a function of distance ($d$) from the hit point to the center of the tower for $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ from simulations and for positive and negative hadrons from data. The arrow indicates the distance corresponding to the border of a tower in 0 < $\eta$ < 0.2. An overall agreement between the shapes of the profiles is observed, with a small normalization difference.

Event-by-event ratio of the reconstructed electromagnetic energy for the most central events. The solid line is a gaussian fit.

Total Transverse Energy for 0 < $\eta$ < 1. The minimum bias distribution is presented as well as the distributions for the different centrality bins (see table III). The shaded area corresponds to the 5% most central bin. The main axis scale corresponds to the $E_{T}$ measured in the detector acceptance and the bottom axis is corrected to represent the extrapolation to full azimuthal acceptance.

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta|_{\eta=0.5}$⟩ per $N_{part}$ pair vs. $N_{part}$. Upper panel: $N_{part}$ is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model [27](solid), the EKRT saturation model [7] (dotted, Eq. 8) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of $N_{part}$. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on $N_{part}$ calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for $N_{part}$. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta|_{\eta=0.5}$⟩ per $N_{part}$ pair vs. $N_{part}$. Upper panel: $N_{part}$ is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model [27](solid), the EKRT saturation model [7] (dotted, Eq. 8) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of $N_{part}$. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on $N_{part}$ calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for $N_{part}$. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.

$dE_{T}/dy$ (see text for details) per $N_{part}$ pair vs $sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central events. In this figure $dE_{T}/dy/(0.5N_{part})$ is seen to grow logarithmicaly with $sqrt{s_{NN}}$. The error bar in the STAR point represents the total systematic uncertainty. The solid line is a EKRT model prediction [7], corrected for $d\eta/dy$, for central Au+Au collisions.

Upper panel - ⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $N_{part}$. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of $N_{part}$ [37].

Upper panel - ⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $N_{part}$. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of $N_{part}$ [37].

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central events. The error bar in the STAR point corresponds to the systematic uncertaintiy. A constant value of ∼ 800 MeV per charged particle, within errors, characterizes transverse energy production over this full energy range.

Energy dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the transverse energy for a number of systems spanning SPS to RHIC energy for central events.

Participant number dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the total transverse energy. The results are consistent with HIJING within errors over the full centrality range.

Ratio of charged hadron yields within $|\eta|$ $<$ 1 for Au+Au relative to the NN reference, scaled by $N_{part}$/2 as a function of centrality for a $p_{T}$ bin at $p_{T}$ = 2.05 GeV/c

Participant scaling exponent v of charged hadron yields as a function of $p_{T}$ within $|\eta|$ $<$ 1

Ratio of truncated mean $p_{T}$ in $p_{T}$ $>$ $p_{T}^{cut}$ within $|\eta|$$<$1 as a function of $p_{T}^{cut}$ for central and peripheral collisions.

Binary scaling fraction in $p_{T}$ $>$ $p_{T}^{cut}$ within $|\eta|$ $<$ 1 as a function of centrality for selected $p_{T}^{cut}$. For $p_{T}^{cut}$ $>$ 2 GeV/c, the fraction F decreases with centrality.