$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 2a from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 2a from 60-80% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 60-80% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ yield to the fit from figure 2c from minimum bias U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ yield to the fit from figure 2c from 0-20% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ yield to the fit from figure 2c from 60-80% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\eta$ yield to the fit from figure 2d from minimum bias U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\eta$ yield to the fit from figure 2d from 0-20% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\eta$ yield to the fit from figure 2d from 40-60% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 60-80% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from minimum bias Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4a from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4a from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4b from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4b from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4c from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4c from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4d from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4d from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 2 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 2 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 40-50% Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in U+U collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in U+U collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in U+U collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6b. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 2 set.

Number of participant nucleons of in dep U$+$U collisions

Number of participant nucleons of in dep U$+$U collisions

Number of participant nucleons of in dep Au$+$Au collisions

Integrated away-side $\gamma_{dir}$-h per-trigger $I_{AA}$ and $I_{dA}$ of Au+Au, d+Au, and p+p, as a function of $\xi$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

Ratios of $I_{AA}$ as a function of direct photon $p_T$ for three different away-side integration ranges.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 3a from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 3a from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 3a from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra supplemental to figure 3a from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3b from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3b from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3c from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3c from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3d from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3d from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 3e from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra supplemental to figure 3e from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3f from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3f from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3g from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3g from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbSc to the combined spectra from figure 3h from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

Ratio of $\eta$ spectra from the PbGl to the combined spectra from figure 3h from 40-60% semi-peripheral Au+Cu collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Systematic noncorr. uncertainties are uncorrelated between PbSc and PbGl subsystems.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 4 from 40-60% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio supplemental to figure 4 from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5a from 0-10% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5b from 10-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5c from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5a from 0-20% central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5d from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5b from 20-40% semi-central Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5e from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5c from 40-60% semi-peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5f from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ from figure 5f from minimum bias Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 5 from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 5 from 60-90% peripheral Cu+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 6a from 20-30% central Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 6b from 0-10% central Cu+Cu collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AB}$ supplemental to figure 6b from 40-50% semi-central Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in Cu+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>10$ GeV/$c$ in Cu+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7b. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ for $p_T>10$ GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 7b. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane $\phi^a - \psi_2$ integrated over the near side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane $\phi^a - \psi_2$ integrated over the away side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane for near-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$ and for away-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Integrated per-trigger yields as a function of associated particle angle relative to $\psi_2$ event plane for near-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$ and for away-side $|\Delta\phi|<\pi/4$.

Per-trigger yields $Y(\Delta\phi)$ of dihadrons pairs measured in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200~{\rm GeV}$ after subtracting the underlying event model with several $p_T$ selections. Systematic uncertainties due to track matching are given.

Per-trigger yields $Y(\Delta\phi)$ of dihadrons pairs measured in Au$+$Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200~{\rm GeV}$ after subtracting the underlying event model with several $p_T$ selections. Systematic uncertainties due to track matching are given.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $Y(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{2}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $1<p_{T}^{assoc}<2$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $2<p_{T}^{trig}<4$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_{3}$-dependent $C(\Delta\phi)$ for $4<p_{T}^{trig}<10$ GeV/c and $2<p_{T}^{assoc}<4$ GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent C for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_2$-dependent Y for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent C for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent C for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 1 $< p_T^a <$ 2 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent Y for 2 $< p_T^t <$ 4 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$\Psi_3$-dependent Y for 4 $< p_T^t <$ 10 and 2 $< p_T^a <$ 4 GeV/c.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, 0% to 20% centrality $Au+Au$. 90% Limit on 18-20 and 20-22 GeV/c bins.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, 20% to 40% centrality $Au+Au$. 90% Limit for 20-22 GeV/c bin.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, 40% to 60% centrality $Au+Au$. 90% Limit for 18-20 GeV/c bin.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, 20% to 60% centrality $Au+Au$. 90% Limit for 18-20 GeV/c bin.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, 60% to 92% centrality $Au+Au$. 90% Limit for 18-20 GeV/c bin.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, 0% to 92% centrality $Au+Au$.

$E\frac{dN^3}{dp^3}$ vs. $p_T$, $p+p$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 0% to 5% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 0% to 10% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 10% to 20% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 0% to 20% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 20% to 40% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 40% to 60% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 20% to 60% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 60% to 92% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$, 0% to 92% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\pi^{0}}$ $R_{AA}$, 0% to 92% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ ${R_{AA}}$, 0% to 92% centrality $Au+Au$.

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$ vs centrality ($p_T>$20 GeV/c).

${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$ vs centrality ($p_T>$5 GeV/c).

Slope ${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$ ($5<p_T<$ 18 GeV/c) vs centrality.

$\chi^{2}/{NDF}$, Prob%, ${\eta}$ $R_{AA}$ ($5<p_T<$ 18 GeV/c) Prob, $R_{AA}$ ($p_T>$ 5 GeV/c) Prob vs centrality

Differential invariant yield of electrons (($N_{e^+}$+$N_{e^-}$)/2) from heavy-flavor decays for different centrality classes.

Differential invariant yield of electrons (($N_{e^+}$+$N_{e^-}$)/2) from heavy-flavor decays for different centrality classes.

Differential invariant yield of electrons (($N_{e^+}$+$N_{e^-}$)/2) from heavy-flavor decays for different centrality classes.

Differential invariant yield of electrons (($N_{e^+}$+$N_{e^-}$)/2) from heavy-flavor decays for different centrality classes.

$R_{AuAu}(p^e_T)$ for different centrality classes.

$R_{AuAu}(p^e_T)$ for different centrality classes.

$R_{AuAu}(p^e_T)$ for different centrality classes.

$p^e_T$-integrated nuclear modification factors $R_{AuAu}$.

Nonphotonic electron $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{x2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{x2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x6}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x6}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{y6}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{y6}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x2y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x2y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{y4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{y4}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x2y4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x2y4}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x4y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x4y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Source function profile $S(r_x)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_x)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Source function profile $S(r_y)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_y)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Source function profile $S(r_z)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_z)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_x)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_x)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_y)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_y)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_z)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_z)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_x)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_x)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_y)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_y)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_z)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_z)$ in PCMS.

$\Delta$$t_{LCM}$ from Therminator events compared with various assumptions for $\Delta\tau$ and resonance emissions.

$\Delta$$t_{LCM}$ from Therminator events compared with various assumptions for $\Delta\tau$ and resonance emissions.

<p>Jet-pair distributions for associated baryons for $1 < p_{T,assoc} < 1.3\ \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1.6 < p_{T,assoc} < 2.0\ \mathrm{GeV}/c$. Results are for a hadron trigger $2.5 < p_T < 4.0\ \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and centrality selections of 0-20% and 20-40%.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated mesons for near-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated mesons for away-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated baryons for near-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Conditional jet yeilds for associated baryons for away-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Ratio of jet-associated baryons to jet-associated mesons for near-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Ratio of jet-associated baryons to jet-associated mesons for away-side jets.</p> <p><i>Note that only statistical uncertainties are available.</i></p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. All centralities.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality A (Central).</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality B.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality C.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality D (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality A (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality B.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality C.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality D (Central).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

The double transverse spin asymmetry ($A_{TT}$) for neutral pion production at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $p_T$ (GeV/$c$). The correlated for all points scale systematic uncertainty is 9.4% (scales both the values and stat. uncertainties by the same factor).