$\pi^0$ 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

Measurements of relative mass-to-charge ratio differences between nuclei and antinuclei (He - antiHe, STAR 2019)

Measured Lambda binding energy in the hypertriton compared to earlier results and theoretical calculations (earlier results)

Measured Lambda binding energy in the hypertriton compared to earlier results and theoretical calculations (current STAR measurements)

Measured Lambda binding energy in the hypertriton compared to earlier results and theoretical calculations (theoretical 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.

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV

Transverse energy in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Transverse energy in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Multiplicity in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Transverse energy in Cu+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in Cu+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Transverse energy in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV

Multiplicity in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV

Transverse energy in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Transverse energy in He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4, 20-40\%$ centrality

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4, 40-60\%$ centrality

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4, 20-60\%$ centrality

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4/v_2^2, 0-20\%$ centrality

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4/v_2^2, 20-40\%$ centrality

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4/v_2^2, 40-60\%$ centrality

$\pi^0$ meson $v_4/v_2^2, 20-60\%$ centrality

$\Eta/ \pi^0 ratios

$\pi^0$ nuclear modification factors

$\pi^0$ nuclear modification factors

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 0^{\circ}-15^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 0^{\circ}-15^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 15^{\circ}-30^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 15^{\circ}-30^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 30^{\circ}-45^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 30^{\circ}-45^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 45^{\circ}-60^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 45^{\circ}-60^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 60^{\circ}-75^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 60^{\circ}-75^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 75^{\circ}-90^{\circ}$

$pi^0$ nuclear modification factors vs reaction plane, $\Delta \phi = 75^{\circ}-90^{\circ}$

Centrality dependence of $p_T$ ingetrated $R_{AA}(\Delta \phi)$

Centrality dependence of $p_T$ ingetrated $R_{AA}(\Delta \phi)$

INVARIANT YIELDS

RAA

RAA

RAA

RAA

pT AVERAGE RAA

Sloss

Sloss

Sloss

n_eff(xT)

n_eff(xT)

n_eff(xT)

n_eff(xT)

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ 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.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta y$ for identified charged pion pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for nine centrality bins.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta y$ for identified charged kaon pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for nine centrality bins.

The balance function for p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The top panel shows the balance function for all charged particles in terms of $\Delta \eta$. The bottom panel gives the balance function for charged pion pairs and charged kaon pairs in terms of $\Delta y$.

The balance function for p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The top panel shows the balance function for all charged particles in terms of $\Delta \eta$. The bottom panel gives the balance function for charged pion pairs and charged kaon pairs in terms of $\Delta y$.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles from d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for three centrality bins.

The balance function in terms of $q_{inv}$ for charged pion pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in nine centrality bins. Curves correspond to a thermal distribution (Eq. 3) plus $K^{0}_{S}$ decay.

The balance function in terms of $q_{inv}$ for charged-pion pairs in two centrality bins over the range 0 < $q_{inv}$ < 0.2 GeV/c.

The balance function in terms of $q_{inv}$ for charged kaon pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in nine centrality bins. Curves correspond to a thermal (Eq. 3) distribution plus $\phi$ decay.

The balance function in terms of $q_{inv}$ for charged pion pairs [part a)] and charged kaon pairs [part b)] from p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV integrated over all multiplicities. Solid curves correspond to a thermal distribution (Eq. 3) plus $K^{0}_{S}$ and $\rho^{0}$ decay for pions and φ decay for kaons. The dashed curve for pions represents a fit to a thermal distribution (Eq. 3) plus $K^{0}_{S}$ decay and $\rho^{0}$ decay, with the $\rho^{0}$ mass shifted down by 0.04 $GeV/c^{2}$.

The balance function in terms of $q_{long}$ for charged pion pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in nine centrality bins.

The balance function in terms of $q_{out}$ for charged pion pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in nine centrality bins.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $q_{side}$ for charged pion pairs from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for nine centrality bins.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $\Delta\phi$ for all charged particles with 0.2< pt<2.0 GeV/c from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in nine centrality bins.The closed circles represent the real data minus the mixed events.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $\Delta\phi$ for all charged particles with 1.0< pt<10.0 GeV/c from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in nine centrality bins.The closed circles represent the real data minus the mixed events.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $\Delta y$ for charged pions from central collisions of Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV compared with predictions from the blast-wave model from Ref.[30] and filtered HIJING calculations taking into account acceptance and efficiency.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $\Delta y$ for charged pions from central collisions of Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV compared with predictions from the blast-wave model from Ref.[30] and filtered HIJING calculations taking into account acceptance and efficiency.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $q_{inv}$ for charged pions from central collisions of Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV compared with predictions from the blast-wave model from Ref.[30] and predictions from filtered HIJING calculations including acceptance and efficiency. For the blast-wave calculations, HBT is not included and the decays of the $K^0_S$ and $\rho^0$ are not shown.

(Color online) The balance function in terms of $q_{inv}$ for charged pions from central collisions of Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV compared with predictions from the blast-wave model from Ref.[30] and predictions from filtered HIJING calculations including acceptance and efficiency. For the blast-wave calculations, HBT is not included and the decays of the $K^0_S$ and $\rho^0$ are not shown.

(Color online) The balance function width $<\Delta\eta>$ for all charged particles from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV compared with the widths of balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths for p+p and d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.Filtered HIJING calculations are also shown for the widths of the balance function from p+p and Au+Au collisions. Filtered UrQMD calculations are shown for the widths of the balance function from Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) The balance function width $<\Delta\eta>$ for all charged particles from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV compared with the widths of balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths for p+p and d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.Filtered HIJING calculations are also shown for the widths of the balance function from p+p and Au+Au collisions. Filtered UrQMD calculations are shown for the widths of the balance function from Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) The balance function widths for identified charged pions and charged kaons from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. Filtered HIJING calculations are shown for the same systems. Filtered UrQMD calculations are shown for Au+Au. Also shown is the width of the balance function for pions predicted by the blast-wave model of Ref.[30].

(Color online) The balance function width $\sigma$ extracted from $B(q_{inv})$ for identified charged pions and kaons from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV using a thermal fit (Eq. 3) where $\sigma$ is the width. Filtered HIJING and UrQMD calculations are shown for pions and kaons from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Values are shown for $\sqrt{2mT_{kin}}$ from Au+Au collisions, where m is the mass of a pion or a kaon, and $T_{kin}$ is calculated from identified particle spectra [45]. The width predicted by the blast-wave model of Ref. [30] is also shown for pions.

(Color online) The balance function width $\sigma$ extracted from $B(q_{inv})$ for identified charged pions and kaons from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV using a thermal fit (Eq. 3) where $\sigma$ is the width. Filtered HIJING and UrQMD calculations are shown for pions and kaons from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Values are shown for $\sqrt{2mT_{kin}}$ from Au+Au collisions, where m is the mass of a pion or a kaon, and $T_{kin}$ is calculated from identified particle spectra [45]. The width predicted by the blast-wave model of Ref. [30] is also shown for pions.

(Color online) The widths for the balance functions for pions in terms of $q_{long}$, $q_{out}$, and $q_{side}$ compared with UrQMD calculations.

(Color online) The weighted average cosine of the relative azimuthal angle,$<\cos(\Delta\phi)$, extracted from $B(\Delta\phi)$ for all charged particles with $0.2< p_t <2.0$ from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and from all charged particleswith $1.0< p_t <10.0$ GeV/c, compared with predictions using filtered UrQMD calculations.

Rebinned $R_{AA}$ for $\Delta \phi$, $p_T$, and path length dependence,