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$\langle \sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }\langle 54$.

The average number of toward(DPHI < 60 DEG), transverse (DPHI 60 TO 120 DEG) and away (DPHI > 120 DEG) charged particles as a function of the PT of the leading charged jet. The data in this table are from the JET20 events.

The average scalar PT sum of toward(DPHI < 60 DEG), transverse (DPHI 60 TO 120 DEG) and away (DPHI > 120 DEG) charged particles as a function of the PT of the leading charged jet. The data in this table are from the Min-Bias events.

The average scalar PT sum of toward(DPHI < 60 DEG), transverse (DPHI 60 TO 120 DEG) and away (DPHI > 120 DEG) charged particles as a function of the PT of the leading charged jet. The data fom this table are from the JET20 events.

The charged particle PT distribution for three lower limits of leading jet PT.

Identification of the diffractive processes was performed on the basis of the shape of reconstructed hadronic mass spectrum. No rapidity-gap was required.. The fraction of the total photoproduction cross section due to single dif fractive photon dissociation, in the mass range M_phi**2 < M_DD < X >**2 < 0.05 *W**2.

Here THETA is the angle (in c.m. system) between the plane containing partons 1 and 3 and the plane containing partons 4 and 5: cos(theta) = [p1*p3]*[p4*p ]/(|[p1*p3]|*|[p4*p5]|). The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT.

Here M is scaled invariant mass of jet pairs. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT.

Here M is scaled invariant mass of jet pairs. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT.

Here M is scaled invariant mass of jet pairs. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT.

The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of cosine of space angles between pairs of jets for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of cosine of space angles between pairs of jets for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of cosine of space angles between pairs of jets for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of cosine of space angles between pairs of jets for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of cosine of space angles between pairs of jets for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of cosine of space angles between pairs of jets for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of scaled jets pair masses for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of scaled jets pair masses for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of scaled jets pair masses for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of scaled jets pair masses for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of scaled jets pair masses for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. The measured distribution of scaled jets pair masses for the 4-JET events in their center-of-mass system.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. Here THETA is 'Bengtsson-Zerwas' (BZ) angle defined as COS(THETA(N=BZ)) = [p3*p4]*[p5*p6]/(|p3*p4|*|p5*p6|), where P(i) are jet momentum in the center-o f-mass frame.

Errors are statistical only. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 6 PCT. Here THETA is 'Nachtmann-Reiter' (NR) angle defined as COS(THETA(N=NR))= (p3-p4)*(p5-p6)/(|p3-p4|*|p5-p6|).

No description provided.