Total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $2 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 3$ GeV/c

Total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $3 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 4$ GeV/c

Total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $4 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 6$ GeV/c

Different contributions to total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $2 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 3$ GeV/c

Different contributions to total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $3 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 4$ GeV/c

Different contributions to total $J/\psi$ efficiency as a function of cos$\theta$ for $4 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 6$ GeV/c

Corrected cos$\theta$ distribution for $2 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 3$ GeV/c

Corrected cos$\theta$ distribution for $3 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 4$ GeV/c

Corrected cos$\theta$ distribution for $4 < p_{T}^{J/\psi} < 6$ GeV/c

$J/\psi$ polarization parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$ as a function of $J/\psi$ $p_{T}$ for rapidity |y|<1

The invariant yield versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 in 0-60% centrality in Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The results are compared to high-$p_T$ (3 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results from STAR [9] (solid squares) and PHENIX data [8] (open squares). Also shown is the yield in 0-60% centrality Cu+Cu collisions for low $p_T$ (solid triangles) and high $p_T$ [48] (open triangles). The models are described in the text [49, 50]. The $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions is also shown at STAR (stars) and PHENIX [51] (diamonds), and the scale is indicated on the right axis.

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 0-60% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 0-20% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 20-40% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor versus transverse momentum for |y| < 1 and $p_T$ < 5 GeV/c for 40-60% centrality Au+Au collisions (solid circles). The data are compared with STAR high-$p_T$ (5 < $p_T$ < 10 GeV/c) results [9] and PHENIX results [8] in |y| < 0.35 (open squares). The statistical and systematic uncertainties on the baseline $J/\psi$ cross section in p+p collisions are indicated by the hatched and solid bands, respectively. Boxes on the vertical axes represent the uncertainty on $N_{coll}$ combined with the uncertainty on the inelastic cross section in p+p collisions

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield and nuclear modification factor as a function of centrality for |y| < 1 in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield $Bd^2N/(2\pi p_Tdydp_T) [(GeV/c)^{-2}]$ and nuclear modification factor as a function of transverse momentum for |y| < 1 in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $J/\psi$ invariant yield and nuclear modification factor for |y| < 1 in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\rho^0$ production cross section determined with the data set collected with trigger B, as a function of momentum transfer $t$, fitted with a double exponential fit function in the range $t < 0.1$. The statistical errors are shown. The ratio of incoherent to coherent cross sections is measured to be $0.20 \pm 0.8$. The fit parameters are shown in Table I.

Comparison of theoretical predictions to the measured total cross section for coherent $\rho^0$ production as a functionof $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ . The measured cross section is based on the dataset collected with trigger B. The error bars show the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. See text for details.

Nuclear modicifation factor vs. N_coll $J\psi$ with|y|<1 and pT < 3 GeV/c in d Au collisions.

The invariant cross section versus transverse momentum for J/$\psi$ with $|y|\lt 1$ in $p+p$ collisions.

The invariant yield versus transverse momentum for $J/\Psi$ with |y| < 1 in 0 - 100 percent central d+Au collisions.

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 2. (Color online) Fit decomposition of the $46 \%-56 \%$ centrality data for 62 -GeV Au-Au collisions. The top panels show from left to right the corrected data, model fit, fit residuals (data - model), and same-side 2D Gaussian. The bottom panels similarly show the away-side azimuth dipole, the nonjet azimuth quadrupole, the 1D $\eta_{\Delta}$ Gaussian, and the 2D exponential. This centrality is just below the sharp transition at $v_{\text {trans }}=3$. Fit residuals (c) are scaled up eightfold relative to the data.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) 2D data histogram from $0 \%-5 \%$ central 200 GeV Au-Au collisions $[(0,0)$ bin suppressed]. (b) Additional model component fitted to the $2 \mathrm{D}$ histogram and consisting of an AS azimuth dipole modulated by function $F\left(\eta_{\Delta}\right)$ described in the text. (c) Fit residuals including the new model component. (d) Data histogram in the first panel minus the additional model component and fitted offset. Remaining structure is described accurately by an AS dipole and SS 2D Gaussian.

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 11. (Color online) (Left) Uncorrected angular correlations from 62-GeV $37 \%-46 \%$ central Au-Au collisions showing pileup distortions, especially evident as the W-shaped nonuniformity of the AS ridge on $\eta_{\Delta}$. (Right) The same data with pileup correction applied.

Upper panel, Azimuthal distributions of associated particles for trigger particles in-plane (squares) and out-of-plane (triangles) for Au+Au collisions at centrality 20-60%. Open symbols are reflections of solid symbols around $\Delta \phi$ = 0 and $\Delta \phi$ = $\pi$. Elliptic flow contribution is shown by dashed lines. Lower panel, Distributions after substracting elliptic flow, and the corresponding measurement in p + p collisions (histogram).

$v_{2}$ at 3 ≤ $p_{t}$ ≤ 6 GeV/c versus impact parameter, b, compared to models of particle emission by a static source (see text).

High $p_{T}$ azimuthal correlation functions for central events. Upper panel: Correlation function for $|\Delta\eta|$ < 0.5 (solid circles) and scaled correlation function for 0.5 < $|\Delta\eta|$ < 1.4 (open squares). Lower panel: Difference of the two correlation functions. Also shown are the fits to the data (described in the text).

$v_4$ from three particle cumulant as a function of $p_T$ for the minimum bias Au+Au collisions. Background from secondary particles is expected to be less than 15%. Non-flow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%. Fluctuations in initial geometry can lead to an effect of about a factor of 1.2 to 1.5.

$v_6$ with respect to the second harmonic event plane as a function of $p_T$ for the minimum bias Au+Au collisions. Background from secondary particles is expected to be less than 15%. Non-flow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%. Fluctuations in initial geometry can lead to an effect of about a factor of 1.2 to 1.5.

$p_T$- and $\eta$-integrated $v_2$, $v_4$, $v_6$ as a function of centrality. Background from secondary particles is expected to be less than 15%. Non-flow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%. Fluctuations in initial geometry can lead to an effect of about a factor of 1.2 to 1.5.

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

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

$v_2$ of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_T$ for 11-45% centrality in Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV. Systematic errors of $\pm$0.005 for particle identification and background subtraction and $^{+0}_{-0.005}$ for nonflow effects.

$v_2$ of charged particles as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV.

$v_2$ of $K_s^0$ as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV. Systematic errors of $\pm$0.005 for particle identification and background subtraction and $^{+0}_{-0.005}$ for nonflow effects.

$v_2$ of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV. Systematic errors of $\pm$0.005 for particle identification and background subtraction and $^{+0}_{-0.005}$ for nonflow effects.

$p_T$-integrated $v_2$ of $h^-$, $K_s^0$, and $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ as a function of particle mass for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV.

The angle Delta between the away-side peaks and DeltaPhi = pi for 4 < pT_trig < 6 GeV/c in 0-12% central Au+Au collisions as a function of pT_assoc . Three different parametrisations of the away-side peak shape were used. The errors are statistical errors from the fit.

Near-side (|dphi| < 0.9) associated yield per trigger particle for various trigger particle pT selections as a function of associated pT . Results are shown for 0-12% central Au+Au collisions and for d+Au collisions.

Near-side (|dphi| < 0.9) ratios of the per-trigger associated yields in central Au+Au and d+Au collisions.

Away-side (|dphi| > 0.9) associated yield per trigger particle for various trigger particle pT selections as a function of associated pT . Results are shown for 0-12% central Au+Au collisions and for d+Au collisions.

Away-side (|dphi| > 0.9) ratios of the per-trigger associated yields in central Au+Au and d+Au collisions.

Mean transverse momentum <pT> of associated particles with 0.25 < pT,assoc < 4.0 GeV/c, for four different centrality selections.

Mean transverse momentum <pT> (DeltaPhi) of associated hadrons in the range 0.25 < pT_assoc < 4.0 GeV/c in the core (|DeltaPhi − pi| < pi/6) and cone (pi/6 < |DeltaPhi − pi| < pi/2) azimuthal regions for 3 < pT_trig < 4 GeV/c and 4 < pT_trig < 6 GeV/c as a function of number of participants. The inclusive <pT> in the same pT range for events with a trigger hadron is also indicated.

Source eccentricity obtained with azimuthally sensitive HBT (epsilon_final) vs initial eccentricity from a Glauber model (epsilon_initial). The most peripheral collisions correspond to the largest eccentricity. Uncertainties on the precise nature of space-momentum correlations lead to 30% systematic errors on eps_final.

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.

Identified particle (Kaon Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Kaon Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Proton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Antiproton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 3.0 - 3.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.

Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 4.0 - 4.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.

Glauber Fit Parameters

Nch at each Collision Energy (GeV)

Ncoll at each Collision Energy (GeV)

Npart at each Collision Energy (GeV)

The value of $\sigma^{NN}_{inel}$ used in the Monte Carlo Glauber simulation at each collision energy

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

No description provided.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected mean (M) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected skewness ($S$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected kurtosis ($\kappa$) of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The dotted lines represent calculations from the central limit theorem. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of number of participating nucleons $N_{part}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The error bars are statisticaland systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\sigma^2/M$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions. The error bars are statistical and the caps represent systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $S\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions. The error bars are statistical and the caps represent systematic errors.

The efficiency and centrality bin width corrected $\kappa\sigma^2$ of the net-charge multiplicity distributions as a function of collision energy for Au+Au collisions. The error bars are statistical and the caps represent systematic errors.

Sample fit projections onto the $q_{out}$, $q_{side}$, and $q_{long}$ axes respectively for four angular bins relative to the reaction. These projections are from results for 10-20% central, 19.6 GeV Au+Au collisions with 0.15 < $k_T$ < 0.6 GeV/c.

Energy dependence of the HBT parameters for central Au+Au, Pb+Pb, and Pb+Au collisions at mid-rapidity and $\langle k_T \rangle \approx 0.22$ GeV/c. Errors on NA44, NA49, WA98, and CERES, points include systematic errors.The systematic errors for STAR points at all energies (from Table II) are of similar size to error bar for 39 GeV, shown as a representative example. Errors on other results are statistical only, to emphasize the trend.

The $\langle m_T \rangle$ dependence of $R_{out}$, $R_{side}$ and $R_{long}$ for all energies at 0-5% centrality. Errors are statistical only. These plot shows the difference (between $R_{out}$ and $R_{side}$) and the ratio $R_{out}$ / $R_{side}$ respectively.

The $\langle m_T \rangle$ dependence of $R_{out}$, $R_{side}$ and $R_{long}$ for each energy and multiple centralities. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 7 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 11.5 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 19.6 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 27 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 39 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 62.4 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 200 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Si+Al collisions at E802, Pb+Au at CERES, Pb+Pb at ALICE. Errors are statistical only.

The beam energy dependence of the volume of the regions of homogeneity at kinetic freeze-out in central Au+Au, Pb+Pb and Pb+Au collisions with $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c.

The lifetime, $\tau$, of the system as a function of beam energy for central Au+Au collisions assuming a temperature of T = 0.12 GeV at kinetic freeze-out.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 7.7 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 7.7 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1)and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 7.7 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertain- ties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 11.5 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 11.5 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 11.5 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 19.6 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 19.6 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 19.6 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 27 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 27 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 27 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 39 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 39 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 39 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 62.4 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 62.4 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 62.4 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 200 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 200 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 200 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Beam energy dependence of the $R_{ol,0}^2$ cross term for forward and backward rapidity with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c.

The eccentricity of the collisions at kinetic freez-out, εF , as a function of initial eccentricity relative to the participant plane, ε$_{PP}$, at mid-rapidity. All results are for ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties. The line has a slope of one indicating no change in shape.

The dependence of the kinetic freeze-out eccentricity of pions on collision energy in mid-central Au+Au collisions (E895, STAR) and Pb+Au collisions (CERES) for three rapidity regions and with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Several (2+1)D hydrodynamical models and UrQMD calculations are shown. Model centralities correspond to the data.

The dependence of the kinetic freeze-out eccentricity of pions on collision energy in mid-central Au+Au collisions using UrQMD calculations, (2+1)D hydro MC-KLN and (2+1)D hydro MC-GLB models with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties. Model centralities correspond to the data.

The dependence of the kinetic freeze-out eccentricity of pions on collision energy in mid-central Au+Au collisions using (2+1)D hydro EOS-Q, (2+1)D hydro EOS-H, and (2+1)D hydro EOS-I models with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties. Model centralities correspond to the data.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=27$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=39$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Balance function widths for the most central events ($0-5\%$) compared with balance function widths calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are balance function widths calculated using UrQMD and shuffled UrQMD events. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Directed flow for $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ versus rapidity for intermediate-centrality (10-40$\%$) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5 and 7.7 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

Directed flow slope $dv_{1}/dy$ of protons, antiprotons and $\pi^{\pm}$ near midrapidity versus beam energy for intermediate-centrality (10-40$\%$) Au+Au collisions.

Directed flow slope $dv_{1}/dy$ of net-protons near midrapidity versus beam energy for intermediate-centrality (10-40$\%$) Au+Au collisions. Datapoints for protons and antiprotons can be found in Table5.

Directed flow slope at mid-rapidity, $dv_{1}/dy|_{y=0}$, as a function of beam energy in 10-40\% Au+Au collisions. Dots represent deuterons. Open squares are the published results in~\cite{Adamczyk_2018} for protons. The band denotes the results for deuterons from AMPT transport model. Statistical uncertainties (bars) and systematic uncertainties (horizontal lines) are shown separately. For visibility, the data points are staggered horizontally.

The $p_{T}$ dependence of $v_1/A$ in $|y|<0.6$ for protons (open squares) in 10-40\% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Statistical uncertainties (bars) and systematic uncertainties (horizontal lines) are shown separately.

The $d_{T}$ dependence of $v_1/A$ in $|y|<0.6$ for deuterons (solid circles) in 10-40\% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Statistical uncertainties (bars) and systematic uncertainties (horizontal lines) are shown separately.

(Color online) Dynamical net charge fluctuations, $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, of particles produced with pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ < 0.5 scaled by (a) the multiplicity, $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. The dashed line corresponds to charge conservation effect and the solid line to the prediction for a resonance gas, (b) the number of participants, and (c) the number of binary collisions.

(Color online) Dynamical net charge fluctuations, $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, of particles produced with pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ < 0.5 scaled by (a) the multiplicity, $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. The dashed line corresponds to charge conservation effect and the solid line to the prediction for a resonance gas, (b) the number of participants, and (c) the number of binary collisions.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, normalized to their value for |$\eta$| < 1, as function of the integrated pseudorapidity range. (a) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-5%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (30-40%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ collision data at $\sqrt{}s$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, normalized to their value for |$\eta$| < 1, as function of the integrated pseudorapidity range. (a) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-5%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) data for $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (30-40%) along with data for $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4, 200 GeV (0-10%), are compared to inclusive $p + p$ collision data at $\sqrt{}s$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, as a function of the integrated azimuthal range $\phi$ for selected collision centralities for (a) $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, as a function of the integrated azimuthal range $\phi$ for selected collision centralities for (a) $Au + Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and (b) $Cu + Cu$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

(Color online) Dynamical fluctuations $\nu_{+−,dyn}$, as a function of the integrated azimuthal range $\phi$ for similar number of participating nucleons for $Au + Au$ and $Cu + Cu$ $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV.

The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV.

The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 7.7.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV.

$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 60-80% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 30-60% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 10-30% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) k- in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) k+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) pbar in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

The midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 as a function of √sNN for π±, K±, and p and p ̄ in 0–5% Au+Au collisions at BES energies. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

⟨mT⟩ − m of π±, K±, and p and p ̄ as a function of √sNN . Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) results are shown for 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at BES energies. The errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

K/π ratio at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) for central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

The GCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

The GCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

The SCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

The SCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter μS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter R between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

" (a) Energy dependence of kinetic and chemical freezeout temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions. The curves represent various theoretical predictions [81,82]. (b) Energy dependence of average transverse radial flow velocity for central heavy-ion collisions. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,53–64,66] and references therein. The BES data points are for 0–5% central collisions, AGS energies are mostly for 0–5%, SPS energies are for mostly 0–7%, and top RHIC and LHC energies are for 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

Ratios of $p_{T}$ distributions within 0.5 $<$ $|\eta|$ $<$ 1 to those within $|\eta|$$<$ 0.5 in various centrality bins. Errors are combined statistical and systematic.

dN/d$\eta$ distributions for $p_{T}$ $>$ 2 GeV/c and -1 $<$ $\eta$ $<$ 1 scaled by $N_{bin}$ and divided by the NN reference

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.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons with $|\eta| < 1.0$ in 10–40$%$ $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, from the Lee-Yang Zero method (solid circles) with Sum Generating Function.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons with $|\eta| < 1.0$ in 0–80$%$ $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, from the Event Plane method.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the Event Plane method ($v_{2}${EP}) (open circles). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.0$ was used.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the 4 Cumulant method ($v_{2}${4}) (solid squares). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.0$ was used.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the Lee-Yang Zero method with Sum Generating Function ($v_{2}$) (solid circles). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.3$ was used.

$p_{T}$ integrated charged hadron $v_{2}$ in the TPC as a function of geometrical cross section. Shown are the Lee-Yang Zero method with Product Generating Function ($v_{2}$) (open stars). All data are from $Au+Au$ collisions, at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For the TPC, $|\eta|< 1.3$ was used.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using $\eta$-subevent method (open crosses), are shown in (a) for $\Lambda$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using Event Plane method (open circles), are shown in (a) for $\Lambda$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using $\eta$-subevent method (open crosses), are shown in (b) for $K_{S}^{0}$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using Event Plane method (open circles), are shown in (b) for $K_{S}^{0}$. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ for $10–40\%$ centrality using Lee-Yang Zero method with Sum Generating Function (solid circles), are shown in (a) and (b) for $\Lambda$ and $K_{S}^{0}$ respectively. All data are from $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV $Au+Au$ collisions.

$v_{2}$ of $K_{S}^{0}$ (open circles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$, (b) $40–80\%$, (c) $10–40\%$ and (d) $0–10\%$ centralities in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Lambda+\bar{\Lambda}$ (open squares) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$, (b) $40–80\%$, (c) $10–40\%$ and (d) $0–10\%$ centralities in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (b) $40–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (c) $10–40\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$ (filled triangles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (d) $0–10\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Omega^{-}+\bar{\Omega}^{+}$ (filled circles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $\Omega^{-}+\bar{\Omega}^{+}$ (filled circles) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (d) $0–10\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

$v_{2}$ of $p+\bar{p}$ (filled squares) and $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ (filled stars) as a function of $p_{T}$ for (a) $0–80\%$ centrality in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV.

Fig12d inset $\Lambda$ (open squares) expansion at low $p_{T}$

Fig12d inset for $K_{S}^{0}$ (filled circles) expansion at low $p_{T}$

Fig13 Centrality dependence of $v_{2}$ versus number of participants $N_{part}$ for charged hadrons (crosses) in $Au+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. For identified particle's value, $v_{2}$ in Tab. II scaled by participant eccentricity in Tab. I versus number of participant in Tab. I.

Fig14 $p_{T}$ dependence of $v_{2}$ of $K_{S}^{0}$ at 200 GeV.

Fig14 $p_{T}$ dependence of $v_{2}$ of $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The difference in $v_{2}$ between protons and antiprotons as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for 0%-10%, 10%-40% and 40%-80% central Au + Au collisions. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.

No description provided.

The relative difference. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.

No description provided.

The $v_{2}$ difference between protons and antiprotons (and between $\pi^{+}$ and $pi^{-}$) for 10%-40% centrality Au+Au collisions at 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, and 19.6 GeV. The $v_{2}{BBC} results were slightly shifted horizontally.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.