(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.1 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.15 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.2 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.25 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.35 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.4 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.5 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.65 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=0.85 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1.2 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1.5 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=2. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=2.7 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=3.5 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=4.5 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=8.5 GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=10. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=12. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=15. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=18. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=22. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=27. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=35. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=45. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=60. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=70. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=90. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=120. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=150. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=200. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=250. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=300. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=400. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=500. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=650. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=800. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1200. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1500. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=2000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=3000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=5000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=8000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=12000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=20000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=30000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=90. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=120. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=150. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=200. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=250. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=300. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=400. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=500. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=650. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=800. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=1000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=1200. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=1500. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=2000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=3000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=5000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=8000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=12000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=20000. GeV**2.

Combined reduced cross section data and F2 for Neutral Current E- P scattering at Q**2=30000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=300. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=500. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=1500. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=2000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=3000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=5000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=8000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E+ P scattering at Q**2=15000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=300. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=500. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=1000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=1500. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=2000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=3000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=5000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=8000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=15000. GeV**2.

Combined double differential cross section and reduced cross section data for Charged Current E- P scattering at Q**2=30000. GeV**2.

The differential cross section as a function of W, the gamma-proton centre-of-mass energy, for dijet photon production both without and with a leading neutron, together with their ratio.

The differential cross section as a function of log10(x_proton), the fraction of the proton 4-momenta entering the hard scattering, for dijet photon production both without and with a leading neutron, together with their ratio.

The differential cross section as a function of log10(x_pion), the fraction of the exchanged pion 4-momenta entering the hard scattering, for dijet photon production with a leading neutron. x_pion is calculated as x_proton/(1-XL).

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.20-0.50.

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.50-0.58.

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.58-0.66.

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.66-0.74.

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.74-0.82.

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.82-0.90.

The normalised double differential cross section for dijet photoproduction with a leading neutron as a function of the neutron transverse momentum squared for neutron XL in the range 0.90-1.00.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 3.0 to 4.0 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 4.0 to 5.0 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 5.0 to 6.5 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 6.5 to 8.0 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 8.0 to 11.0 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 11.0 to 20.0 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 2 to 3 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 3 to 5 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 5 to 10 GeV**2.

The differential cross section DSIG/DT as a function of W in the ABS(T) range 10 to 20 GeV**2.

Spin density events as a function of T.

Measured differential cross section DSIG/DQ**2.

Measured differential cross section DSIG/DX.

Pseudorapidity distribution with additional kinematical restraints on Q**2 and ET.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.564 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4523, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.5 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.45, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.432 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4478, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.36 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4458, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.288 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4434, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.212 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4411, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.136 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4383, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.1 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.3 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.7 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=6.06 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.4351, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.9 for the small SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.924 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.226, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.924 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.226, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.924 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.226, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.924 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.226, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.924 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.226, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.924 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.226, W=1.112 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.848 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2251, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.848 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2251, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.848 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2251, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.848 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2251, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.848 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2251, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.848 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2251, W=1.152 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.772 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2236, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.772 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2236, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.772 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2236, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.772 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2236, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.772 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2236, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.772 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2236, W=1.192 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.692 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2222, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.692 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2222, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.692 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2222, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.692 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2222, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.692 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2222, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.692 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2222, W=1.232 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.608 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2211, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.608 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2211, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.608 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2211, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.608 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2211, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.608 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2211, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.608 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2211, W=1.272 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.524 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2195, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.524 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2195, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.524 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2195, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.524 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2195, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.524 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2195, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.524 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2195, W=1.312 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.436 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.218, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.436 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.218, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.436 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.218, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.436 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.218, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.436 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.218, W=1.352 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.348 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2161, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.83 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.348 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2161, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.5 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.348 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2161, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=-0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.

Differential cross sections at Q**2=7.348 GeV**2, EPSILON=0.2161, W=1.392 GeV and COS(THETA(*))=0.17 for the large SOS spectrometer.