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).

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

Elliptic flow as determined from the fits to the $q$ distributions in different centrality bins. The circles are from the standard method with random subevents. For the squares, all the centralities were fit separately. For the triangles, centrality bins 2-8 were fit with the same value of the nonflow parameter.

Measured elliptic flow vs centrality for $Au+Au$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV. The circles show the conventional $v_{2}$ with estimated systematic uncertainty due to nonflow [37], the stars show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the generating function, the crosses show the conventional $v_{2}$ from quarter events, and the squares show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the four-subevent method.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Elliptic flow vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

Elliptic flow vs transverse momentum from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from the fourth-order cumulant divided by $v_{2}$, from the conventional method as a function of $p_{t}$, averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from quarter events divided by the conventional $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{t}$. In both cases, event planes were constructed from low-$p_{t}$ (< 0.5 GeV/c) particles. The data are averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

$v_{2}/\varepsilon$ as a function of charged particle density in $Au+Au$ collisions. Data are from E877 at the AGS (squares), NA49 at the SPS (circles), and STAR at RHIC (stars). The AGS and SPS data have been obtained by conventional flow analysis. The STAR measurements are at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV, and correspond to the final corrected elliptic flow based on fourth-order cumulants, and we assume $dN/dy=1.15dN/d\eta$. The horizontal shaded bands indicate the hydrodynamic limits for different beam energies [44].

PHI to K*0 ratio measured in this study.

$v_2$ 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.

$v_2$ vs Fixed $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

$v_2$ vs Assorted $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

$v_2$ vs Assorted $p_T$ for several centrality selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 5$%.

The centrality dependence of $A_2$ for two different $p_T$ selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation in Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 10$%, dominated by the normalization of the correction function and the model determination of$ \varepsilon$.

The centrality dependence of $A_2$ for two different $p_T$ selections. [F] and [A] follow the notation in Fig. 2. Systematic errors are estimated to be $\sim 10$%, dominated by the normalization of the correction function and the model determination of$ \varepsilon$.

Spectra of inclusive $\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) for minimum-bias events.

Spectra of inclusive feed-down corrected protons (antiprotons) for minimum-bias events.

Inclusive $\Lambda$ and feed-down corrected proton yields for minimum bias and for the 5% most central events. Systematic errors are 17% for protons and 16% for $\Lambda$

Inclusive $\Lambda$ and feed-down corrected average transverse momentum for minimum bias and for the 5% most central events. Systematic errors are 17% for protons and 16% for $\Lambda$

Inclusive $\Lambda$ and feed-down corrected slope parameters for minimum bias and for the 5% most central events. Systematic errors are 17% for protons and 16% for $\Lambda$

Total measured and predicted baryon yields for minimum-bias and for the 5% most central events. The proton yields are corrected for feed-down. The systematic errors are 24% for the protons and 23% for the $\Lambda$

Slope parameter T, dN/y, $N_\phi/N_h^-$. Systematic uncertainties on T are 12%, on dN/dy are 12%, and on $N_{\phi}/N_{h^-}$ are 22%.

$\Lambda$ and $\bar\Lambda$ rapidity density as a function of negative hadron multiplicity at mid-rapidity. The open symbols in the figure are data points from an independent analysis of minimum bias data set using event-mixing techniques. Errors shown are statistical only. Systematic errors on hyperon yields $10\%$, on negative hadron yields $6\%$. $\Lambda$ and $\bar\Lambda$ measured for $|y|<0.5$, negative hadrons for $|\eta|<0.1$. Dashed lines correspond to $\Lambda = 0.054 h^{-}$, $\bar\Lambda = 0.040 h^{-}$.

Fit parameters from Boltzmann and exponential fits of the $m_{T}$ spectra for $\Lambda$ and $\bar\Lambda$ at mid-rapidity ($|y|<0.5$). Only statistical errors are presented. The systematic errors on $dN/dy$ and $T$ are approximately $10\%$. The Boltzmann form is adopted in Figure 2.

The $M_{e_T}$ distributions for four different centrality classes. The curves are the random baseline mixed event distributions. The source of differences in the data and mixed event distributions are addressed in the text.

The residual distribution between the data and mixed event $M_{e_T}$ spectra as a function of $M_{e_T}$ in units of standard deviation. The total ${\chi}^2$ and the number of degrees of freedom for the $0-5\%$, $0-10\%$, $10-20\%$, $20-30\%$ centrality classes are 310.0/32, 896.4/36, 678.7/47, and 553.9/53, respectively. A large fraction of the residual contributions are due to the effects of cluster merging.