$R_{AA}$ for $\phi$ integrated at $p_T$ > 2.2 GeV/$c$ in Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions vs. $N_{part}$. The global uncertainty related to the $p$+$p$ reference normalization is shown as a box on the right in the figure from the paper.

$R_{AA}$ for $\phi$ integrated at $p_T$ > 2.2 GeV/$c$ in Cu+Cu and Au+Au collisions vs. $N_{part}$. The global uncertainty related to the $p$+$p$ reference normalization is shown as a box on the right in the figure from the paper.

$R_{dA}$ vs. $p_T$ for $\phi$, $\pi^0$, and ($p$+$\bar{p}$) for 0-20% centrality $d$+Au collisions, and $R_{dA}$ vs. $p_T$ for $\phi$, $\pi^0$, and ($p$+$\bar{p}$) for 60-88% peripheral $d$+Au collisions. The global uncertainty of ~ 10% related to the $p$+$p$ reference normalization is not shown.

(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.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in p + p collisions for 3-4 $\otimes$ 0.4-1, 3-4 $\otimes$ 1-2, 3-4 $\otimes$ 2-3, and 3-4 $\otimes$ 3-4 GeV/c.

The 0-20% Au+Au jet-induced hadron-pair yield $\Delta\phi$ distributions calculated from the per-trigger yield using low-$p_T$ hadrons as triggers and high-$p_T$ hadrons as triggers. Data for 4 - 5 GeV/$c$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in Au + Au collisions for 3-4 $\otimes$ 0.4-1, 3-4 $\otimes$ 1-2, 3-4 $\otimes$ 2-3, and 3-4 $\otimes$ 3-4 GeV/c.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in p + p collisions for 5-10 $\otimes$ 2-3, 4-5 $\otimes$ 4-5, 5-10 $\otimes$ 3-5, and 5-10 $\otimes$ 5-10 GeV/c.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in Au + Au collisions for 5-10 $\otimes$ 2-3, 4-5 $\otimes$ 4-5, 5-10 $\otimes$ 3-5, and 5-10 $\otimes$ 5-10 GeV/c.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in p + p collisions for 3-4 $\otimes$ 0.4-1, 3-4 $\otimes$ 1-2, 3-4 $\otimes$ 2-3, and 3-4 $\otimes$ 3-4 GeV/c.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for p + p collisions for four trigger selections.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in Au + Au collisions for 3-4 $\otimes$ 0.4-1, 3-4 $\otimes$ 1-2, 3-4 $\otimes$ 2-3, and 3-4 $\otimes$ 3-4 GeV/c.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for Au + Au collisions for four trigger selections.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for various trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$), arranged by increasing pair proxy energy (sum of $p^a_T$ and $p^b_T$), in Au + Au collisions for 5-10 $\otimes$ 2-3, 4-5 $\otimes$ 4-5, 5-10 $\otimes$ 3-5, and 5-10 $\otimes$ 5-10 GeV/c.

RHS versus $N_{part}$ for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/$c$. Shaded bars (brackets) represent $p_T$ -correlated uncertainties due to elliptic flow (ZYAM procedure). The most left point is from p+p.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for p + p collisions for four trigger selections.

Per-trigger yield $\Delta\phi$ distribution and corresponding fits for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/c in 0-5% Au+Au collisions.

RHS versus $p^b_T$ for Au + Au collisions for four trigger selections.

a) D versus centrality from FIT 1 and FIT2 for 2 - 3 GeV/$c$ bin. The error bars are the statistical errors; The shaded bars and brackets are the systematic errors due to $v_2$. b) The fraction of the shoulder Gaussian yield relative to the total away-side yield as function of centrality determined from FIT2.

RHS versus $N_{part}$ for 2-3 $\otimes$ 2-3 GeV/$c$. Shaded bars (brackets) represent $p_T$ -correlated uncertainties due to elliptic flow (ZYAM procedure). The most left point is from p+p.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Per-trigger yield $\Delta\phi$ distribution and corresponding fits for 2−3 $\otimes$ 2−3 GeV/c in 0-5% Au+Au collisions.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

a) D versus $N_{part}$ from FIT 1 and FIT2 for 2 - 3 GeV/$c$ bin. The error bars are the statistical errors; The shaded bars and brackets are the systematic errors due to $v_2$. b) The fraction of the shoulder Gaussian yield relative to the total away-side yield as function of $N_{part}$ determined from FIT2.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT1 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 2-3 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 3-4 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Values of D determined from FIT2 as function of partner $p_T$ for 4-5 GeV/c $p_T$ range in 0-20% Au+Au.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the HR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 0-20% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 20-40% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 40-60% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % Au + Au.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the 60-92% Au + Au collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % p + p.

Per-trigger yield as function of partner $p_T$ for the SR region for the p + p collisions. Results for four trigger pT in 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-10 GeV/c are shown.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus $N_{part}$ for five successively increasing $p^a_T$ $\otimes$ $p^b_T$. The most left point in each panel represents the value from p + p.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% p + p.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ ranges for 0-20 % p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side Gaussian widths versus $N_{part}$ for five successively increasing $p^a_T$ $\otimes$ $p^b_T$. The most left point in each panel represents the value from p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% p + p.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Near-side yield in $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < $\pi$/3 versus partner $p_T$ for four trigger $p_T$ selections for 0-20% Au + Au.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central Au + Au collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central Au + Au collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central p + p collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\eta$ for 0-20% central p + p collisions. Results are shown for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections as indicated.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\eta$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\eta$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\phi$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

The projection of 2-D per-trigger yield in $\lvert \Delta\eta \rvert$ < 0.7 $\otimes$ $\lvert \Delta\phi \rvert$ < 0.7 and 0-20% central Au+Au collisions onto $\Delta\phi$ for four $p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$ selections.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus $N_{part}$ for the head region for Au + Au and p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the head region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus $N_{part}$ for the away-side shoulder region for Au + Au and p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the away-side shoulder region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus $N_{part}$ for the near-side region for Au + Au and p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the near-side region for Au + Au for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3 − 4 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the head region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4 − 5 GeV/c.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the away-side shoulder region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

The near-side pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p^b_T$ for various ranges of $p^a_T$.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, in 1 <pbT < 5 GeV/c versus centrality for the near-side region for p + p for four trigger $p_T$ bins.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 20-40%.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3-4 GeV/c.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 40-60%.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4-5 GeV/c.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 60-92%.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 3-4 GeV/c.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Truncated mean $p_T$, $\langle p_T \rangle$, calculated for five partner pT ranges in the HR. Results for triggers in 4-5 GeV/c.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 20-40% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The near-side pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p^b_T$ for various ranges of $p^a_T$.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 40-60% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 20-40%.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 60-92% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 40-60%.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 0-20 % Au + Au collisions.

The near-side $J_{AA}$ as function of $p^b_T$ and $p^{sum}_T$ for four $p^a_T$ bins and three centrality bins. Data for 60-92%.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in p + p collisions.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 0-20% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 20-40 % Au + Au collisions.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 20-40% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in p + p collisions.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 40-60% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 60-92 % Au + Au collisions.

The pair suppression factor $J_{AA}$ for the away-side HR in 60-92% Au + Au collisions as function of $p_b^T$ for various ranges of $p_a^T$.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in p + p collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 0-20 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 20-40 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 40-60 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in 60-92 % Au + Au collisions.

Per-trigger yield versus $\Delta\phi$ for successively increasing trigger and partner $p_T$ ($p^a_T \otimes p^b_T$) in p + p collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus PT at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus PT at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus centrality at backward rapidity (-2.2<y<-1.2) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus centrality at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

J/PSI invariant (1/(2PI*PT))*D2(N)/DPT/DYRAP versus centrality at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus rapidity in D+AU collisions, over 3 bins of rapidity.

Nuclear modification factor versus rapidity in D+AU collisions, over 5 bins of rapidity.

Nuclear modification factor versus PT at backward rapidity (-2.2<y<-1.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus PT at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus PT at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus centrality at backward rapidity (-2.2<y<-1.2) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus centrality at mid rapidity (-0.35<y<0.35) in D+AU collisions.

Nuclear modification factor versus centrality at forward rapidity (1.2<y<2.2) in D+AU collisions.

Mean PT^2 versus rapidity, extracted from a fit to the data, for DEUT + Au reactions. The mean value of PT^2 is calculated from the data for PT < 5 Gev/c.

Mean PT^2 versus rapidity, extracted from a fit to the data, for P + P reactions. The mean value of PT^2 is calculated from the data for PT < 5 Gev/c.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter,integrated over the whole domain of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter for different ranges of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter, integrated over the whole domain of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

Breakup cross section of c-c_bar pairs inside cold nuclear matter for different ranges of rapidity.The breakup cross section is calculated with two models of shadowing for nuclear PDFs ; the EKS model and the NDSG model. The uncertainties given, containing statistical and systematical error, are corresponding to one standard deviation.

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. All centralities.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality A (Central).</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality B.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality C.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality D (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality A (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality B.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality C.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality D (Central).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

$I_{AA}$ versus $p_T^B$ for four trigger $p_T$ bins in HR+SR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/2$) and HR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/6$).

$I_{AA}$ versus $p_T^B$ for four trigger $p_T$ bins in HR+SR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/2$) and HR ($|\Delta\phi - \pi|$ < $\pi/6$).

Truncated mean $<p_T^{\prime}>$ in 1 < $p_T^B$ < 5 GeV/$c$ versus $N_{part}$ for the near-side, away-side shoulder, and head regions for Au+Au and $p$+$p$ for three trigger $p_T$ bins.

Invariant yield of electrons from heavy-flavor decays for 40-60% central collisions, versus PT.

Invariant yield of electrons from heavy-flavor decays for 60-92% central collisions, versus PT.

Invariant yield of electrons from heavy-flavor decays for minimum bias collisions, versus PT.

Nuclear modification factor of heavy-flavor electrons for PT>0.3 Gev/c as a function of Centrality (represented by the number of participants) An additional systematic error of +0.2325,-0.1587 from the measurements in P+P collisions is not included.

Nuclear modification factor of heavy-flavor electrons for PT>3.0 Gev/c as a function of Centrality (represented by the number of participants) An additional systematic error of +0.1103,-0.09038 from the measurements in P+P collisions is not included.

Nuclear modification factor of heavy-flavor electrons versus PT for 0-10% central collisions An additional systematic error of +8%,-6% due to the uncertainty on the overlap integral TAA is to add. This error has been determined using g3data, a software allowing toextract data graphically from plots.

Azimuthal amisotropy (v2) versus PT for minimum bias collisions.

Mean PT^2 values at forward rapidities (absolute value of y belongs to [1.2;2.2]), for different bins of centrality.

J/PSI invariant yield versus rapidity for 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-92% centrality, at mid rapidity :,-0.35<y<0.35 An up/down correction, to translate each point at the center of it's relative bin, have been applied to the data.

J/PSI invariant yield versus rapidity for 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-92% centrality,at forward rapidities (absolute value of y belongs to [1.2;2.2]). An up/down correction, to translate each point at the center of it's relative bin, have been applied to the data.

Nuclear modification factor Raa versus transverse momentum for 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-92% centrality, at mid rapidities :-0.35<y<0.35. An additional +- 10% (resp. +- 10%, +- 13%, +- 28%) global uncertainty, associated with the calculation of the number of binary collisions and the J/PSI yield in p+p, is not shown for the 0-20% (resp. 20-40%,40-60%, 60-92%) centrality bin.

Nuclear modification factor Raa versus transverse momentum for 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-92% centrality, at forward rapidities : absolute value of y belongs to [1.2;2.2] An additional +- 10% (resp. +- 10%, +- 13%, +- 28%) global uncertainty, associated with the calculation of the number of binary collisions and the J/PSI yield in p+p, is not shown for the 0-20% (resp. 20-40%,40-60%, 60-92%) centrality bin. An up/down correction, to translate each point at the center of it's relative bin, have been applied to the data.

Nuclear modification factor Raa versus rapidity for 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-92% centrality, at mid rapidities :,-0.35<y<0.35. An additional +- 10% (resp. +- 10%, +- 13%, +- 28%) global uncertainty, associated with the calculation of the number of binary collisions and the J/PSI yield in p+p, is not shown for the 0-20% (resp. 20-40%,40-60%, 60-92%) centrality bin.

Nuclear modification factor Raa versus rapidity for 0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-92% centrality, at forward rapidities : absolute value of y belongs to [1.2;2.2] An additional +- 10% (resp. +- 10%, +- 13%, +- 28%) global uncertainty, associated with the calculation of the number of binary collisions and the J/PSI yield in p+p, is not shown for the 0-20% (resp. 20-40%,40-60%, 60-92%) centrality bin.

The number of participants Npart and the nuclear modification factor Raa versus centrality at mid rapidities :,-0.35<y<0.35. An additional +- 12% global uncertainty, associated with the calculation of the number of binary collisions and the J/PSI yield in p+p, is not shown.

The number of participants Npart and the nuclear modification factor Raa versus centrality at forward rapidities : absolute value of y belongs to [1.2;2.2] An additional +- 7% global uncertainty, associated with the calculation of the number of binary collisions and the J/PSI yield in p+p, is not shown.

Ratio of nuclear modification factors RAA(forward rapidity)/RAA(mid rapidity), versus centrality. For the two most central bins, mid rapidity points have been combined to form the ratio with the forward rapidity points. See previous tables. An additional globaluncertainty of +- 14% is not included.

Inelastic cross section measured in d+Au at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV through $\eta \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$

Invariant yields measured in d+Au for different centrality classes

Invariant yields measured in Au+Au for different centrality classes

Nuclear modification factor $R_{dA}$ for $\eta$ measured in d+Au for different centrality classes

Nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}(p_T)$ for $\eta$ measured in Au+Au for different centrality classes

Ratio of $\eta$ and $\pi^{0}$ measured in p+p at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV

Ratio of $\eta$ and $\pi^{0}$ measured in d+Au for different centrality classes

Ratio of $\eta$ and $\pi^{0}$ measured in Au+Au for different centrality classes