The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

raw correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

raw correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

raw correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

d+Au background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) v2{2} and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{2\}$ for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 (top panel) and 62.4 (bottom panel) GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.The statistical errors are smaller than the marker size and not visible for most of the data.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < pT < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The systematic errors are shown as narrow lines with wide caps at the end and statistical errors are shown as thick lines with narrow caps at the end. Statistical errors are not visible for most of the points.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Cu+Cu collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/c. The most central points (two points for Cu+Cu 62.4 GeV) gives $v_2\{4\}^4 < 0$ for all the data sets. The negative values are probably due to large fluctuations in agreement with Eq. (1). These may include contributions from impact parameter spread and finite multiplicity bin width.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) $v_2\{4\}$ and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{4\}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.

(Left) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 200 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations.

(Right) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations. The statistical and systematic errors are shown as in previous figures.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The STAR data compared to PHOBOS data [34] on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ with $\delta_2$ for $\Delta\eta > 2$ taken to be zero (see Fig. 6 from Ref. [34]). The shaded band shows the errors quoted from Ref. [34].

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

Elliptic flow versus $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV measured with the subevent method with a pseudorapidity gap of 0.3 units compared with previously published STAR results for 200 and 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu [27] measured with full TPC event plane method $v_{2}${TPC} and full FTPC event plane method $v_{2}${FTPC}. The error bars are statistical. Results are also compared to $v_{2}$($p_{T}$) model calculations.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}(\eta)$ for charged hadrons fromCu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV. The present STAR results are compared to the measurement from the PHOBOS [29] collaboration for Cu+Cu at 22.4 GeV. The PHOBOS results include statistical and systematic errors whereas the STAR results are plotted with statistical uncertainties only, and systematic errors are discussed in Section III C. Results are also compared to $v_{2}(\eta)$ calculations from the indicated models.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}${TPC} and $v_{2}${4} as a function of centrality for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0 − 60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV, compared with previously published results from the STAR collaboration at 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ invariant mass spectra from Cu+Cu $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$K^0_S$ invariant mass spectra from Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ invariant mass spectra from Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have not been feed down subtracted from weak decays. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$K^0_S$, $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$, spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) and Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed down subtracted from weak decays. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Xi + \bar{\Xi}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Xi + \bar{\Xi}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

The enhancement factor for (multi-) strange particles in Cu+Cu $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed-down subtracted in all cases. The black bars show the normalization uncertainties, and the uncertainties for the heavy-ion points are the combined statistical and systematic errors. Curves described in the text, where $B_{K} = 2.0$, $B_{\Lambda} = 2.4$, $B_{\Xi} = 5.0$ and $B_{\Omega} = 12.1$.

The enhancement factor for (multi-) strange particles in Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed-down subtracted in all cases. The black bars show the normalization uncertainties, and the uncertainties for the heavy-ion points are the combined statistical and systematic errors. Curves described in the text, where $B_{K} = 2.0$, $B_{\Lambda} = 2.4$, $B_{\Xi} = 5.0$ and $B_{\Omega} = 12.1$.

Ratio of particle yields in central Cu+Cu and midcentral Au+Au collisions when $\langle N_{part} \rangle = 99$ in each case for $|y| < 0.5$. $\pi$ yields are from elsewhere [17]. Boxed uncertainties are from the Glauber calculations and are correlated for every particle. $\langle N_{part>1} \rangle$ refers to the parameterization shown by eq. 1, while the EPOS and AMPT models are described in the text. The default settings are used for each model. The vertical lines show the remaining independent statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 70-80% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The correlation function C is plottedin units of (GeV/c)$^2$.The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The solid line shows the fit obtained with Eq.2. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline, b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 30-40% centrality. Statistical errors at(\Deltaeta_1,Deltaeta_2~(0,0) are approximately 0.084 for Au+Au. The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline,b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

Projection of the correlation function C, for|∆φ|<1.0 radians on the ∆η axis for 0-5% centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The correlation functionCis plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The correlation function C is plotted in units of (GeV/c)$^2$. The solid line shows the fit obtained with Eq.2. The dotted line corresponds to the baseline,b, obtained in the fit and shaded band shows uncertainty in determining b.

RMS as function of the number of participating nucleons for the correlation function C, for nine centrality classes in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dotted line represents a lower limit estimate of the RMS explained in the text and the shaded band represents systematic uncertainties on the RMS.