FIG. 2: a) left side: The correlation data for the ratio of the histograms of same-event-pairs to mixed-event-pairs for unlike-sign charged pairs, shown in a two-dimensional (2-D) perspective plot $\Delta\phi$ - $\Delta\eta$. The plot was normalized to a mean of 1. b) right side: The similar correlation data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 5 :“(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 5: “(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).

$R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ and $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Lambda$. Stat. and syst. errors added in quadrature.The band at unity shows the systematic uncertainty on $⟨N_{bin}⟩$. The dashed line below unity shows the expected value of RAA should the yields scale with $⟨N_{part}⟩$, and the band around it shows the systematic uncertainty on ⟨Npart ⟩. $N_{bin}$ Scaling 1 $\pm$ 0.16 and $N_{part}$ Scaling 0.168 $\pm$ 0.02 .

$R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ and $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Xi^{-} + \bar{\Xi}^{+}$. Stat. and syst. errors added in quadrature. The band at unity shows the systematic uncertainty on $⟨N_{bin}⟩$. The dashed line below unity shows the expected value of RAA should the yields scale with $⟨N_{part}⟩$, and the band around it shows the systematic uncertainty on ⟨Npart ⟩. $N_{bin}$ Scaling 1 $\pm$ 0.16 and $N_{part}$ Scaling 0.168 $\pm$ 0.02 .

$R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ and $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for inclusive $p+\bar{p}$. Stat. and syst. errors added in quadrature. The band at unity shows the systematic uncertainty on $⟨N_{bin}⟩$. The dashed line below unity shows the expected value of RAA should the yields scale with $⟨N_{part}⟩$, and the band around it shows the systematic uncertainty on ⟨Npart ⟩. $N_{bin}$ Scaling 1 $\pm$ 0.16 and $N_{part}$ Scaling 0.168 $\pm$ 0.02 .

$R_{AA}$ from HIJING as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ central Au+Au events for inclusive $p+\bar{p}$.

$R_{AA}$ from HIJING as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Lambda$.

$R_{AA}$ from HIJING as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$.

$R_{AA}$ from EPOS as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ central Au+Au events for inclusive $p+\bar{p}$.

$R_{AA}$ from EPOS as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Lambda$.

$R_{AA}$ from EPOS as a function of $p_{T}$ from $0-5\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$.

$R_{AA}$ from HIJING as a function of $p_{T}$ from $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for inclusive $p+\bar{p}$.

$R_{AA}$ from HIJING as a function of $p_{T}$ from $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Lambda$.

$R_{AA}$ from HIJING as a function of $p_{T}$ from $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$.

$R_{AA}$ from EPOS as a function of $p_{T}$ from $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for inclusive $p+\bar{p}$.

$R_{AA}$ from EPOS as a function of $p_{T}$ from $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Lambda$.

$R_{AA}$ from EPOS as a function of $p_{T}$ from $60-80\%$ central Au+Au events for $\Xi^{-}+\bar{\Xi}^{+}$.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the near-side associated-particle yield.

$\Delta\phi$ distribution used to extract the away-side yield. The triangular pair acceptance correction in $\Delta\eta$ is not applied.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

$N_{part}$ dependence of the away-side associated-particle yield.

Away-side associated particle distribution.

$I_{AA}$.

$I_{AA}$.

$I_{AA}$.

$I_{AA}$.

The TPC mid-rapidity multiplicity distributions ($|\eta|$ < 0.5) for the corresponding E-FTPC selected centrality bins.

Uncorrected charged particle multiplicity distribution measured in the TPC within $|\eta|$ < 0.5 in pp collisions at 200 GeV.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

Vertex-finding efficiency (ǫvtx) and fake vertex rate (δfake) as a function of the number of good global tracks (a) and the number of good primary tracks (b). Errors shown or smaller than the point size are statistical only.

Vertex-finding efficiency (ǫvtx) and fake vertex rate (δfake) as a function of the number of good global tracks (a) and the number of good primary tracks (b). Errors shown or smaller than the point size are statistical only.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in pp (a) and d+Au collisions (b) at 200 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in pp (a) and d+Au collisions (b) at 200 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 10-40%.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 0-5%.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in minimum bias d+Au reactions.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in Au+Au reactions in the centrality range of 0-5%.

The $K^{*0}$ mass (upper panel) and width (lower panel) as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias $p + p$ interactions and for central Au+Au collisions. The solid straight lines are the standard $K^{*0}$ mass (896.1 MeV/$c^2$ ) and width (50.7 MeV/$c^2$), respectively. The dashed and dotted curves are the MC results in minimum bias $p+p$ and for central Au+Au collisions, respectively, after considering detector effects and kinematic cuts. The grey shadows (caps) indicate the systematic uncertainties for the measurement in minimum bias $p + p$ interactions (central Au+Au collisions).

The $K^{*0}$ mass (upper panel) and width (lower panel) as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias $p + p$ interactions and for central Au+Au collisions. The solid straight lines are the standard $K^{*0}$ mass (896.1 MeV/$c^2$ ) and width (50.7 MeV/$c^2$), respectively. The dashed and dotted curves are the MC results in minimum bias $p+p$ and for central Au+Au collisions, respectively, after considering detector effects and kinematic cuts. The grey shadows (caps) indicate the systematic uncertainties for the measurement in minimum bias $p + p$ interactions (central Au+Au collisions).

The $K^{*0}$ mass (upper panel) and width (lower panel) as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias $p + p$ interactions and for central Au+Au collisions. The solid straight lines are the standard $K^{*0}$ mass (896.1 MeV/$c^2$ ) and width (50.7 MeV/$c^2$), respectively. The dashed and dotted curves are the MC results in minimum bias $p+p$ and for central Au+Au collisions, respectively, after considering detector effects and kinematic cuts. The grey shadows (caps) indicate the systematic uncertainties for the measurement in minimum bias $p + p$ interactions (central Au+Au collisions).

The $K^{*0}$ mass (upper panel) and width (lower panel) as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias $p + p$ interactions and for central Au+Au collisions. The solid straight lines are the standard $K^{*0}$ mass (896.1 MeV/$c^2$ ) and width (50.7 MeV/$c^2$), respectively. The dashed and dotted curves are the MC results in minimum bias $p+p$ and for central Au+Au collisions, respectively, after considering detector effects and kinematic cuts. The grey shadows (caps) indicate the systematic uncertainties for the measurement in minimum bias $p + p$ interactions (central Au+Au collisions).

The $K_S^0\pi^\pm$ invariant mass distribution integrated over the $K^{*\pm}$ $p_T$ for minimum bias $p + p$ collisions (upper panel) and for the $50-80\%$ of the inelastic hadronic Au+Au crosssection (lower panel) after the mixed-event background subtraction. The solid curves are fits to Eq. 10 and the dashed lines are the linear function representing the residual background.

The $K^{*0}$ and $K^{*\pm}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions.

The $K^{*0}$ and $K^{*\pm}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions.

The $K^{*0}$ and $K^{*\pm}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions.

The $K^{*0}$ and $K^{*\pm}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions.

The $(K^* + \bar{K^*})/2$ invariant yields as a function of $m_T − m_0$ for |y| < 0.5 from minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions. The top $10\% $central data have been multiplied by two for clarity. The lines are fits to Eq. 12. The errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic (in the level of $10\% $) uncertainties.

The $(K^* + \bar{K^*})/2$ invariant yields as a function of $m_T − m_0$ for |y| < 0.5 from minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions. The top $10\% $central data have been multiplied by two for clarity. The lines are fits to Eq. 12. The errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic (in the level of $10\% $) uncertainties.

The $(K^* + \bar{K^*})/2$ invariant yields as a function of $m_T − m_0$ for |y| < 0.5 from minimum bias $p + p$ and different centralities in Au+Au collisions. The top $10\% $central data have been multiplied by two for clarity. The lines are fits to Eq. 12. The errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic (in the level of $10\% $) uncertainties.

(Color online) The invariant yields for both $(K^{*0} + \bar{K^{*0}})/2$ and $(K^{*+} + K^{*-})/2$ as a function of $p_T$ for |y| < 0.5 in minimum bias $p + p$ interactions. The dotted curve is the fit to the power-law function from Equation 13 for $p_T$ > 0.5 GeV/$c$ and extended to lower values of $p_T$ . The dashed curve is the $K^{*0}$ spectrum fit to the exponential function from Equation 12 and extended to higher values of $p_T$ . The dashed-dotted curve is the fit to the Levy function from Equation 14 for $p_T$ < 4 GeV/$c$. Errors are statistical only.

(Color online) The invariant yields for both $(K^{*0} + \bar{K^{*0}})/2$ and $(K^{*+} + K^{*-})/2$ as a function of $p_T$ for |y| < 0.5 in minimum bias $p + p$ interactions. The dotted curve is the fit to the power-law function from Equation 13 for $p_T$ > 0.5 GeV/$c$ and extended to lower values of $p_T$ . The dashed curve is the $K^{*0}$ spectrum fit to the exponential function from Equation 12 and extended to higher values of $p_T$ . The dashed-dotted curve is the fit to the Levy function from Equation 14 for $p_T$ < 4 GeV/$c$. Errors are statistical only.

(Color online) The $K^*$ $<p_T>$ as a function of $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ compared to that of $\pi^−$, $K^−$, and $p$ for minimum bias $p+p$ (solid symbols) and Au+Au (open symbols) collisions. The errors shown are the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The $K^*/K$ (upper panel) and $\phi/K^*$ (lower panel) yield ratios as a function of the c.m. system energies. The yield ratios for central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=130 [35] and 200 GeV and minimum bias $p+p$ interactions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV are compared to measurements from e+e- at sqrt(s) of 10.45 GeV [48], 29 GeV [49] and 91 GeV [50,51], pbar-p at sqrt(s) of 5.6 GeV [52] and pp at sqrt(s) of 27.5 GeV [53], 52.5 GeV [54] and 63 GeV [55]. The errors at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=130 and 200 GeV correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic errors.

The $K^*/K$ (upper panel) and $\phi/K^*$ (lower panel) yield ratios as a function of the c.m. system energies. The yield ratios for central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=130 [35] and 200 GeV and minimum bias $p+p$ interactions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV are compared to measurements from e+e- at sqrt(s) of 10.45 GeV [48], 29 GeV [49] and 91 GeV [50,51], pbar-p at sqrt(s) of 5.6 GeV [52] and pp at sqrt(s) of 27.5 GeV [53], 52.5 GeV [54] and 63 GeV [55]. The errors at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=130 and 200 GeV correspond to the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic errors.

The $K^{*0}$ v2 (filled stars) as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions compared to the $K^{0}_S$ (open triangles), $\Lambda$ (open circles), and charged hadron (open diamonds) $v_2$. The errors shown are statistical only.

The $K^*$ $R_{AA}$ (filled triangles) and $R_{CP}$ (filled circles) as a function of $p_T$ compared to the $K^{0}_S$ (open circles) and $\Lambda$ (open triangles) $R_{CP}$. The errors shown are statistical only. The dashed line represents the number of binary collisions scaling. The widths of the grey bands represent the systematic uncertainties of $R_{AA}$ (left) and $R_{CP}$ (right) due to the model calculations of $N_{bin}$.

FIG. 1: (a) Raw two-particle correlation signal $Y_2$ (red), background $aB_{inc}F_2$ (solid histogram), and background systematic uncertainty from a (dashed histograms). (b) Background-subtracted two-particle correlation $\hat{Y}_2$ (red), and systematic uncertainties due to a (dashed histograms) and flow (blue histograms). (c) Raw three-particle correlation $Y_3$. (d) $ba^2Y_{inc}^2$ . (e) Sum of trig-corr-bkgd and trigger flow. Data are from 12% central Au+Au collisions. Statistical errors in (a,b) are smaller than the point size.

FIG. 1: (a) Raw two-particle correlation signal $Y_2$ (red), background $aB_{inc}F_2$ (solid histogram), and background systematic uncertainty from a (dashed histograms). (b) Background-subtracted two-particle correlation $\hat{Y}_2$ (red), and systematic uncertainties due to a (dashed histograms) and flow (blue histograms). (c) Raw three-particle correlation $Y_3$. (d) $ba^2Y_{inc}^2$ . (e) Sum of trig-corr-bkgd and trigger flow. Data are from 12% central Au+Au collisions. Statistical errors in (a,b) are smaller than the point size.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

FIG. 2: Background subtracted three-particle correlations, $\hat{Y}_3$, for (a) pp, (b) d+Au, (c) 80-50% Au+Au, (d) 50-30% Au+Au, (e) 30-10% Au+Au, and (f) 12% central Au+Au. Statistical errors per bin are approximately $\pm$0.012 in (a) and $\pm$0.006 in (b), both at ($\pi$, $\pi$), and are $\pm$0.022, $\pm$0.049, $\pm$0.099 and $\pm$0.077 from (c) to (f), similar for all bins.

Projections of away-side three-particle correlations along the diagonal $\Sigma$ within 0 < $\Delta$ < 0.35 (squares) and along the off-diagonal $\Delta$ within |$\Sigma$| < 0.35 (points) in (a) d+Au and (b) 12% central Au+Au collisions. The shaded areas indicate systematic uncertainties on the off-diagonal projections. The histogram in (a) is the near-side off-diagonal projection. The histogram in (b) is the away-side off-diagonal projection of our result with a = b = 1. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Projections of away-side three-particle correlations along the diagonal $\Sigma$ within 0 < $\Delta$ < 0.35 (squares) and along the off-diagonal $\Delta$ within |$\Sigma$| < 0.35 (points) in (a) d+Au and (b) 12% central Au+Au collisions. The shaded areas indicate systematic uncertainties on the off-diagonal projections. The histogram in (a) is the near-side off-diagonal projection. The histogram in (b) is the away-side off-diagonal projection of our result with a = b = 1. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Three-particle correlation strength per radian$^2$ versus ($N_{part}$/2)$^{1/3}$ where $N_{part}$ is the number of participants. Some of the data points have been displaced in $N_{part}$ for clarity.