Nuclear modicifation factor vs. N_coll $J\psi$ with|y|<1 and pT < 3 GeV/c in d Au collisions.

The invariant cross section versus transverse momentum for J/$\psi$ with $|y|\lt 1$ in $p+p$ collisions.

The invariant yield versus transverse momentum for $J/\Psi$ with |y| < 1 in 0 - 100 percent central d+Au collisions.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

Identified particle (Kaon Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Kaon Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Proton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Identified particle (Antiproton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.

Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 3.0 - 3.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.

Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 4.0 - 4.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.

Glauber Fit Parameters

Nch at each Collision Energy (GeV)

Ncoll at each Collision Energy (GeV)

Npart at each Collision Energy (GeV)

The value of $\sigma^{NN}_{inel}$ used in the Monte Carlo Glauber simulation at each collision energy

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.

No description provided.

Sample fit projections onto the $q_{out}$, $q_{side}$, and $q_{long}$ axes respectively for four angular bins relative to the reaction. These projections are from results for 10-20% central, 19.6 GeV Au+Au collisions with 0.15 < $k_T$ < 0.6 GeV/c.

Energy dependence of the HBT parameters for central Au+Au, Pb+Pb, and Pb+Au collisions at mid-rapidity and $\langle k_T \rangle \approx 0.22$ GeV/c. Errors on NA44, NA49, WA98, and CERES, points include systematic errors.The systematic errors for STAR points at all energies (from Table II) are of similar size to error bar for 39 GeV, shown as a representative example. Errors on other results are statistical only, to emphasize the trend.

The $\langle m_T \rangle$ dependence of $R_{out}$, $R_{side}$ and $R_{long}$ for all energies at 0-5% centrality. Errors are statistical only. These plot shows the difference (between $R_{out}$ and $R_{side}$) and the ratio $R_{out}$ / $R_{side}$ respectively.

The $\langle m_T \rangle$ dependence of $R_{out}$, $R_{side}$ and $R_{long}$ for each energy and multiple centralities. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 7 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 11.5 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 19.6 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 27 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 39 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 62.4 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Au+Au collisions at STAR at 200 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

The dependence of the HBT radii on multiplicity,$\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle^{1/3}$, for $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c and$k_T\approx 0.39$ GeV/c. Results are for Si+Al collisions at E802, Pb+Au at CERES, Pb+Pb at ALICE. Errors are statistical only.

The beam energy dependence of the volume of the regions of homogeneity at kinetic freeze-out in central Au+Au, Pb+Pb and Pb+Au collisions with $k_T\approx 0.22$ GeV/c.

The lifetime, $\tau$, of the system as a function of beam energy for central Au+Au collisions assuming a temperature of T = 0.12 GeV at kinetic freeze-out.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 7.7 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 7.7 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1)and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 7.7 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertain- ties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 11.5 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 11.5 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 11.5 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 19.6 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 19.6 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 19.6 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 27 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 27 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 27 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 39 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 39 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 39 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 62.4 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 62.4 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 62.4 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 200 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c for the azimuthally integrated radii and the 0th-order Fourier coefficients. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at mid-rapidity (−0.5 < y < 0.5), in 200 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c, from the HHLW method (Gaussian fits to each angular bin) and a single global fit to all angular bins to directly. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Centrality dependence of the Fourier coefficients that describe azimuthal oscillations of the HBT radii, at backward(−1<y<−0.5), forward(0.5<y<1) and mid(−0.5<y< 0.5) rapidity, in 200 GeV collisions with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c using the global fit method. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties.

Beam energy dependence of the $R_{ol,0}^2$ cross term for forward and backward rapidity with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c.

The eccentricity of the collisions at kinetic freez-out, εF , as a function of initial eccentricity relative to the participant plane, ε$_{PP}$, at mid-rapidity. All results are for ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties. The line has a slope of one indicating no change in shape.

The dependence of the kinetic freeze-out eccentricity of pions on collision energy in mid-central Au+Au collisions (E895, STAR) and Pb+Au collisions (CERES) for three rapidity regions and with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Several (2+1)D hydrodynamical models and UrQMD calculations are shown. Model centralities correspond to the data.

The dependence of the kinetic freeze-out eccentricity of pions on collision energy in mid-central Au+Au collisions using UrQMD calculations, (2+1)D hydro MC-KLN and (2+1)D hydro MC-GLB models with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties. Model centralities correspond to the data.

The dependence of the kinetic freeze-out eccentricity of pions on collision energy in mid-central Au+Au collisions using (2+1)D hydro EOS-Q, (2+1)D hydro EOS-H, and (2+1)D hydro EOS-I models with ⟨$k_T$⟩ ≈ 0.31 GeV/c. Error bars include only statistical uncertainties. Model centralities correspond to the data.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=27$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=39$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.

Balance function widths for the most central events ($0-5\%$) compared with balance function widths calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are balance function widths calculated using UrQMD and shuffled UrQMD events. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.

Directed flow for $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ versus rapidity for intermediate-centrality (10-40$\%$) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5 and 7.7 GeV. Errors are statistical only.

Directed flow slope $dv_{1}/dy$ of protons, antiprotons and $\pi^{\pm}$ near midrapidity versus beam energy for intermediate-centrality (10-40$\%$) Au+Au collisions.

Directed flow slope $dv_{1}/dy$ of net-protons near midrapidity versus beam energy for intermediate-centrality (10-40$\%$) Au+Au collisions. Datapoints for protons and antiprotons can be found in Table5.

The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV.

The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV.

The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 7.7.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV.

The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV.

$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 60-80% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 30-60% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 10-30% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) k- in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) k+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) pbar in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

The midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 as a function of √sNN for π±, K±, and p and p ̄ in 0–5% Au+Au collisions at BES energies. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

⟨mT⟩ − m of π±, K±, and p and p ̄ as a function of √sNN . Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) results are shown for 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at BES energies. The errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

K/π ratio at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) for central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.

The GCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

The GCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

The SCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

The SCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.

Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter μS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter R between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

" (a) Energy dependence of kinetic and chemical freezeout temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions. The curves represent various theoretical predictions [81,82]. (b) Energy dependence of average transverse radial flow velocity for central heavy-ion collisions. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,53–64,66] and references therein. The BES data points are for 0–5% central collisions, AGS energies are mostly for 0–5%, SPS energies are for mostly 0–7%, and top RHIC and LHC energies are for 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.