Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Two-particle correlation functions for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

Simulated two-particle correlation functions, using PHOJET, for like-sign and unlike sign pion pairs.

One-dimensional Gaussian HBT radius as a function of KT for low and high multiplicity events.

One-dimensional Gaussian HBT radius as a function of the charged particle pseudorapidity density at midrapidity. Also shown is the value of LAMBDA, the correlation strength, obtained in the fit.

One-dimensional exponential HBT radius as a function of the charged particle pseudorapidity density at midrapidity. Also shown is the value of LAMBDA, the correlation strength, obtained in the fit.

One-dimensional Gaussian HBT radius as a function of KT for three fitting methods differing by the choice of baseline parametrization.

One-dimensional Gaussian HBT radius as a function of KT. Also shown is the value of LAMBDA, the correlation strength, obtained in the fit.

One-dimensional exponential HBT radius as a function of KT. Also shown is the value of LAMBDA, the correlation strength, obtained in the fit.

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.