$\pi^0$ invariant yields for different centralities. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

$\pi^0$ invariant yields for different centralities. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ for the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions and PQM model calculations for different values of $<\bar{q}>$. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Integrated nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$ as a function of collision centrality.

Nucelar modification factor $R_{CP}$ for ($p+\bar{p}$)/2.

Nucelar modification factor $R_{CP}$ for $\pi^0$.

Charged hadron to $\pi^0$ ratio in central (0-10%) Au+Au collisions.

Charged hadron to $\pi^0$ ratio in peripheral (60-92%) Au+Au collisions. The peripheral data points are offset by +130 MeV/$c$ for clarity.

Systematic error on normalization a) common to both centralities b) that can move the $h$/$\pi^0$ ratios for each centrality independent of the other.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

Additional information containing number of events which were used to reconstruct the numvers matching to Figure 1 and 2.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions.

The uncorrected multiplicity distributions of charged hadrons with 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$ for 200 GeV $p$+$p$ collisions.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The mean from the NBD fit as a function of $N_{part}$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions over the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of centrality for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Fluctuations expressed as the scaled variance as a function of $N_{part}$ for 22.5 GeV Cu+Cu collisions for 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

Scaled variance for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 200 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The inverse of the parameter $k_{NBD}$ from the Negative Binomial Distribution fits for 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu collisions. The fluctuations are plotted as a function of $N_{part}$ for several $p_T$ ranges.

The scaled variance as a funciton of $N_{part}$ for 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in the range 0.2 < $p_T$ < 2.0 GeV/$c$.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The correlation of the clan model parameters $\bar{n_c}$ and $\bar{N_c}$ for all of the collision species measured as a function of centrality.

The double helicity asymmetry for neutral pion production at $\sqrt{s}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function $p_T$ (GeV/$c$). Error bars are statistical uncertainties. The point-to-point experimental systematic uncertainties are negligible. Not included in the figure/table are the correlated for all points scale systematic uncertainty of 14% (scales both the values and point-to-point uncertainties by the same factor).

Exponent according to the Eq. 5 as a function of transverse momenta extracted from p+Au/p+Al and $^{3}$HeAu/p+Au collision systems. The uncertainties from the $N_{coll}$ calculations and from the overall normalization of p+p cancel in these ratios

Nuclear modification factors in p+Al, p+Au, d+Au, and $^{3}$He+Au in five centrality bins and for inelastic collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. The right boxes are the uncertainties of the $N_{coll}$ collisions from the Glauber model, while the left box represents the overall normalization uncertainty from p+p collisions

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions per projectile participant is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. the number of collisions per projectile participant is tabulated here.

Average $R_{xA}$ in two different $p_T$ regions versus the number of collisions (panels a,b) and the number of collisions per projectile participant (panels c,d). The tilted error bars represent the anti-correlated uncertainty on the y and x-axis due to the Ncoll calculations. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ is tabulated here.

$R_{xA}$ for inelastic collisions compared to three different nuclear PDF calculations and their uncertainties. The data points include the statistical and systematical uncertainties. Relevant data has been tabulated in Figure 7.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9. Centrality vs. the number of collisions per projectile participant in panel (a) is tabulated here.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9. Centrality vs. Average $R_{xA}$ in panel (a) is tabulated here.

The upper panel (a) shows the <$R_{xA}$> above $p_T$ =8 Gev/c as a function $N_{coll}$/$N_{proj}$. The data are compared to predictions from [49] for the consequences of high-$x$ nucleon size fluctuations. The lower panels show the $R_{xA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for most central on left (b) and most peripheral on right panel (c) collisions. Panel (a) has been tabulated in Figure 10 and Panel (b) and (c) in Figure 9. Panel(b) and panel(c) are tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity is tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. integrated yield is tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity is tabulated here.

Integrated yields for 1--2 GeV/c in panel (a) and 2--3 GeV/c in panel (b) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at mid rapidity. Centrality vs. integrated yield is tabulated here.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{CuAu}$ as a function of the number of participating nucleons for 1.2 < $|y|$ < 2.2 and 1 < $p_T$ < 5 GeV/$c$. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{CuAu}$ as a function of the number of participating nucleons for 1.2 < $|y|$ < 2.2 and 1 < $p_T$ < 5 GeV/$c$. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{CuAu}$ as a function of rapidity for 1 < $p_T$ < 5 GeV/$c$ and 0%– 93% centrality. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

The forward/backward ratio as a function of the number of participating nucleons for 1 < $p_T$ < 5 GeV/$c$ and 1.2 < $|y|$ < 2.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point and Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point. For the B sys. error for centrality 0-20% forward/backward ratio 0.20, the value is $\pm$ < 0.10.

Integrated away-side $\gamma_{dir}$-h per-trigger $I_{AA}$ and $I_{dA}$ of Au+Au, d+Au, and p+p, as a function of $\xi$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ vs $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7 GeV/$c$, 7-9 GeV/$c$, and 9-12 GeV/$c$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

$I_{AA}$ as a function of $\xi$ for direct photon $p_{T}^{\gamma}$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$. Three away-side integration ranges are chosen to calculate the per-trigger yield and the corresponding $I_{AA}$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/2$, $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/3$, and $|\Delta\phi-\pi|<\pi/6$.

Ratios of $I_{AA}$ as a function of direct photon $p_T$ for three different away-side integration ranges.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Measured $I_{AA}$ for direct photon $p_T$ of 5-7, 7-9, and 9-12 GeV/$c$, as a function of $\xi$, are compared with theoretical model calculations.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in $p$+$p$ and $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in $p$+$p$ and $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in Cu+Cu (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel for three centrality bins and minimum bias.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in Cu+Cu (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel for three centrality bins and minimum bias.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in Cu+Cu (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel for three centrality bins and minimum bias.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in Cu+Cu (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel for three centrality bins and minimum bias.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in Cu+Cu (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel for three centrality bins and minimum bias.

Invariant transverse momentum spectra of $\omega$ production in Cu+Cu (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel for three centrality bins and minimum bias.

Measured ${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio as a function of $p_T$ in $p$ + $p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Measured ${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio as a function of $p_T$ in $p$ + $p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Measured ${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio as a function of $p_T$ in $p$ + $p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio versus transverse momentum in $d$+Au (0–88%) for $\omega \rightarrow {e}^{+}{e}^{-}$.

${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio versus transverse momentum in $d$+Au (0–88%) for $\omega \rightarrow {\pi}^{+}{\pi}^{-}\pi^0$.

${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio versus transverse momentum in $d$+Au (0–88%) for $\omega \rightarrow {\pi}^{0}\gamma$.

${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio versus transverse momentum in Cu+Cu (0–94%) for $\omega \rightarrow {\pi}^{0}\gamma$.

${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio versus transverse momentum in Au+Au (0–92%) for $\omega \rightarrow {\pi}^{0}\gamma$.

${\omega}/{\pi}$ ratio versus transverse momentum in Au+Au (0–92%) for $\omega \rightarrow {\pi}^{0}\gamma$.

Nuclear modification factor, RdAu, measured for the ${R}_{dAu}$ in 0–88, 0–20, 20-40, and 40-60% centrality bins in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Nuclear modification factor, RdAu, measured for the ${R}_{dAu}$ in 60–88% centrality bins in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Nuclear modification factor, RdAu, measured for the ${R}_{dAu}$ in 0–88, 20-40, and 40–60% centrality bins in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Nuclear modification factor, RdAu, measured for the ${R}_{dAu}$ in 0–20 and 60–88% centrality bins in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

Nuclear modification factor, RdAu, measured for the ${R}_{dAu}$ in 0–88, 0–20, 20-40, 40-60, and 60–88% centrality bins in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV.

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega$ in Cu+Cu collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0\gamma$ decay channel.

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega$ in Au+Au collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel.

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega$ in Au+Au collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel.

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega$ in Au+Au collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel.

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega$ in Au+Au collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel.

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega$ in and Au+Au collisions from the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ decay channel.

($R_{AA}$) of the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ collision for the $\omega$ meson integrated over the range $p_T$ > 7 $\mathrm{GeV}$/$c$ as a function of the number participating nucleons ($N_{part}$).

($R_{AA}$) of the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ collision for the $\omega$ meson integrated over the range $p_T$ > 7 $\mathrm{GeV}$/$c$ as a function of the number participating nucleons ($N_{part}$).

$R_{AA}$ of the $\omega \rightarrow \pi^0 \gamma$ collision for the $\omega$ meson integrated over the range $p_T$ > 7 $\mathrm{GeV}$/$c$ as a function of the number participating nucleons ($N_{part}$).

Direct photon spectra for minimum bias (0-86%) Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 62.4$ GeV (a) and $39$ GeV (b). For $62.4$ GeV also centrality bins of 0-20% (c) and 20-40% (d) are shown. Data points are shown with statistical and systematic uncertainties, unless the central value is negative (arrows) or is consistent with zero within the statistical uncertainties (arrows with data point). In these cases upper limit with CL = 95$%$ are given.

Inverse slopes, $T_{eff}$ , obtained from fitting the combined data from central collisions shown in Fig. 11 is compared to the fit results of the individual data sets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 62.4$ GeV, $200$ GeV, and $2760$ GeV. Also included is the value for $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 39$ GeV obtained from fitting the min. bias data set in the lower $p_T$ range.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated invariant direct-photon yields vs. charged particle multiplicity for $p_{T}$ integrated from (a) 0.4 GeV/c, (b) 1.0 GeV/c, (c) 1.5 GeV/c, and (d) 2.0 to 5.0 GeV/c for all available A+A datasets.

Integrated direct-photon yields from A+A collisions for $p_{T,min}$ of $5$ GeV/c (a) and $8$ GeV/c. The representation is the same as in Fig. 13. Also shown are the results from pQCD calculations scaled by $N_{coll}$

Integrated direct-photon yields from A+A collisions for $p_{T,min}$ of $5$ GeV/c (a) and $8$ GeV/c. The representation is the same as in Fig. 13. Also shown are the results from pQCD calculations scaled by $N_{coll}$

The $\alpha$ values extracted using fits to integrated direct photon yields. The dashed line gives the average $\alpha$ value for the 4 lower $p_{T,min}$ points. Also shown is a model calculation for $\alpha$ discussed in the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collision centrality, energy, and system size dependence of shape parameters.

Collision centrality, energy, and system size dependence of shape parameters.

Collision centrality, energy, and system size dependence of shape parameters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

$d$+Au vs centrality vs $y$. (All uncertainties are absolute. The sys. A uncertainty includes both the statistical uncertainty and the point-to-point uncorrelated systematic, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{CP}$ value. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{CP}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{CP}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

$1/{N_{trig}}$ ${dN}/{d\Delta\phi}$ distributions for charge selected $\bar{p}$ and $p$ triggers both with associated $p$ for six centrality bins. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

$1/{N_{trig}}$ ${dN}/{d\Delta\phi}$ distributions for charge selected $\bar{p}$ and $p$ triggers both with associated $p$ for six centrality bins. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

$1/{N_{trig}}$ ${dN}/{d\Delta\phi}$ distributions for charge-inclusive baryon and meson triggers and associated mesons for six centrality bins. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yields per trigger on the near side for charge selected and charge selected $p$ and $\bar{p}$ correlations. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$. There is an 11.4% additional normalization error on baryon associated particle points and 8.9% each on the $p$ and $\bar{p}$ associated particle points.

Conditional yields per trigger on the away side for charge selected and charge selected $p$ and $\bar{p}$ correlations. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yields per trigger for baryon and meson triggers with associated mesons. Triggers have 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated particles have 1.8 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$. There is an additional 13.6% normalization error.

Invariant cross sections for inclusive P and PBAR production in P P collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 200 GeV with feed-down weak decay corrections applied. There is an additional normalization uncertainty of 9.7 PCT.

Invariant cross sections for inclusive PI+ and PI- production in P P collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 62.4 GeV. There is an additional normalization uncertainty of 11 PCT.

Invariant cross sections for inclusive K+ and K- production in P P collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 62.4 GeV. There is an additional normalization uncertainty of 11 PCT.

Invariant cross sections for inclusive P and PBAR production in P P collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 62.4 GeV with feed-down weak decay corrections NOT applied. There is an additional normalization uncertainty of 11 PCT.

Invariant cross sections for inclusive P and PBAR production in P P collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 62.4 GeV with feed-down weak decay corrections applied. There is an additional normalization uncertainty of 11 PCT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differential anisotropy $v_2$($p_T$) for charged hadrons in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV obtained via reaction plane methods

Differential anisotropy as a function of centrality for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/$c$

Differential anisotropy as a function of centrality for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV/$c$

Differential anisotropy as a function of centrality for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV/$c$

Differential anisotropy $v_2$($p_T$) for centrality selection 13 - 26%.

Differential anisotropy $v_2$($p_T$) for centrality selection 13 - 26%.

Differential $v_2$ vs. $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ for charged hadrons in nucleus-nucleus collisions. Results are shown for the centrality cut of 13 - 26% and $p_T$ selections of 1.75 GeV/$c$ and 0.65 GeV/$c$.

Transverse single-spin asymmetry of $J/\psi$ mesons plotted against $J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Systematic uncertainties $\delta$$A^f_N$ Type B and $\delta$$A^P_N$ Type B are due to the geometric scale factor and the polarization, respectively.

Transverse single-spin asymmetry of $J/\psi$ mesons plotted against $J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Systematic uncertainties $\delta$$A^f_N$ Type B and $\delta$$A^P_N$ Type B are due to the geometric scale factor and the polarization, respectively.

Transverse single-spin asymmetry of $J/\psi$ mesons plotted against $J/\psi$ transverse momentum. Systematic uncertainties $\delta$$A^f_N$ Type B and $\delta$$A^P_N$ Type B are due to the geometric scale factor and the polarization, respectively.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$\lambda_{\phi}$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with NRQCD predictions in the Helicity and Collins-Soper frames.

$\lambda_{\theta \phi}$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with NRQCD predictions in the Helicity and Collins-Soper frames.

$\lambda_{\theta \phi}$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with NRQCD predictions in the Helicity and Collins-Soper frames.

$\bar{\lambda}$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with CSM and NRQCD predictions in the Helicity frame.

$\bar{\lambda}$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with CSM and NRQCD predictions in the Helicity frame.

Invariant $F$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with CSM and NRQCD predictions in the Helicity frame.

Invariant $F$ measured in $J/\psi$ transverse momentum bins of 0.0 < $p_T$ < 3.0 GeV/$c$ and 3.0 < $p_T$ < 10.0 GeV/$c$ overlaid with CSM and NRQCD predictions in the Helicity frame.

$b\bar{b}$ invariant yield measured via B meson decay to like-sign dimuons as a function of pair $p_{T}$. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Measured $\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for the 0-10% most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV in comparison to a jet quenching calculation. The error (tot.) includes the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainties and the point-to-point uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties.

Measured $\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for the 0-10% most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV in comparison to a jet quenching calculation. The error (tot.) includes the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainties and the point-to-point uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties.

Measured $\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ as a function of $p_T$ for the 0-10% most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200.0 GeV in comparison to a jet quenching calculation. The error (tot.) includes the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainties and the point-to-point uncorrelated and correlated systematic uncertainties.

The average $R_{AA}$ in the interval 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV. The error (sys.) includes the normalization and $<N_{coll}>$ uncertainties for a typical $N_{coll}$ uncertainty of 12%.

The average $R_{AA}$ in the interval 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. The error (sys.) includes the normalization and $<N_{coll}>$ uncertainties for a typical $N_{coll}$ uncertainty of 12%.

The average $R_{AA}$ in the interval 2.5 < $p_T$ < 3.5 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error (sys.) includes the normalization and $<N_{coll}>$ uncertainties for a typical $N_{coll}$ uncertainty of 12%.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality at $|y|$ < 0.35. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality at $|y|$ < 0.35. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality at $|y|$ < 0.35. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality at $|y|$ < 0.35. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ invariant yield as a function of $p_T$ for each centrality for −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The type C systematic uncertainty for each distribution is given as a percentage in the legend. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor, $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for (a) backward rapidity 0–100% centrality integrated $d$+Au collisions. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor, $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for (b) midrapidity 0–100% centrality integrated $d$+Au collisions. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ nuclear modification factor, $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for (c) forward rapidity 0–100% centrality integrated $d$+Au collisions. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for a) central events at −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for b) midcentral events at −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for c) midperipheral events at −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for d) peripheral events at −2.2 < $y$ < −1.2. The 60–88% $R_{dAu}$ point at $p_T$ = 5.75 GeV/$c$ has been left off the figure, as it is above the plotted range and has very large uncertainties, however it is included in the table. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $e^+e^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for a) central, b) midcentral, c) midperipheral, and d) peripheral events at $|y|$ < 0.35. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for a) central events at 1.2 < $y$ < 2.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for b) midcentral events at 1.2 < $y$ < 2.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for c) midperipheral events at 1.2 < $y$ < 2.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $R_{dAu}$, as a function of $p_T$ for d) peripheral events at 1.2 < $y$ < 2.2. Type A represents uncertainties that are uncorrelated from point to point, Type B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and Type C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 2a from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ spectra from figure 2a from 60-80% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ spectra from figure 2b from 60-80% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ yield to the fit from figure 2c from minimum bias U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ yield to the fit from figure 2c from 0-20% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\pi^0$ yield to the fit from figure 2c from 60-80% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\eta$ yield to the fit from figure 2d from minimum bias U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\eta$ yield to the fit from figure 2d from 0-20% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

Ratio of $\eta$ yield to the fit from figure 2d from 40-60% U+U collisions. Sys. uncertainties include B and C uncertainties from data points.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from 60-80% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\eta/\pi^0$ ratio from figure 3 from minimum bias Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4a from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4a from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4b from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4b from 20-40% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4c from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4c from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4d from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 4d from minimum bias U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 0-20% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 2 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 40-60% U+U collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 2 set.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ from figure 5a from 40-50% Au+Au collisions. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\pi^0$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in U+U collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\eta$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in U+U collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 1 set.

$\pi^0$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6a. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data.

$\eta$ integrated $R_{AA}$ for $p_T>5$ GeV/$c$ in U+U collisions as a function of centrality from figure 6b. Type A uncertainties are uncorrelated point-to-point. Type B uncertainties are correlated point-to-point. Type C uncertainties affect the scale of the data. Calculation is carried out for Glauber 2 set.

Number of participant nucleons of in dep U$+$U collisions

Number of participant nucleons of in dep U$+$U collisions

Number of participant nucleons of in dep Au$+$Au collisions

J/psi invariant yield in Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum for the 20-40, 40-60 and 60-92% centrality classes at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification $R_{AA}$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum for the 0-20% centrality class at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/psi nuclear modification $R_{AA}$ in Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum for the 20-40, 40-60 and 60-92% centrality classes at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Identified hadron $v_2$ in midcentral (20–60%, right panels) Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Panels (a) and (b) show $v_2$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$. The $v_2$ of all species for centrality 0–20% has been scaled up by a factor of 1.6 for better comparison with results of 20–60% centrality. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

Identified hadron $v_2$ in midcentral (20–60%, right panels) Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Panels (a) and (b) show $v_2$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$. The $v_2$ of all species for centrality 0–20% has been scaled up by a factor of 1.6 for better comparison with results of 20–60% centrality. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

Identified hadron $v_2$ in midcentral (20–60%, right panels) Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Panels (a) and (b) show $v_2$ as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$. The $v_2$ of all species for centrality 0–20% has been scaled up by a factor of 1.6 for better comparison with results of 20–60% centrality. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 0–10% centrality [panel (a)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 0–10% centrality [panel (a)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 0–10% centrality [panel (a)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 10–20% centrality [panel (b)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 10–20% centrality [panel (b)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 10–20% centrality [panel (b)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 20–40% centrality [panel (c)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 20–40% centrality [panel (c)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 20–40% centrality [panel (c)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 40–60% centrality [panel (d)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 40–60% centrality [panel (d)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 40–60% centrality [panel (d)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The error bars (shaded boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 10–40% centrality [panel (b)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The $v_2$ of $\Lambda$ and K$^0_S$ are measured by STAR collaboration [21]. The error bars (open boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown on the results from this study are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 10–40% centrality [panel (b)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The $v_2$ of $\Lambda$ and K$^0_S$ are measured by STAR collaboration [21]. The error bars (open boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown on the results from this study are type A and B only.

The quark-number-scaled $v_2$ ($v_2/n_q$) of identified hadrons are shown as a function of the kinetic energy per quark, KE$_T/n_q$ in 10–40% centrality [panel (b)] in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The $v_2$ of $\Lambda$ and K$^0_S$ are measured by STAR collaboration [21]. The error bars (open boxes) represent the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties shown on the results from this study are type A and B only.

c$\bar{c}$ production cross section as a function of rapidity in $p$+$p$ collisions, measured using semileptonic decay to electrons (closed square) and to muons (closed circle).

Transverse momentum distribution of $R_{AA}$ for negative muons from heavy-flavor mesons decay in Cu+Cu collisions in the following centrality classes: 40-94% (top panel), 20-40% (middle panel) and 0-20% (bottom panel). Also shown in the bottom panel is a theoretical calculation from [39,40], discussed in Section V.

Comparison of $R_{AA}$ as a function of $N_{part}$ between heavy-flavor muons reconstructed at forward rapidity ($1.4<y<1.9$) and $p_T >$ 2 GeV in Cu+Cu collisions (red squares) and nonphotonic electrons reconstructed at midrapidity and $p_T>$ 3 GeV in Au+Au collisions (blue circles).

Comparison of $R_{AA}$ as a function of $N_{part}$ between heavy-flavor muons reconstructed at forward rapidity ($1.4<y<1.9$) and $p_T >$ 2 GeV in Cu+Cu collisions (red squares) and nonphotonic electrons reconstructed at midrapidity and $p_T>$ 3 GeV in Au+Au collisions (blue circles).

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV

Transverse energy in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV

Multiplicity in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV

Transverse energy in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Transverse energy in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Multiplicity in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Transverse energy in Cu+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in Cu+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Transverse energy in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV

Multiplicity in U+U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 193 GeV

Transverse energy in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Transverse energy in He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Multiplicity in He+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Mean PT^2 value at forward rapidities : absolute value of y belongs to [1.2;2.2] The mean PT is obtained with a phenomonological fit of the J/PSI distribution in PT of the form (1/(2*PI*PT))*D(SIG)/DPT = A ( 1+(PT/B)^2)^-6 .The systematic error includes the incertainty from the maximum shape deviation permitted by the point-to-point correlated errors and from allowing the exponent of the fit fonctionto be a free parameter.

J/PSI differential cross section times dilepton branching ratio versus rapidity.

Total cross-section for J/PSI production. The value of the total cross section has been determined by fitting the rapidity distribution with many theoretical and phenomenological shapes. The systematic error quotedwas estimated from the maximum variation allowed by shifting the mid and forward rapidity data independantely by their point-to-point correlated systematic errors.There is a +- 18 nanobarn normalization error in addition to the statistical and systematical errors shown.

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

Invariant yields measured in d+Au for different centrality classes

Invariant yields measured in Au+Au for different centrality classes

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

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

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

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

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

The double transverse spin asymmetry ($A_{TT}$) for neutral pion production at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $p_T$ (GeV/$c$). The correlated for all points scale systematic uncertainty is 9.4% (scales both the values and stat. uncertainties by the same factor).

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges and $R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in the same $p_T$ ranges.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges and $R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in the same $p_T$ ranges.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ and $R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges compared with WHDG model.

$v_2$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges compared with various models.

$R_{AA}$ vs $N_{part}$ in two $p_T$ ranges compared with various models.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Al collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- nuclear modification in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+p collisions at rapidity 1.2 < |y| < 2.2. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at forward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

Invariant yield ratio of PSI(2S)-->MU+MU- with respect to J/PSI(1S)-->MU+MU- in p+Au collisions as a function of centrality at backward rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. The global systematic uncertainty cancels when taking the ratio.

$\Delta\phi$ distributions for meson triggers with 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated charged hadrons with 1.7 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$ for 60-70% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

$\Delta\phi$ distributions for baryon triggers with 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and associated charged hadrons with 1.7 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$ for 60-70% centrality in Au+Au collisions.

Combinatorial Background Levels from Figure 1 Top Panels.

Combinatorial Background Levels from Figure 1 Bottom Panels.

Trigger Particle $v_2$ values.

Partner Particle $v_2$ values.

Yield per trigger for associated charged hadrons between 1.7 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$ for the near- (top) and away- (bottom) side jets.

Yield per trigger for associated charged hadrons between 1.7 < $p_T$ < 2.5 GeV/$c$ for the near- (top) and away- (bottom) side jets.

Uncertainties in Figure 2 as a function of $N_{part}$ and trigger type for AuAu and $d$+Au.

Uncertainties in Figure 2 as a function of $N_{part}$ and trigger type for AuAu and $d$+Au.

$p_T$ spectra of the near side associated charged hadrons corrected to the full jet yield for meson triggers at 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and $|\eta|$ < 0.35 for six centralities in Au+Au and $d$+Au collisions.

$p_T$ spectra of the near side associated charged hadrons corrected to the full jet yield for meson triggers at 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and $|\eta|$ < 0.35 for six centralities in Au+Au and $d$+Au collisions.

$p_T$ spectra of the near side associated charged hadrons corrected to the full jet yield for baryon triggers at 2.5 < $p_T$ < 4.0 GeV/$c$ and $|\eta|$ < 0.35 for six centralities in Au+Au, $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ collisions.

Inverse slopes from the fits in Figure 3.

Inverse slopes from the fits in Figure 3.

Inverse slopes from the fits in Figure 3.