The v2 of KS0 as a function of pT for 30%–70%, 5%–30%, and 0%–5% of the collision cross section. The error bars represent statistical errors only. The nonflow systematic errors for the 30%–70%, 5%– 30%, and 0%–5% centralities are 25%, 20%, and 80%, respectively.

The v2 of Lambda+Lambdabar as a function of pT for 30%–70%, 5%–30%, and 0%–5% of the collision cross section. The error bars represent statistical errors only. The nonflow systematic errors for the 30%–70%, 5%– 30%, and 0%–5% centralities are 25%, 20%, and 80%, respectively.

The ratio RCP for KS0 at midrapidity calculated using centrality intervals, 0%–5% vs 40%–60% and 0%–5% vs 60%–80% of the collision cross section. The error bars shown on the points include both statistical and systematic errors.

The ratio RCP for Lambda+Lambdabar at midrapidity calculated using centrality intervals, 0%–5% vs 40%–60% and 0%–5% vs 60%–80% of the collision cross section. The error bars shown on the points include both statistical and systematic errors.

The v2 parameter for KS0 scaled by the number of constituent quarks (n) and plotted versus pT/n. The error bars shown include statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties from the background. The additional nonflow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%.

The v2 parameter for Lambda+Lambdabar scaled by the number of constituent quarks (n) and plotted versus pT/n. The error bars shown include statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties from the background. The additional nonflow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%.

Two-particle CD joint autocorrelations $\widehat{N}(\widehat{r}-1)$ on $(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta})$ for mid-central collisions.

Two-particle CD joint autocorrelations $\widehat{N}(\widehat{r}-1)$ on $(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta})$ for mid-peripheral collisions.

Two-particle CD joint autocorrelations $\widehat{N}(\widehat{r}-1)$ on $(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta})$ for peripheral collisions.

Upper plot: points are measured $p/E_{tower}$ electron peak position as a function of the distance to the center of the tower. The solid line is from a calculation based on a full GEANT simulation of the detector response to electrons. Lower plot: points show measured energy deposited by electrons in the tower as a function of the momentum for distances to the center of the tower smaller than 2.0 cm. The first point is the electron equivalent energy of the minimum ionizing particles. The solid line is a second order polynomial fit of the data.

Mean values from GEANT simulations of the energy deposited in the EMC by various hadronic species as a function of momentum.

Spatial profiles of energy deposition in the EMC as a function of distance ($d$) from the hit point to the center of the tower for $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ from simulations and for positive and negative hadrons from data. The arrow indicates the distance corresponding to the border of a tower in 0 < $\eta$ < 0.2. An overall agreement between the shapes of the profiles is observed, with a small normalization difference.

Event-by-event ratio of the reconstructed electromagnetic energy for the most central events. The solid line is a gaussian fit.

Total Transverse Energy for 0 < $\eta$ < 1. The minimum bias distribution is presented as well as the distributions for the different centrality bins (see table III). The shaded area corresponds to the 5% most central bin. The main axis scale corresponds to the $E_{T}$ measured in the detector acceptance and the bottom axis is corrected to represent the extrapolation to full azimuthal acceptance.

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta|_{\eta=0.5}$⟩ per $N_{part}$ pair vs. $N_{part}$. Upper panel: $N_{part}$ is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model [27](solid), the EKRT saturation model [7] (dotted, Eq. 8) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of $N_{part}$. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on $N_{part}$ calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for $N_{part}$. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta|_{\eta=0.5}$⟩ per $N_{part}$ pair vs. $N_{part}$. Upper panel: $N_{part}$ is obtained from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The lines show calculations using the HIJING model [27](solid), the EKRT saturation model [7] (dotted, Eq. 8) and the two component fit (dashed, see text). Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey bands correspond to overall systematic uncertainties, independent of $N_{part}$. Error bars are the quadrature sum of the errors on the measurements and the uncertainties on $N_{part}$ calculation. Lower panel: the same data are shown as in the upper panel but using and Optical Glauber model calculation for $N_{part}$. The line shows the same result from EKRT model calculation.

$dE_{T}/dy$ (see text for details) per $N_{part}$ pair vs $sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central events. In this figure $dE_{T}/dy/(0.5N_{part})$ is seen to grow logarithmicaly with $sqrt{s_{NN}}$. The error bar in the STAR point represents the total systematic uncertainty. The solid line is a EKRT model prediction [7], corrected for $d\eta/dy$, for central Au+Au collisions.

Upper panel - ⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $N_{part}$. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of $N_{part}$ [37].

Upper panel - ⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $N_{part}$. Predictions from HIJING simulations for Au+Au at 200 GeV are presented. Results from WA98 [14] and PHENIX [15] are also shown. The grey band corresponds to an overall normalization uncertainty for the STAR measurement. Bottom panel - Charged hadrons mean transverse momentum as a function of $N_{part}$ [37].

⟨$dE_{T}/d\eta⟩/⟨dN_{ch}/d\eta$⟩ vs $sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central events. The error bar in the STAR point corresponds to the systematic uncertaintiy. A constant value of ∼ 800 MeV per charged particle, within errors, characterizes transverse energy production over this full energy range.

Energy dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the transverse energy for a number of systems spanning SPS to RHIC energy for central events.

Participant number dependence of the electromagnetic fraction of the total transverse energy. The results are consistent with HIJING within errors over the full centrality range.

Ratio of charged hadron yields within $|\eta|$ $<$ 1 for Au+Au relative to the NN reference, scaled by $N_{part}$/2 as a function of centrality for a $p_{T}$ bin at $p_{T}$ = 2.05 GeV/c

Participant scaling exponent v of charged hadron yields as a function of $p_{T}$ within $|\eta|$ $<$ 1

Ratio of truncated mean $p_{T}$ in $p_{T}$ $>$ $p_{T}^{cut}$ within $|\eta|$$<$1 as a function of $p_{T}^{cut}$ for central and peripheral collisions.

Binary scaling fraction in $p_{T}$ $>$ $p_{T}^{cut}$ within $|\eta|$ $<$ 1 as a function of centrality for selected $p_{T}^{cut}$. For $p_{T}^{cut}$ $>$ 2 GeV/c, the fraction F decreases with centrality.

(a) The pair mass distribution, (b) pair $p){T}$ , (c) pair rapidity and (d) pair cos($\theta′$) distributions. The data (points) are compared with predictions from the EPA (solid histogram) and lowest-order QED (dashed histogram) calculations. The error bars include both statistical and systematic errors.

The $p_{T}$ spectra of the produced electrons and positrons, along with the comparable EPA and QED calculations. In both calculations, the electron and positron spectra are identical. Spectra from the two calculations are similar; the data agrees with both of them.

$m_T$ spectra of $\Omega^-+\bar{\Omega}^+$ for 0-10% centrality. Errors listed here are the quadrature sum of statistical and point-to-point systematic uncertainties. There is an additional overall $m_T$-independent systematic uncertainty of 10%.

Fit parameters for $m_T$ spectra of $\Xi^-$.

Fit parameters for $m_T$ spectra of $\bar{\Xi}^+$.

Fit parameters for $m_T$ spectra of $\Omega^-+\bar{\Omega}^+$.

Particle ratio in 0-10% centrality.

Particle ratio in 0-10% centrality from the statiscal model.

Particle ratio from nonequilibrium model.

Particle ratio from HIJING/$B\bar{B}$.

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity obtained from the fits to $m_T$ spectra for 0-10% centrality.

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity of $\Xi^-+\bar{\Xi}^+$ (1$\sigma$ contour).

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity of $\Xi^-+\bar{\Xi}^+$ (2$\sigma$ contour).

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity of $\Xi^-+\bar{\Xi}^+$ (3$\sigma$ contour).

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity of $\pi$, $K$, $p$, $\Lambda$ (1$\sigma$ contour).

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity of $\pi$, $K$, $p$, $\Lambda$ (2$\sigma$ contour).

Kinetic freeze-out temperature and transverse flow velocity of $\pi$, $K$, $p$, $\Lambda$ (3$\sigma$ contour).

Mean transverse momentum $\langle p_T \rangle$. Results from best fits to spectra, Bose-Einstein for $\pi$, exponential for $K$, hydrodynamically-inspired function for $p$, and Boltzmann for $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$.

Rapidity distribution of $\bar{p}$. Combined statitiscal uncertainty and systematic uncertainty from PID contramination. Systematic uncertainties from the track reconstruction efficiency are $\pm$25%.

Average transverse momentum of $p+\bar{p}$. Systematic uncertainties are $\pm$6%.

Average transverse momentum vs. centrality. Systematic error bands in figure are $\pm$6% for <pT>.

$dN/dy$ vs. centrality. Systematic error bands in figure are $\pm$25% for dN/dy.

$dN/dy$ vs. centrality. Systematic error bands in figure are $\pm$25% for dN/dy.

Average transverse momentum vs. the number of negative hadrons. Systematic error bands in figure are $\pm$6% for <pT>.

$dN/dy$ vs. the number of negative hadrons. Systematic error bands in figure are $\pm$25% for dN/dy.

$dN/dy$ vs. the number of negative hadrons. Systematic error bands in figure are $\pm$25% for dN/dy.

$v_4$ from three particle cumulant as a function of $p_T$ for the minimum bias Au+Au collisions. Background from secondary particles is expected to be less than 15%. Non-flow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%. Fluctuations in initial geometry can lead to an effect of about a factor of 1.2 to 1.5.

$v_6$ with respect to the second harmonic event plane as a function of $p_T$ for the minimum bias Au+Au collisions. Background from secondary particles is expected to be less than 15%. Non-flow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%. Fluctuations in initial geometry can lead to an effect of about a factor of 1.2 to 1.5.

$p_T$- and $\eta$-integrated $v_2$, $v_4$, $v_6$ as a function of centrality. Background from secondary particles is expected to be less than 15%. Non-flow systematic uncertainties are approximately 20%. Fluctuations in initial geometry can lead to an effect of about a factor of 1.2 to 1.5.