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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $Corr_{\gamma\,-ch}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $Corr_{\gamma\,-ch}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $\omega_{\gamma}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $\omega_{\gamma}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $v_{dyn}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $v_{dyn}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the same side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the same side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the away-side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the away-side.

The correlation between positive and negative charged particles measured by the FTPC and photons measured by the PMD using $v_{dyn}$ for real events.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for first order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for first order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for second order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for second order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for third order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for third order of m.

The moments $r_{m,1}$(m=1-3) for real and mixed events as a function of order m in a fixed multiplicity bin of 47$\langle \sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }\langle 54$.

Non photonic electrons yield versus transverse momentum in D+AU collisions.

Non photonic electrons yield versus transverse momentum in P+P collisions.

D0 differential yield at mid rapidity and corresponding calculated differential charm cross section at midrapidity.

Sum of the non photonic electrons/positrons and D0 differential yield at mid rapidity and corresponding calculated differential charm cross section at midrapidity.

Total charm cross section per nucleon nucleon collision IN D+AU collisions.

PHI to K*0 ratio measured in this study.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 5 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$ and $\eta < 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 6 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$ and $\eta < 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 8 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$ and $\eta < 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 13 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$ and $\eta < 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

Same-charge, momentum ordered asymmetry $A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 4 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

Same-charge, momentum ordered asymmetry $A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 6 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

Same-charge, momentum ordered asymmetry $A_{UT}$ as a function of $<M_{inv}>$ for pT bin $<p_{T}>$ = 13 GeV/c for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<p_{T}>$ for $<M_{inv}>$ = 0.4 GeV/$c^{2}$ for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned. The systematic uncertainty numbers marked with (*) are based on marker size, and may not reflect actual experimental uncertainties.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<p_{T}>$ for $<M_{inv}>$ = 0.5 GeV/$c^{2}$ for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned. The systematic uncertainty numbers marked with (*) are based on marker size, and may not reflect actual experimental uncertainties.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<p_{T}>$ for $<M_{inv}>$ = 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned. The systematic uncertainty numbers marked with (*) are based on marker size, and may not reflect actual experimental uncertainties.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<p_{T}>$ for $<M_{inv}>$ = 0.7 GeV/$c^{2}$ for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned. The systematic uncertainty numbers marked with (*) are based on marker size, and may not reflect actual experimental uncertainties.

$A_{UT}$ as a function of $<p_{T}>$ for $<M_{inv}>$ = 1.0 GeV/$c^{2}$ for $\eta > 0$. In addition to statistical uncertainties, systematic uncertainties originating from PID and trigger bias systematic uncertainties are also mentioned. The systematic uncertainty numbers marked with (*) are based on marker size, and may not reflect actual experimental uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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