Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

Data are extracted from graph by JINR data group.

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$\sigma$).

Reference multiplicity distributions obtained from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV data (black markers), Glauber model (red histogram), and unfolding approach to separate single and pileup contributions. Vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties. Single, pileup, and single+pileup collisions are shown in solid blue markers, dashed green, and dashed pink lines, respectively. The 0–5% central events and 5–60% mid-central to peripheral events are indicated by black arrows. The ratio of the single+pileup to the measured multiplicity distribution is shown in the lower panel.

Reference multiplicity distributions obtained from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV data (black markers), Glauber model (red histogram), and unfolding approach to separate single and pileup contributions. Vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties. Single, pileup, and single+pileup collisions are shown in solid blue markers, dashed green, and dashed pink lines, respectively. The 0–5% central events and 5–60% mid-central to peripheral events are indicated by black arrows. The ratio of the single+pileup to the measured multiplicity distribution is shown in the lower panel.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity (black circles) from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Centrality-binned results with and without centrality bin width corrections are represented by red circles and blue squares, respectively. Vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes, from right to left: 0–5%, 5–10%, 10–20%. Data points in this figure are only corrected for detector efficiency but not for the pileup effect, which will be discussed in a later section.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Ratios of proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

Ratios of proton cumulants as a function of reference multiplicity from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Pileup corrected and uncorrected cumulants are represented by black circles and blue open squares, respectively. Red circles and blue-filled squares represent the results of centrality binned data.

UrQMD results of the proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 3 GeV. The black circles are without VF correction while blue squares and red triangles are results with VFC which used $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from UrQMD and Glauber models, respectively. The blue crosses are calculations using UrQMD events with b $\leq$ 3 fm. The above results are applied CBWC except for the one (blue crosses) using b $\leq$3 fm events.

UrQMD results of the proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 3 GeV. The black circles are without VF correction while blue squares and red triangles are results with VFC which used $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from UrQMD and Glauber models, respectively. The blue crosses are calculations using UrQMD events with b $\leq$ 3 fm. The above results are applied CBWC except for the one (blue crosses) using b $\leq$3 fm events.

Proton cumulants up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction is shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulants up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction is shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction are shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. Data without volume fluctuation correction are shown as grey open squares while data with volume fluctuation correction using $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models are shown as black circles and black open triangles, respectively. The corresponding centrality binned cumulants are shown in blue squares, red circles, and orange triangles, respectively. Similarly to Fig. 6, the vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

UrQMD results of proton cumulant ratios up to sixth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The vertical dashed lines indicate the centrality classes.

Experimental results on centrality dependence of cumulants (left panels) and cumulant ratios (right panels) up to sixth order of the proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $N_{\rm part}$ = 3 GeV. The open squares are data without VF correction while red circles and blue triangles are results with VF correction with $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models, respectively.

Experimental results on centrality dependence of cumulants (left panels) and cumulant ratios (right panels) up to sixth order of the proton multiplicity distributions in Au+Au collisions at $N_{\rm part}$ = 3 GeV. The open squares are data without VF correction while red circles and blue triangles are results with VF correction with $N_{\rm part}$ distributions from Glauber and UrQMD models, respectively.

Same as Fig. 14 but for correlation function (left panels) and their normalized ratios (right panels).

Same as Fig. 14 but for correlation function (left panels) and their normalized ratios (right panels).

Cumulants and cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The transverse momentum window is $p_{\rm T}$ from $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ and the rapidity window is $−0.5<y<0$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD predictions are depicted by gold bands.

Cumulants and cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The transverse momentum window is $p_{\rm T}$ from $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ and the rapidity window is $−0.5<y<0$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD predictions are depicted by gold bands.

Same as Fig. 16 but for correlation functions and correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

Same as Fig. 16 but for correlation functions and correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

The transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of cumulant ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. In the left column, the $p_{\rm T}$ analysis window is $0.4<p_{\rm T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$ while the rapidity window is varied in the range $y_{\rm min}<y<0$. In the right column, the rapidit$y$ analysis window is $−0.5<y<0$ while the $p_{\rm T}$ is varied in the range $0.4<p_{\rm T}<p_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ GeV/$c$. The most central (0–5%) and peripheral (50–60%) events are depicted by black squares and blue triangles, respectively. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are represented by black and gray bars, respectively. UrQMD simulations for the top 0–5% and 50–60% are shown by gold and blue bands, respectively.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

As in Fig. 18 but for transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of correlation function ratios of proton multiplicity distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

Collision energy dependence of the cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1=\sigma/M$, $C_3/C_2=S\sigma$, and $C_4/C_2=\kappa\sigma^2$, for protons (open squares) and net protons (red circles) from top 0–5% (top panels) and 50–60% (bottom panels) Au+Au collisions at RHIC. The points for protons are shifted horizontally for clarity. The new result for protons from $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions is shown as a filled square. UrQMD results with $|y|<0.5$ for protons are shown as gold bands while those for net protons are shown as green dashed lines or green bands. At 3GeV, the model results for protons (−0.5) are shown as blue crosses. UrQMD results of proton and net-proton $C_4/C_2$, see right panels, are almost totally overlapped. The open cross is the result of the model with a fixed impact parameter $b < 3$ fm. The hydrodynamic calculations, for 5% central Au+Au collisions, for protons from $|y|<0.5$ are shown as dashed red linea and the result of the 3 GeV protons from $−0.5<y<0$ is shown as an open red star.

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $K_{S}^{0}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Lambda$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Lambda}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\phi$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Xi^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Xi^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\Omega^{-}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:40-80%)

$v_{2}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-10%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:10-40%)

$v_{3}(p_{T})$ for $\bar{\Omega^{+}}$ (Centrality:0-80%)

$v_{2}$ of $\phi$ to $\bar{p}$ ratio

Difference of $v_{2}$ between particle and anti-particle

Difference of $v_{3}$ between particle and anti-particle

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Figure 4c

Figure 5a

Figure 5b

Figure 5c

Figure 7

Figure 8a

Figure 8b

Figure 8c

Figure 9a

Figure 9b

Figure 9c

Figure 10a

Figure 10b

Figure 10c

Integrals of G1 over different X ranges for DEUT target at various Q*2 values. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD).. The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2. Axis error includes +- 5.0/5.0 contribution.

Integrals of G1 over different X ranges for N target at various Q*2 values. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD).. The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Integral of G1 for the Non-Singet contribution. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD).. The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2. Axis error includes +- 5.2/5.2 contribution.

The measured and Born asymmetries for the proton target at the average values of the average values of X, Y,and Q**2 in 45 bins. DSYS includes the 5.2 PCT normalization uncertainty.

The measured and Born asymmetries for the deuterium target at the average values of the average values of X, Y,and Q**2 in 45 bins. DSYS includes the 5 PCT normalization uncertainty.

Virtual photon asymmetries A1 for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 45 bins. The first DSYS is the experimental uncertainty and includes the 5.2 (5.0) PCT normalization uncertainty for the proton (deuteron) data. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD).

Structure functions G1 for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 45 bins. The first DSYS is the experimental uncertainty and includes the 5.2 (5.0) PCT normalization uncertainty for the proton (deuteron) data. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD).

Virtual photon asymmetries A1 for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 19 bins. The first DSYS is the experimental uncertainty and includes the 5.2 (5.0) PCT normalization uncertainty for the proton (deuteron) data. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD). The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Structure functions G1 for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 19 bins. The first DSYS is the experimental uncertainty and includes the 5.2 (5.0) PCT normalization uncertainty for the proton (deuteron) data. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD). The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Structure functions G1 for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 15 bins. The first DSYS is the experimental uncertainty and includes the 5.2 (5.0) PCT normalization uncertainty for the proton (deuteron) data. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD). The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Virtual photon asymmetries A1 for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 15 bins. The first DSYS is the experimental uncertainty and includes the 5.2 (5.0) PCT normalization uncertainty for the proton (deuteron) data. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD). The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Structure functions G1(n) and G1(NS)for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 45 bins. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD).

Structure functions G1(n) and G1(NS)for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 19 bins. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD). The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Structure functions G1(n) and G1(NS)for the proton and deuterium targets at the average values of X,and Q**2 in 15 bins. The second DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in the parameterizations (R, F2, A2, Azz, omegaD). The third DSYS systematic error is due to the uncertainty in evolving to a common Q**2.

Correlation matrix for the Asymmetry, A1 and G1 for the P target at the average values of X and Q**2 in 45 bins.

Correlation matrix for the Asymmetry, A1 and G1 for the DEUT target at the average values of X and Q**2 in 45 bins.

Correlation matrix for G1 for the P target in 19 X bins (averaged over Q**2).

Correlation matrix for G1 for the DEUT target in 19 X bins (averaged over Q**2).

Correlation matrix for G1 for the P target in 15 X bins (Q**2 > 1 GeV**2), averaged over Q**2.

Correlation matrix for G1 for the DEUT target in 15 X bins (Q**2 > 1 GeV**2), averaged over Q**2.