Differential elliptic flow of pions for different centrality bins. The systematic uncertainty is smallest for the centrality region with the best reaction plane resolution and is estimated to be 20% for the most central bin, 8% for the mid-central bin, and 22% for the most peripheral bin.

Differential elliptic flow of protons + antiprotons for different centrality bins. The systematic uncertainty is smallest for the centrality region with the best reaction plane resolution and is estimated to be 20% for the most central bin, 8% for the mid-central bin, and 22% for the most peripheral bin.

mT dependence of HBT parameters for high multiplicity (0-12%) collisions in pi+ pi+ channel. They are Coulomb corrected (5 fm Gaussian source assumed), corrected for merging effects ("bad systematic" for STAR-HBT insiders), and corrected for finite-momentum-resolution effects. Systematic errors are estimated by the size of the merging correction and the effect of varying source size used in the Coulomb correction by +/- 1 fm.

For plotting purposes, it is often useful to know what is the average pT or mT for singles and low-Q pairs. These are listed in table below.

The balance function versus $\Delta y$ for identified pion pairs from a) central and peripheral Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV, and b) HIJING events simulated in GEANT [16]. To guide the eye, Gaussian fits excluding the lowest two bins in $\Delta y$ are shown. The error bars shown are statistical. The balance function for HIJING events is independent of centrality.

The balance function versus $\Delta y$ for identified pion pairs from a) central and peripheral Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 130 GeV, and b) HIJING events simulated in GEANT [16]. To guide the eye, Gaussian fits excluding the lowest two bins in $\Delta y$ are shown. The error bars shown are statistical. The balance function for HIJING events is independent of centrality.

The width of the balance function for identified charged pions, $⟨\Delta y⟩$, as a function of normalized impact parameter $(b/b_{max})$. Error bars shown are statistical. The width of the balance function from HIJING events is shown as a band whose height reflects the statistical uncertainty.

PHI to K*0 ratio measured in this study.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel shows $v_{2}$ vs centrality using the conventional method, where the circles and triangles represent $v_{2}$ with and without $p_{t}$ weighting, respectively. The statistical error is smaller than the symbol size. The lower panel shows the statistical error on $v_{2}$ with $p_{t}$ weighting divided by the same without weighting.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

The upper panel presents $v_{2}$ vs centrality from the scalar product method (triangles) and the conventional random subevent method (circles). All statistical errors are smaller than the symbol size. The statistical error for the scalar product method divided by that for the conventional method is shown in the lower panel.

Elliptic flow as determined from the fits to the $q$ distributions in different centrality bins. The circles are from the standard method with random subevents. For the squares, all the centralities were fit separately. For the triangles, centrality bins 2-8 were fit with the same value of the nonflow parameter.

Measured elliptic flow vs centrality for $Au+Au$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130$ GeV. The circles show the conventional $v_{2}$ with estimated systematic uncertainty due to nonflow [37], the stars show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the generating function, the crosses show the conventional $v_{2}$ from quarter events, and the squares show the fourth-order cumulant $v_{2}$ from the four-subevent method.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Reconstructed $v_{2}$ vs $p_{t}$ from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), in eight centrality bins. The upper left panel shows the most peripheral events, and the lower right the most central.

Elliptic flow vs pseudorapidity from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

Elliptic flow vs transverse momentum from the conventional method (circles), from the second-order cumulant method (triangles), from quarter events (crosses), and from the fourth-order cumulant method (stars), averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from the fourth-order cumulant divided by $v_{2}$, from the conventional method as a function of $p_{t}$, averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

The ratio of $v_{2}$ from quarter events divided by the conventional $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{t}$. In both cases, event planes were constructed from low-$p_{t}$ (< 0.5 GeV/c) particles. The data are averaged over all centralities from bin 2-7, as defined in Figs. 14 and 15.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $4<p_T^{\rm trig}<6$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $4<p_T^{\rm trig}<6$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $3<p_T^{\rm trig}<4$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Azimuthal distributions for Au+Au collisions compared to the expected distributions estimated by $D^{\rm model}$. All correlation functions require a trigger particle with $3<p_T^{\rm trig}<4$ GeV/$c$ and associated particles with $2<p_T<p_T^{\rm trig}$ GeV/$c$.

Ratio of Au+Au and p+p for small-angle ($|\Delta\phi|$<0.75 rad) and back-to-back ($|\Delta\phi|$<2.24 rad) azimuthal regions versus number of participating nucleons ($N_{\rm part}$) for trigger particle intervals $4<p_T^{\rm trig}<6$ GeV/$c$ and $3<p_T^{\rm trig}<4$ GeV/$c$.

Systematic uncertainty on number of participating nucleons ($N_{\rm part}$) in Au+Au collisions.

$E_T^e$ distributions of electron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $-0.5 < \eta_e < 0$.

$E_T^e$ distributions of electron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $0 < \eta_e < 0.5$.

$E_T^e$ distributions of electron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $0.5 < \eta_e < 1.1$.

$E_T^e$ distributions of positron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $-1.1 < \eta_e < -0.5$.

$E_T^e$ distributions of positron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $-0.5 < \eta_e < 0$.

$E_T^e$ distributions of positron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $0 < \eta_e < 0.5$.

$E_T^e$ distributions of positron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the BEMC region for $0.5 < \eta_e < 1.1$.

Signed $p_{T}$-balance distributions for electron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the EEMC region.

Signed $p_{T}$-balance distributions for positron candidate events, background contributions, and sum of backgrounds and $W \rightarrow e\nu$ MC signal in the EEMC region.

Longitudinal single-spin asymmetries, $A_L$, for $W^+$ production as a function of the positron pseudorapidity, $\eta_e$ for the STAR 2011+2012 data samples for 25 $< E_T^e <$ 50 GeV.

Longitudinal single-spin asymmetries, $A_L$, for $W^-$ production as a function of the electron pseudorapidity, $\eta_e$ for the STAR 2011+2012 data samples for 25 $< E_T^e <$ 50 GeV.

Longitudinal single-spin asymmetries, $A_L$, for $W^+$ production as a function of the positron pseudorapidity, $\eta_e$ for the STAR 2013 data samples for 25 $< E_T^e <$ 50 GeV.

Longitudinal single-spin asymmetries, $A_L$, for $W^-$ production as a function of the electron pseudorapidity, $\eta_e$ for the STAR 2013 data samples for 25 $< E_T^e <$ 50 GeV.

Longitudinal single-spin asymmetries, $A_L$, for $W^+$ production as a function of the lepton pseudorapidity, $\eta_e$ for the combined 2011+2012 and 2013 STAR data samples for 25 $< E_T^e <$ 50 GeV.

Longitudinal single-spin asymmetries, $A_L$, for $W^-$ production as a function of the lepton pseudorapidity, $\eta_e$ for the combined 2011+2012 and 2013 STAR data samples for 25 $< E_T^e <$ 50 GeV.

The difference of the light sea-quark polarizations $x(\Delta \bar{u} - \Delta \bar{d})$ as a function of $x$ at a scale $Q^2$ = 10 (GeV/c)$^2$. The table shows original NNPDFpol1.1 results, and NNPDFpol1.1rw presents the corresponding distribution after the 2013 $W$ data are included by reweighting.

Detector-level average charged particle multiplicity densities for TransMax and TransMin as functions of the leading jet pT. Points are measured data. Histograms are calculated values assuming TransMax and TransMin are derived from the same parent distribution.

Transverse charged particle densities at various center-of-mass collision energies. Uncertainties smaller than the marker sizes.

average transverse momentum of the \pi^0 for each xF bin in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of the \pi^0 transverse momentum for Feynman-x ranges 0.18 ~ 0.24 for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of the \pi^0 transverse momentum for Feynman-x ranges 0.18 ~ 0.24 for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of the \pi^0 transverse momentum for Feynman-x ranges 0.24 ~ 0.30 for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of the \pi^0 transverse momentum for Feynman-x ranges 0.24 ~ 0.30 for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of the \pi^0 transverse momentum for Feynman-x ranges 0.30 ~ 0.36 for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of the \pi^0 transverse momentum for Feynman-x ranges 0.30 ~ 0.36 for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the non-isolated \pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the non-isolated \pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the isolated \pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the isolated /pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for the non-isolated /pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for the non-isolated /pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for the isolated /pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for the isolated /pi^0 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

Fractions of isolated and non-isolated $\pi^0$ to the overall inclusive $\pi^0$ sample in the mass region 0-0.3 GeV, after back-ground subtraction. The missing fraction mainly includes the events between the isolated cuts 0.9<Z_em<0.98 .

Fractions of isolated and non-isolated $\pi^0$ to the overall inclusive $\pi^0$ sample in the mass region 0-0.3 GeV, after back-ground subtraction. The missing fraction mainly includes the events between the isolated cuts 0.9<Z_em<0.98.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the EM-jet with photon Multiplitcity > 2 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the EM-jet with photon Multiplitcity > 2 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the EM-jet in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The transverse single-spin asymmetry as a function of Feynman-x for the EM-jet in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for EM-jets with photon Multiplitcity > 2 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for EM-jets with photon Multiplitcity > 2 in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for EM-jets in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 GeV.

The average transverse momentum of Feynman-x for EM-jets in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 500 GeV.

The Collins asymmetry for $\pi^0$ in an electromagnetic jet for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 and 500 GeV. Theory curves for the Collins asymmetry of a $\pi^0$ in a full jet with or without TMD evolution are also shown.

The Collins asymmetry for $\pi^0$ in an electromagnetic jet for transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200 and 500 GeV. Theory curves for the Collins asymmetry of a $\pi^0$ in a full jet with or without TMD evolution are also shown.

The $j_T$ dependence of the Collins asymmetry in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200GeV.

The $j_T$ dependence of the Collins asymmetry in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200GeV.

The $j_T$ dependence of the Collins asymmetry in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200GeV.

The $j_T$ dependence of the Collins asymmetry in transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at 200GeV.