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.

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.

(Color online) $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ spectra on the deuteron and on the gold side in $d$ + Au minimum bias collisions. The data points on the gold side are multiplied by 2 for better visibility. The statistical errors are smaller than the points marking the measurements. The curves show a fit with a Boltzmann function in transverse mass to the data points.

(Color online) (a) Comparison of the measured $\overline{\Lambda}$ yield with model calculations. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic er- rors including the overall normalization uncertainty. In both panels the target and projectile beam rapidities are indicated by arrows.

(Color online) (b) Comparison of the net $\Lambda$ yield with model calculations. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic er- rors including the overall normalization uncertainty. In both panels the target and projectile beam rapidities are indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Comparison of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and net $\Lambda$ yields to model calculations for all three centrality classes. Statistical errors are shown as vertical error bars, the vertical caps show the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Beam rapidity is indicated by arrows.

(Color online) Minimum bias $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio compared to model calculations. On the deuteron side HIJING/BB shows the best agreement with the results, while on the Au side only AMPT and EPOS give a satisfactory description of the data.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

$\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio and net $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Lambda}$ yields as a function of collision centrality on both the deuteron (left) and the gold side (right). On the deuteron side, centrality is expressed by the number of collisions per deuteron participant, while on the gold side the number of Au participants is chosen. Only statistical errors are shown. The increase in baryon number transport with centrality, shown by the net $\Lambda$ yield, is matched by the increase of $\overline{\Lambda}$-$\Lambda$ pair production, thus keeping the $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$ ratio constant over a wide centrality range.

(Color online) Net $\Lambda dN/dy$ for central, mid-central and peripheral events on both the deuteron and the Au side of the collision. The data are compared to calculations of the distribution of net baryons obtained with the Multichain model [16] with $\alpha$ = 2.9, scaled by 0.1 to account for the conversion from net baryons to net $\Lambda$. An overall scale uncertainty of 10% on the model curves from this conversion is not shown. See text for details.

The invariant mass distribution for the coherently produced $\rho^{0}$ candidates obtained from the topology sample with the cut on the $\rho^{0}$ transverse momentum $p_{T}$ < 150 MeV/c. The hatched area is the contribution from the combinatorial background. The solid line corresponds to Eq. 3 which encompasses the Breit-Wigner (dashed), the mass independent contribution from the direct $\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ production (dash-dotted), and the interference term(dotted).

The ratio |B/A| as a function of $y_{\rho^{0}}$ for the minimum bias data, obtained by fitting Eq.3 to the invariant mass distributions in bins of $y_{\rho^{0}}$.

Coherent $\rho^{0}$ production cross-section for the minimum bias data set as a function of $y_{\rho^{0}}$ (black dots) overlaid by the $d\sigma/dy$ distribution predicted by the KN model [22] (solid line).

$\rho^{0}$ production cross-section as a function of the momentum transfer squared $t$, together with the fit of Eq. 5. The fit parameters are shown in Table I.

Comparison of theoretical predictions to the measured differential cross-section for coherent $\rho^{0}$ production. The statistical errors are shown by the solid vertical line at each data point. The sum of the statistical and systematic error bars is shown by the grey band.

Projections of the two dimensional efficiency corrected $\Phi_{h}$ vs $cos(\Theta_{h})$ distributions obtained with the minimum bias data set. The solid line shows the result of the two-dimensional fit to the data with Eq. 6 and the coefficients given in Tab. III.

Projections of the two dimensional efficiency corrected $\Phi_{h}$ vs $cos(\Theta_{h})$ distributions obtained with the minimum bias data set. The solid line shows the result of the two-dimensional fit to the data with Eq. 6 and the coefficients given in Tab. III.

Quadrangular flow (v4) measured with respect to symmetry plane Psi4, estimated with Event Plane method (with eta gap of 2.0), measured for unidentified charged particles as a function of transverse momentum for various centrality classes.

Quadrangular flow (v4) measured with respect to symmetry plane Psi2, estimated with Event Plane method (with eta gap of 2.0), measured for unidentified charged particles as a function of transverse momentum for various centrality classes.

Comparison of the ALICE results on v2, v3 and v4 obtained with the event plane method, measured for unidentified charged particles as a function of transverse momentum, for centrality 30-40%. Note that these results are the same as in Figure 1.

Relative event-by-event elliptic flow fluctuations for unidentified charged particles versus transverse momentum for different centrality classes.

Unidentified charged particle v2, v3, and v4 integrated over the transverse momentum range 10 < pT < 20 GeV as a function of collision centrality.

Elliptic flow (v2) estimated with Event Plane method (with eta gap of 2.0) of charged pion and proton as a function of transverse momentum for 10-50% centrality class compared to results for unidentified charged particles.

Triangular flow (v3) estimated with Event Plane method (with eta gap of 2.0) of charged pion and proton as a function of transverse momentum for 10-50% centrality class compared to results for unidentified charged particles.

$v_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$, centrality 0-5%.

$v_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$, centrality 5-10%.

$v_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$, centrality 10-20%.

$v_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$, centrality 20-30%.

$v_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$, centrality 30-40%.

$v_{2}$ vs $p_{T}$, centrality 40-50%.

Proton-to-pion ratios as a function of pT measured in Pb-Pb and pp collisions.

Kaon-to-pion ratios as a function of pT measured in Pb-Pb and pp collisions.

The nuclear modification factor RAA as a function of pT for different particle species, for 0-5% collision centralities.

The nuclear modification factor RAA as a function of pT for different particle species, for 60-80% collision centralities.

The inclusive (SPS+DPS) cross-section ratio (times 10^6) as a function of J/psi transverse momentum under the TRANSVERSE-0 spin-alignment hypothesis. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic.

The inclusive (SPS+DPS) cross-section ratio (times 10^6) as a function of J/psi transverse momentum under the TRANSVERSE-P spin-alignment hypothesis. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic.

The inclusive (SPS+DPS) cross-section ratio (times 10^6) as a function of J/psi transverse momentum under the TRANSVERSE-M spin-alignment hypothesis. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second uncertainty is systematic.

Z0 total and fiducial production cross sections times branching fractions.

W+ to W- ratios of total and fiducial production cross sections times branching fractions.

(W+ + W-) to Z0 ratios of total and fiducial production cross sections times branching fractions.

The nuclear modification factor of charged particles as a function of transverse momentum, measured in minimum-bias (NSD) p-Pb collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 5.02 TeV in two pseudorapidity ranges, |eta(cms)| < 0.3 and -1.3 < eta(cms) < 0.3.