Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Final state radiation correction used in the $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-p_{T}^{Z}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Measured total $Z$-boson cross-section for different datasets. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

$K^-$ (a), invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 10--40\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$\phi$ meson (b) invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 10--40\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$\Xi^-$ (c) invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 10--40\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$K^-$ (a), invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 40--60\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$\phi$ meson (b) invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 40--60\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

Rapidity density distributions of $K^-$ (squares), $p_T$-integrated yields $dN/dy$ in 0--10\% (a), 10--40\% (b) and 40--60\% central (c) Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. %The full symbols show the measured data, while the open ones are data reflected with respect to $y=0$ in the center-of-mass frame. Solid lines depict Gaussian function fits to the data points.

Rapidity density distributions of $\phi$ meson (circles) $p_T$-integrated yields $dN/dy$ in 0--10\% (a), 10--40\% (b) and 40--60\% central (c) Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. %The full symbols show the measured data, while the open ones are data reflected with respect to $y=0$ in the center-of-mass frame. Solid lines depict Gaussian function fits to the data points.

Rapidity density distributions of $\Xi^-$ (diamonds) $p_T$-integrated yields $dN/dy$ in 0--10\% (a), 10--40\% (b) and 40--60\% central (c) Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. %The full symbols show the measured data, while the open ones are data reflected with respect to $y=0$ in the center-of-mass frame. Solid lines depict Gaussian function fits to the data points.

$\phi/K^-$ (a) and $\phi/\Xi^-$ (b) ratio as a function of collision energy, $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$. The solid black circles show the measurements presented here in 0-10\% centrality bin, while empty markers in black or grey are used for data from various other energies and/or collision systems. The grey solid line represents a THERMUS calculation based on the Grand Canonical Ensemble (GCE) while the dotted lines depict calculations based on the Canonical Ensemble (CE) with different parameters of strangeness correlation radius ($r_c$). The green dashed line, green shaded band and the solid red line show transport model calculations from the public versions $\mathrm{UrQMD}^{1}$, modified $\mathrm{UrQMD}^{2}$ and SMASH, respectively.

Single-differential production cross-sections for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Single-differential production cross-sections for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Single-differential production cross-sections for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Fraction of nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons (in \%) in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=-0.2$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{d}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{d}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{d}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$B_{2}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-20$% central

$B_{2}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$B_{2}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2$ for $0-20$% central

$B_{2}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3$ for $0-20$% central

$B_{2}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-20$% central

$B_{2}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$\langle f\rangle$ versus $m_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-20$% central

$\langle f\rangle$ versus $m_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$\langle f\rangle$ versus $m_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2$ for $0-20$% central

$\langle f\rangle$ versus $m_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3$ for $0-20$% central

$\langle f\rangle$ versus $m_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-20$% central

$\langle f\rangle$ versus $m_{\mathrm{T}}/A$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-20$% central

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $y$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $\mathrm{Centrality}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $y$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}\ (\mathrm{interpolated})$, $\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$, $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

J/psi-->e+e- invariant yield in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at mid-rapidity for the 20-40 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI yield versus transverse momentum PT, at mid rapidity : -0.35<y<0.35, for a centrality range of 40-60%.

J/psi-->e+e- invariant yield in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at mid-rapidity for the 40-60 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI yield versus transverse momentum PT, at mid rapidity : -0.35<y<0.35, for a centrality range of 60-94%.

J/psi-->e+e- invariant yield in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at mid-rapidity for the 60-94 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI yield versus transverse momentum PT, at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2], for a centrality range of 0-20%.

J/psi-->mu+mu- invariant yield in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at forward rapidity for the 0-20, 20-40, 40-60 and 60-94 centrality ranges. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

J/PSI yield versus transverse momentum PT, at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2], for a centrality range of 20-40%.

J/psi-->e+e- average momentum squared in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at forward rapidity (p_T integrated). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value.

J/PSI yield versus transverse momentum PT, at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2], for a centrality range of 40-60%.

J/psi-->mu+mu- average momentum squared in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at forward rapidity (p_T integrated). The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value.

J/PSI yield versus transverse momentum PT, at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2], for a centrality range of 60-94%.

J/psi-->mu+mu- and J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of p_T at forward and mid-rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Mean PT^2 versus Npart, number of participants, at mid rapidity : -0.35<y<0.35.

J/psi-->mu+mu- and J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of y at forward and mid-rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Mean PT^2 versus Npart, number of participants, at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2].

J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at mid-rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Nuclear modification factor RAA versus transverse momentum PT at mid rapidity : -0.35<y<0.35, for the 0-20% most central events.

J/psi-->mu+mu- nuclear modification in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of N_part at forward rapidity for the 0-20 centrality range. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Nuclear modification factor RAA versus transverse momentum PT at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2], for the 0-20% most central events.

J/psi-->mu+mu- in Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $N_{part}$ at forward rapidity expressed as a ratio with respect to J/psi-->e+e- nuclear modification at mid-rapidity. The statistical and systematic uncertainties vary point-to-point and are listed for each measured value. An additional global systematic uncertainty is provided in each column heading, which applies to all data points per column.

Nuclear modification factor RAA versus rapidity, for the 0-20% most central events.

Nuclear modification factor RAA versus number of participants, at mid rapidity : -0.35<y<0.35.

Nuclear modification factor RAA versus number of participants, at forward rapidity : absolute value of y belongs to [1.22.2].

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total uncertainty on the measured values of $\sigma(tq)$, $\sigma(\bar{t}q)$, $R_t$, and $\sigma(tq+\bar{t}q)$. The evaluation of the systematic uncertainties has a statistical uncertainty of $0.3\,\%$. Uncertainties contributing less than $1.0\,\%$ are marked with "$<1$" in the paper. To provide numerical values for this table in HEPdata, these uncertainties are approximated with $\pm 0.5\,\%$. This approximation is applied to all measurements for the following uncertainties$:$ JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by-jets, JES pileup, $b$-JES, jet vertex fraction, mistag efficiency and $W+\;$jets shape variation. For the measurement of $\sigma(tq)$ the approximation is applied in addition to the following uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $c$-tagging efficiency, $t\bar{t}$ generator + parton shower and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR. For the measurement of $\sigma(\bar{t}q)$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR. For the measurement of $R_t$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES detector, $b$-tagging efficiency, $c$-tagging efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance and $tq$ scale variations. For the measurement of $\sigma(tq+\bar{t}q)$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $c$-tagging efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $t\bar{t}$ generator + parton shower and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections and normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections as functions of ABS(YRAP(T)).

The cross sections for top-quark and top-antiquark production in the t-channel, together with the cross-section ratio.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections and normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections as functions of ABS(YRAP(TBAR)).

Parametrization factors for the $m_{t}$ dependence [see Eq. (4) in the paper] of $\sigma(tq)$, $\sigma(\bar tq)$, and $\sigma(t q+\bar t q)$.

The cross sections for top-quark and top-antiquark production in the t-channel, together with the cross-section ratio.

The value of $|V_{tb}|^{2}$ is extracted by dividing the measured value of $\sigma(t q+\bar t q)$ by the prediction of the approximate NNLO calculation. The experimental and theoretical uncertainties are added in quadrature.

Event yields for the 2-jet-$\ell^{+}$ and 2-jet-$\ell^{-}$ HPR channels. The expectation for the signal and background yields correspond to the result of the binned maximum-likelihood fit described in Sec. $\mathrm{VI~D}$ in the paper. The uncertainty of the expectations is the normalization uncertainty of each process after the fit, as described in Sec. $\mathrm{VII~F}$ in the paper.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell \nu b)$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell \nu b)$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-antiquark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $|y(t)|$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $|y(\ell \nu b)|$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-quark $|y|$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $|y(\bar t)|$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $|y(\ell \nu b)|$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-antiquark $|y|$ distribution.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Comparison between the measured differential cross sections and the predictions from the NLO calculation using the MSTW2008 PDF set. For each variable and prediction a $\chi^{2}$ value is calculated with HERAfitter using the covariance matrix of each measured spectrum. The theory uncertainties of the predictions are treated as uncorrelated. The number of degrees of freedom (NDF) is equal to the number of bins in the measured spectrum.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, mistag efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(\bar t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The JES $\eta$ intercalibration uncertainty has a sign switch from the first to the second bin. For the $tq$ generator $+$ parton shower uncertainty a sign switch is denoted with $\mp$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $c-$tagging efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, b-JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $b-$tagging efficiency, $c-$tagging efficiency, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(\bar t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content $:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, b-JES, jet energy resolution, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $b-$tagging efficiency, $c-$ tagging efficiency, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$.

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$, $m_{\mathrm{T}}-m_{0}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}+\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$, $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$, $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Cu}-\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$ at $\sqrt{s}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$ at $\sqrt{s}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\frac{\mathrm{\pi}^{+}+\mathrm{\pi}^{-}}{2}$ in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$ at $\sqrt{s}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$ at $\sqrt{s}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$ at $\sqrt{s}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.9-1.1$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.05-3.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.4-3.6$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.2-0.0$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.0-0.2$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.7-0.9$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.9-1.1$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.05-3.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.4-3.6$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.15-0.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.55-2.65$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.65-2.75$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.25-3.35$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.15-0.15$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.55-2.65$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.65-2.75$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.15-3.25$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.25-3.35$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{K}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ versus $y$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{K}^{-}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$T_{\mathrm{K^{+}}}$,$T_{\mathrm{K^{-}}}$ versus $\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{p}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{p}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{h}^{-}$,$\mathrm{h}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}$,$\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $\eta=3.2$

$R_{\mathrm{dA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\frac{h^{+}+h^{-}}{2}$ in $\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $\eta=0$

$R_{\mathrm{dA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\frac{h^{+}+h^{-}}{2}$ in $\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $\eta=1$

$R_{\mathrm{dA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{h}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $\eta=2.2$

$R_{\mathrm{dA}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{h}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $\eta=3.2$

$R_{\mathrm{CP}}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\frac{h^{+}+h^{-}}{2}$,$\frac{h^{+}+h^{-}}{2}$,$\mathrm{h}^{-}$,$\mathrm{h}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{d}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $\eta=True$ for $0-20-30-50$% central

The $y_{cm}$ dependences of $v_{1}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $y_{cm}$ dependences of $v_{3}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $y_{cm}$ dependences of $v_{5}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $p_{t}$ dependence of $v_{2}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons in the rapidity interval $|y_{cm}| < 0.05$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $p_{t}$ dependence of $v_{4}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons in the rapidity interval $|y_{cm}| < 0.05$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $p_{t}$ dependence of $v_{6}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons in the rapidity interval $|y_{cm}| < 0.05$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $y_{cm}$ dependences of $v_{2}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $y_{cm}$ dependences of $v_{4}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The $y_{cm}$ dependences of $v_{6}$ for protons, deuterons and tritons averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ in semi-central ($20 - 30$ %) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV.

The ratio $v_{4}/v_{2}^{2}$ for protons in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV as a function of $p_{t}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y_{cm}| < 0.05$) for three different centralities.

The ratio $v_{4}/v_{2}^{2}$ for deuterons in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV as a function of $p_{t}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y_{cm}| < 0.05$) for three different centralities.

The ratio $v_{4}/v_{2}^{2}$ for tritons in $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV as a function of $p_{t}$ at mid-rapidity ($|y_{cm}| < 0.05$) for three different centralities.

The ratio $v_{4}/v_{2}^{2}$ for tritons in Au+Au collisions $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ for three different centralities.

The ratio $v_{4}/v_{2}^{2}$ for tritons in Au+Au collisions $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ for three different centralities.

The ratio $v_{4}/v_{2}^{2}$ for tritons in Au+Au collisions $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV averaged over the $p_{t}$ interval $1.0 < p_{t} < 1.5$ GeV$/c$ for three different centralities.

$K^{+}$ signal and the corresponding background fit for the region covering mid-rapidity and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 25 and 50 $MeV/c^{2}$.

$K^{+}$ signal and the corresponding background fit for the region covering mid-rapidity and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 25 and 50 $MeV/c^{2}$.

$K^{+}$ signal and the corresponding background fit for the region covering mid-rapidity and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 25 and 50 $MeV/c^{2}$.

$K^{-}$ signal and the corresponding background fit for the region covering mid-rapidity and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 50 and 75 $MeV/c^{2}$.

$K^{-}$ signal and the corresponding background fit for the region covering mid-rapidity and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 50 and 75 $MeV/c^{2}$.

$K^{-}$ signal and the corresponding background fit for the region covering mid-rapidity and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 50 and 75 $MeV/c^{2}$.

$K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant mass distribution for the mid-rapidity region and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 0 and 100 $MeV/c^{2}$ after subtraction of the background.

$K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant mass distribution for the mid-rapidity region and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 0 and 100 $MeV/c^{2}$ after subtraction of the background.

$K^{+}K^{-}$ invariant mass distribution for the mid-rapidity region and $m_{t}−m_{0}$ between 0 and 100 $MeV/c^{2}$ after subtraction of the background.

Rapidity distributions of $K^{-}$ and $\phi$ as well as extracted inverse slope parameters obtained from the Boltzmann fits to the the $m_{t}$ spectra.

Rapidity distributions of $K^{-}$ and $\phi$ as well as extracted inverse slope parameters obtained from the Boltzmann fits to the the $m_{t}$ spectra.

Rapidity distributions of $K^{-}$ and $\phi$ as well as extracted inverse slope parameters obtained from the Boltzmann fits to the the $m_{t}$ spectra.

$K^{-}$ transverse-mass spectrum around mid-rapidity

$K^{-}$ transverse-mass spectrum around mid-rapidity

$K^{-}$ transverse-mass spectrum around mid-rapidity

Multiplicity ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ as function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central heavy-ion collisions.

Multiplicity ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ as function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central heavy-ion collisions.

Multiplicity ratio $\phi/K^{-}$ as function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for central heavy-ion collisions.

Multiplicities and effective inverse slopes $T_{eff}$ at mid-rapidity for given centrality classes.

Multiplicities and effective inverse slopes $T_{eff}$ at mid-rapidity for given centrality classes.

Multiplicities and effective inverse slopes $T_{eff}$ at mid-rapidity for given centrality classes.

Multiplicity ratios for given centrality classes.

Multiplicity ratios for given centrality classes.

Multiplicity ratios for given centrality classes.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{+}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{+}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{+}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{-}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{-}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{-}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $\phi$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $\phi$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $\phi$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Rapidity distribution of $K^{+}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Example of $\Lambda$ signal for 0-40% most central events, over mixed-event background for the bin $-0.05 < y_{cm} < 0.05$ and reduced transverse masses between $100-150 MeV/c^{2}$.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $K^{0}_{S}$ for the 0-40% most central events. NOTE: The spectra are not scaled by $1/N_{Events}$! To compare the data, divide by $N_{Events} = 2.1997626 x 10^{9}$

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $\Lambda$ for the 0-40% most central events.

Reduced transverse mass ($m_{t}-m_{0}$) spectra of $\Lambda$ for the 0-40% most central events. NOTE: The spectra are not scaled by $1/N_{Events}$! To compare the data, divide by $N_{Events} = 2.1997626 x 10^{9}$

Rapidity distribution of $K^{0}_{S}$

Rapidity distribution of $K^{0}_{S}$

Rapidity distribution of $\Lambda$

Rapidity distribution of $\Lambda$

Compilation of mid-rapidity yields for central Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ and $\Lambda$.

Compilation of mid-rapidity yields for central Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ and $\Lambda$.

Multiplicities per mean number of participants $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ as a function of $\langle A_{Part}\rangle$

Multiplicities per mean number of participants $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ as a function of $\langle A_{Part}\rangle$

Multiplicities per mean number of participants $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ as a function of $\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ for $K^{0}_{S}$

Multiplicities per mean number of participants $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ as a function of $\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ for $K^{0}_{S}$

Multiplicities per mean number of participants $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ as a function of $\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ for $\Lambda$

Multiplicities per mean number of participants $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ as a function of $\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ for $\Lambda$

Comparison of the shape of the rapidity distribution of $K^{0}_{S}$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the rapidity distribution of $K^{0}_{S}$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the rapidity distribution of $\Lambda$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the rapidity distribution of $\Lambda$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the $p_{t}$-spectra for $\pm0.15$ rapidity units around mid-rapidity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the $p_{t}$-spectra for $\pm0.15$ rapidity units around mid-rapidity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the $p_{t}$-spectra for $\pm0.15$ rapidity units around mid-rapidity of $\Lambda$ to various transport model versions.

Comparison of the shape of the $p_{t}$-spectra for $\pm0.15$ rapidity units around mid-rapidity of $\Lambda$ to various transport model versions.

Differential yield of $K^{0}_{S}$ as function of rapdidity and reduced transverse mass for the four centrality classes.

Differential yield of $K^{0}_{S}$ as function of rapdidity and reduced transverse mass for the four centrality classes. NOTE: The spectra are not scaled by $1/N_{Events}$! To compare the data, divide by $N_{Events} = 5.64247975 x 10^{8} (0 - 10\%)$, $5.85743394 x 10^{8} (10 - 20\%)$, $5.76369451 x 10^{8} (20 - 30\%)$ or $4.73401752 x 10^{8} (30 - 40\%)$

Differential yield of $\Lambda$ as function of rapdidity and reduced transverse mass for the four centrality classes.

Differential yield of $\Lambda$ as function of rapdidity and reduced transverse mass for the four centrality classes. NOTE: The spectra are not scaled by $1/N_{Events}$! To compare the data, divide by $N_{Events} = 5.64247975 x 10^{8} (0 - 10\%)$, $5.85743394 x 10^{8} (10 - 20\%)$, $5.76369451 x 10^{8} (20 - 30\%)$ or $4.73401752 x 10^{8} (30 - 40\%)$

$K^{0}_{S}$ and $\Lambda$ multiplicities in full phase space and inverse slopes at mid-rapidity $T_{Eff}$ for a given centrality.

$K^{0}_{S}$ and $\Lambda$ multiplicities in full phase space and inverse slopes at mid-rapidity $T_{Eff}$ for a given centrality.

Value of the parameter $\alpha$ extracted for $K^{+}$, $K^{-}$, $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda$ and $\Phi$, as displayed in Figure 5 - Global $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ Fit

Value of the parameter $\alpha$ extracted for $K^{+}$, $K^{-}$, $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda$ and $\Phi$, as displayed in Figure 5 - Global $Mult/\langle A_{Part}\rangle$ Fit

Transverse mass $m_T$ spectrum at midrapidity of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c. $m_0$ is the PDG mass of the $\phi$ meson.

Transverse mass $m_T$ spectrum at midrapidity of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c. $m_0$ is the PDG mass of the $\phi$ meson.

Dependence of the slope parameter $T$ of the transverse momentum spectrum on rapidity $y$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c.

Dependence of the slope parameter $T$ of the transverse momentum spectrum on rapidity $y$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c.

Dependence of the width $\sigma_y$ of the rapidity distributions on $p_T$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c.

Dependence of the width $\sigma_y$ of the rapidity distributions on $p_T$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c.

Rapidity spectrum of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c.

Rapidity spectrum of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c.

Rapidity spectrum of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 40 GeV/c.

Energy dependence of ratios of total yields of $\phi$ mesons to mean total yields of pions produced in in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Energy dependence of double ratios of total yields of $\phi$ mesons to mean total yields of pions in central Pb+Pb collisions over minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Energy dependence of total yields of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Energy dependence of midrapidity yields of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Widths of rapidity distributions of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies, as a function of beam rapidity.

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1.0-1.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1.2-1.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.1-2.3$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.4-2.6$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.0-3.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.1-3.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.2-3.3$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.3-3.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.4-3.66$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.1-0.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.0-0.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.4-0.6$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1.0-1.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1.2-1.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.1-2.3$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.4-2.6$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.0-3.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.1-3.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.2-3.3$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.3-3.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.4-3.66$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.1-0.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.0-0.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.4-0.6$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1.0-1.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.0-2.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.3-2.5$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.9-3.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.0-3.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.1-3.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.2-3.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=-0.1-0.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.0-0.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.4-0.6$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.6-0.8$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.8-1.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1.0-1.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.0-2.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.2-2.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.9-3.0$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.0-3.1$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.1-3.2$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=3.2-3.4$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-5$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$,$\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{p}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{p}-\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-1$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$,$\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=1$ for $0-10$% central, $40-60$% central

$\mathrm{K}^{+}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$,$\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{\pi}^{+}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}/\mathrm{\pi}^{-}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $\mathrm{K}^{+}$,$\mathrm{K}^{-}$,$\mathrm{p}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=0.4-0.9$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.2-2.5$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.2-2.5$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\mathrm{p}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.94-3.1$

$\frac{1}{2\pi p_{\mathrm{T}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2N}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for $\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ near $y=2.94-3.1$

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}$ versus $y$ for $\mathrm{p}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

$\delta y$,$\delta E$ versus for $\mathrm{p}$,$\overline{\mathrm{p}}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}(y-y_{\mathrm{beam}})}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{beam}}$ for BARYON-ANTIBARYON in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}(y-y_{\mathrm{beam}})}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{beam}}$ for BARYON-ANTIBARYON in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}(y-y_{\mathrm{beam}})}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{beam}}$ for BARYON-ANTIBARYON in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}(y-y_{\mathrm{beam}})}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{beam}}$ for BARYON-ANTIBARYON in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}(y-y_{\mathrm{beam}})}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{beam}}$ for BARYON-ANTIBARYON in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200.0\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}(y-y_{\mathrm{beam}})}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $\mathrm{y}-\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{beam}}$ for BARYON-ANTIBARYON in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for $0-10$% central

$\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}\eta}\right\vert_{200\mathrm{Ge\!V}}\,/\,\left.\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}\eta}\right\vert_{130\mathrm{Ge\!V}}$ versus $\eta$ for $x^{\pm}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$ for , per centrality

$\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}y}\frac{2}{N_{\mathrm{part}}}$ versus $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ for $x^{\pm}$ in $\mathrm{Au}-\mathrm{Au}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=200\,\mathrm{Ge\!V}$

Differential cross section for prompt D+ production.

Differential cross section for prompt D*+ production.

Differential cross section for prompt D*+ production.

Integrated cross sections for prompt charm particle production extraplated to PT=0. The second (sys) error is the uncertainty in the branching ratio The third (sys) error is the uncertainty in the extrapolation procedure.

Integrated cross sections for prompt charm particle production extraplated to PT=0. The second (sys) error is the uncertainty in the branching ratio The third (sys) error is the uncertainty in the extrapolation procedure.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.