Fully corrected assorted $\pi^{0}$-hadron conditional pair distributions for $d$+Au collisions centrality 0-88% and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^0$s are within 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$ and are correlated with hadrons with $p_{T,assoc}$ of 1.5-2 GeV/$c$, 2-3GeV/$c$, 3-4 GeV/$c$, and 4-5 GeV/$c$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron azimuthal correlations from minimumbias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (4−6 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of $N_{coll}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (1–2.5 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of centrality for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (2–3 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Near-side and far-side $p_{out}$ distributions for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions obtained from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation. The trigger is 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$, the associated particle is 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5.0 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlations for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions. The trigger pions are 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 6 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlation for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for several different trigger $p_T$s for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

The comparison of the $p_{out}$ distribution at the near-side and far-side between central $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. Results are obtained for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations with the associated hadron range 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5 GeV/$c$ and trigger pion range of 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $x_E$ distribution from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation at the near-side and far-side between minimum bias $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^{\pm}$ are from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The fitted fractional change in $dN/d_{x_E}$ per unit $p_{T,trig}$ of the far-side conditional yield for different ranges of $x_E$.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for charged pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for neutral pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$)

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ and $v_2$/($\epsilon * N^{1/3}_{part} * n_q$) vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV. The values of $v_2$ and $p_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 14, and the values of $v_2$, $n_q$, and $KE_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 18.

The minimum $\chi^2$ and the parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ for each of the five centrality selections. The best fit parameters are determined by averaging all parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ contour. The errors correspond to the standard deviation of the parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ $\chi^2$ contour.

Fit parameters for each particle species using Equations $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C \cdot$ ($N_{part}$)$^{\alpha_{part}}$ and $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C^{\prime} \cdot$ ($N_{coll}$)$^{\alpha_{coll}}$.

Values of the parameters $n_{pp}$ and $x$ from fitting Equation $R \equiv \frac{dN/dy}{N_{part}}$ = (1-$x$) $\cdot n_{pp} \frac{1}{2}$ + $x \cdot n_{pp} \frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ = $n_{pp}$ [$\frac{1}{2}$ + $x$($\frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ - $\frac{1}{2})$]to the observed $dN$/$dy$ per $N_{part}$.

Invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for (anti)$p$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for (anti)$p$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

The integrated mean $p_T$ for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons produced in the five different classes of event centrality.

The expansion parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ as a function of the number of participants.

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. All centralities.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality A (Central).</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality B.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality C.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality D (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality A (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality B.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality C.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality D (Central).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

Best fit of the cross section.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates over the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Measured partial decay rates $\Delta\Gamma$ (in units of $10^{-15}$ GeV) using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Average of normalized decay rates that are determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the partial decay rates determined with the matrix inversion unfolding method for the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The $p_T$ spectra of electrons from the decays of open heavy flavor hadrons produced in Cu+Cu collisions, separated by centrality.

The nuclear modification factor for MB (0%–94%).

The nuclear modification factor for 0%–10%.

The nuclear modification factor for 0%–20%.

The nuclear modification factor for 20%–40%.

The nuclear modification factor for 40%–60%.

The nuclear modification factor for 60%–94%.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{coll} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{coll} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$.

The nuclear modification factors for $e_{HF}$ at midrapidity in Cu+Cu collisions plotted as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$.