Sample correlations in $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78) for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$ and reflected in the plot.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\eta$ ($|\Delta\phi|<$ 0.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\eta$.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu, 0-12% Au+Au and 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ invariant mass spectra from Cu+Cu $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$K^0_S$ invariant mass spectra from Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ invariant mass spectra from Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have not been feed down subtracted from weak decays. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic combined.

$K^0_S$, $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$, spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) and Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed down subtracted from weak decays. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Xi + \bar{\Xi}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Xi + \bar{\Xi}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Cu+Cu $0 − 10\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 99$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

$\Omega + \bar{\Omega}$ spectra divided by $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ for Au+Au $20 − 40\%$ ($\langle N_{part} \rangle \sim 141$) $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The uncertainties on the spectra points are statistical and systematic; for clarity the uncertainty on $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ has not been included. The curves show the functions described in the text used to extract $dN/dy$.

The enhancement factor for (multi-) strange particles in Cu+Cu $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed-down subtracted in all cases. The black bars show the normalization uncertainties, and the uncertainties for the heavy-ion points are the combined statistical and systematic errors. Curves described in the text, where $B_{K} = 2.0$, $B_{\Lambda} = 2.4$, $B_{\Xi} = 5.0$ and $B_{\Omega} = 12.1$.

The enhancement factor for (multi-) strange particles in Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV collisions, where $|y| < 0.5$. The $\Lambda$, and $\bar{\Lambda}$ yields have been feed-down subtracted in all cases. The black bars show the normalization uncertainties, and the uncertainties for the heavy-ion points are the combined statistical and systematic errors. Curves described in the text, where $B_{K} = 2.0$, $B_{\Lambda} = 2.4$, $B_{\Xi} = 5.0$ and $B_{\Omega} = 12.1$.

Ratio of particle yields in central Cu+Cu and midcentral Au+Au collisions when $\langle N_{part} \rangle = 99$ in each case for $|y| < 0.5$. $\pi$ yields are from elsewhere [17]. Boxed uncertainties are from the Glauber calculations and are correlated for every particle. $\langle N_{part>1} \rangle$ refers to the parameterization shown by eq. 1, while the EPOS and AMPT models are described in the text. The default settings are used for each model. The vertical lines show the remaining independent statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The simulated electron pair invariant mass distributions for electrons at $8 < p_{T} < 10$ GeV/c

The distribution of the minimum distance $\Delta$Z (cm) between an electron track projection point at the Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter (BEMC) and all BEMC clusters along the beam direction from unlike-sign electron candidate pairs, like-sign electron candidate pairs and unlike-minus-like.

The momentum over energy $p/E_0$ distribution ($p$ - momentum, $E_0$ - the energy of the most energetic tower in a Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter cluster) from unlike-sign electron candidate pairs, like-sign electron candidate pairs and unlike-minus-like.

Electron identification efficiency of the cuts on number of TPC points, n$\sigma_e$ and Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter cuts in the Run2008 analysis. The total efficiency is the product of all individual ones.

Electron identification efficiency of the cuts on number of TPC points, n$\sigma_e$ and Barrel Electromagnetic Calorimeter cuts in the Run2005 analysis. The total efficiency is the product of all individual ones.

n$\sigma_e$ distribution in the Run2008 analysis for unlike-sign, like-sign and unlike-minus-like pairs at $2.5 < p_T < 3.0$ GeV after applying all the electron identification cuts except the n$\sigma_e$ cut.

n$\sigma_e$ distribution in the Run2008 analysis for unlike-sign, like-sign and unlike-minus-like pairs at $8 < p_T < 10$ GeV after applying all the electron identification cuts except the n$\sigma_e$ cut.

The mean and width of the Gaussian fitting functions for pure photonic electron (unlike - minus-like) n$\sigma_e$ distribution as shown in Fig. 4(a) and Fig 4(b) for each $p_T$ bin.

n$\sigma_e$ distribution for inclusive electrons at (a) $2.5 < p_T < 3.0$ GeV/c in the Run2008 analysis, (b) $2.5< p_T < 3.5$ GeV/c in the Run2005 analysis and (c) $8.0 < p_T < 10.0$ GeV/c in the Run2008 analysis after applying all electron identification cuts except the n$\sigma_e$ cut.

Purity of the inclusive electron sample as a function of $p_T$ in data from Run 2008.

Purity of the inclusive electron sample as a function of $p_T$ in data from Run 2005 with High Tower HT1 trigger.

Purity of the inclusive electron sample as a function of $p_T$ in data from Run 2005 with High Tower HT2 trigger.

Derived $p_T$ spectrum for inclusive photons and the uncertainty represented by the region between the spectra of $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ decay photons and inclusive photon with doubled direct photon yield.

Ratio of photon $p_T$ spectra from Fig. 7(a) to inclusive photons $p_T$ spectrum.

Photonic electron reconstruction efficiency as a function of $p_T$ for $\gamma$ conversion, $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ Dalitz decay for the Run2008 analysis, and for their combination for the Run2008 analysis.

Photonic electron reconstruction efficiency as a function of $p_T$ for $\gamma$ conversion for the Run2005 analysis.

The adc0 distribution for high-tower trigger events. The adc0 is the offline ADC value of a BEMC cluster’s most energetic tower which is one of the high-towers responsible for firing a high-tower trigger.

The $\chi^2$ as a function of the adc0 cut.

Raw inclusive electron $p_T$ spectrum from VPD trigger in Run2008 d+Au collisions before (open squares) and after applying the adc0 > 193 cut.

The adc0 distribution for data at $p_T$ = 4.0 − 5.0 GeV/c

The adc0 distribution for simulations at $p_T$ = 4.0 − 5.0 GeV/c

The $p_T$ dependence of high-tower trigger efficiency from VPD data for Run2008 analysis.

The $p_T$ dependence of high-tower trigger efficiency from simulation for Run2008 analysis.

The $p_T$ dependence of high-tower trigger efficiency for combined VPD data and simulation for Run2008 analysis.

Raw inclusive electron $p_T$ spectrum for minimum-bias (MB) and two high-tower triggers, i.e. HT1 and HT2 for Run2005 analysis.

Raw inclusive electron $p_T$ spectrum for high-tower trigge HT1 for Run2005 analysis.

Raw inclusive electron $p_T$ spectrum for high-tower trigge HT2 for Run2005 analysis.

The $p_T$ dependence of trigger efficiency for the high-tower trigger HT1 data for Run2005.

The $p_T$ dependence of trigger efficiency for the high-tower trigger HT2 data for Run2005.

Distribution of the calculated BBC cross section $\sigma_{BBC}$ before and after removing events at the beginning and the end of Run2008.

Invariant cross section of the electron from decays of $J/\psi$.

Invariant cross section of the electron from decays of $\varUpsilon$.

Invariant cross section of the electron from Drell-Yan decays.

Invariant cross section of the electron from decays of light vector mesons ($\rho,\omega, \phi$).

The uncertainty of the $J/\psi$ feeddown.

Ratio of non-photonic to photonic electron yield from the Run2008 analysis.

Ratio of non-photonic to photonic electron yield from the Run2005 analysis.

Invariant cross section for non-photonic electron production $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ in p+p collisions from the Run2008 analysis.

Invariant cross section for non-photonic electron production $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ in p+p collisions from the Run2005 analysis.

Invariant cross section for non-photonic electron production $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ in p+p collisions from the combined Run2005 and 2008 analyses.

Invariant cross section for non-photonic electron production $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ in p+p collisions (update on PRL 98 (2007) 192301).

Ratio of invariant cross section for non-photonic electron production $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ in p+p collisions from the combined Run2005 and 2008 analyses over FONLL.

Ratio of invariant cross section for non-photonic electron production $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ in p+p collisions (update on PRL 98 (2007) 192301) over FONLL.

Invariant cross section for electrons $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ from bottom meson decay, together with the ratio of the measurements to the FONLL predictions.

Invariant cross section for electrons $(e^+ + e^-)/2$ from charm meson decay, together with the ratio of the measurements to the FONLL predictions.

The invariant yields $d^2N/(2\pi p_T dp_T dy)$ of $K + p(\bar{p})$ in central Au+Au collisions, and NLO calculations with AKK [9] and DSS [10] FF. The uncertainty of yields due to the scale dependence as evaluated in [10] is about a factor of 2. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

The invariant yields $d^2N/(2\pi p_T dp_T dy)$ of $\rho^0$ in central Au+Au collisions, and NLO calculations with AKK [9] and DSS [10] FF. The uncertainty of yields due to the scale dependence as evaluated in [10] is about a factor of 2. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

The invariant yields $d^2N/(2\pi p_T dp_T dy)$ of $K^0_S$ in central Au+Au collisions, and NLO calculations with AKK [9] and DSS [10] FF. The uncertainty of yields due to the scale dependence as evaluated in [10] is about a factor of 2. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

Yield ratios $\pi^−/\pi^+$, $\bar{p}/p$, $K^−/K^+$, $p/\pi^+$, $\bar{p}/\pi^−$, and $K^{\pm}/\pi^{\pm}$ versus $p_T$ in p+p collisions, and nominal NLO calculations with AKK [9] and DSS [10] FFs without theoretical uncertainties. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

Yield ratio $K^0_S$)/$\pi^{\pm}$ versus $p_T$ in p+p collisions, and nominal NLO calculations with AKK [9] and DSS [10] FFs without theoretical uncertainties. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

Yield ratios $p/\pi^+$ and $\bar{p}/\pi^−$ versus $p_T$ in central Au+Au collisions [14] with updated uncertainties at high $p_T$. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively.

$R_{AA}$ of $\pi^{\pm} in central Au+Au collisions as a function of $p_T$. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The height of the band at unity represents the normalization uncertainty.

$R_{AA}$ of $K^{\pm}+p(\bar{p})$ in central Au+Au collisions as a function of $p_T$. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The height of the band at unity represents the normalization uncertainty.

$R_{AA}$ of $K^0_S$ in central Au+Au collisions as a function of $p_T$. The curves are the calculations for $K^0_S$ $R_{AA}$ with and without jet conversion in medium [15]. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The height of the band at unity represents the normalization uncertainty.

$R_{AA}$ of $\rho^0$ in central Au+Au collisions as a function of $p_T$. Bars and boxes (bands) represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The height of the band at unity represents the normalization uncertainty.

The ratios of $R_{AA}[K^{\pm} + p(\bar{p})]$ to $R_{AA}(\pi^{\pm})$. The boxes and shaded bands represent the systematic uncertainties for $R_{AA}[K^{\pm} +p(\bar{p})]/R_{AA}(\pi^{\pm})$, respectively.

The ratios of $R_{AA}(K^− + \bar{p})$ to $R_{AA}(K^+ p)$. The systematic uncertainties for $R_{AA}(K^− + \bar{p})/R_{AA}(K^+ +p)$ are 2–12% and left off for clarity.

The ratios of $R_{AA}[\rho^0]$ to $R_{AA}(\pi^{\pm})$. The boxes and shaded bands represent the systematic uncertainties for $R_{AA}(\rho^0)/R_{AA}(\pi^{\pm})$, respectively.

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 1. (Color online) Perspective views of $2 \mathrm{D}$ charge-independent angular correlations $\Delta \rho / \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{ref}}}$ on $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=200$ and $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ (top and bottom rows, respectively). Centrality increases left to right from most peripheral to most central. Corrected total cross-section fractions are (left to right) $84 \%-93 \%, 55 \%-64 \%, 18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $200-\mathrm{GeV}$ data and $84 \%-95 \%, 56 \%-65 \%$ $18 \%-28 \%,$ and $0 \%-5 \%$ for the $62 \mathrm{GeV}$ data (see Tables III and IV).

FIG. 2. (Color online) Fit decomposition of the $46 \%-56 \%$ centrality data for 62 -GeV Au-Au collisions. The top panels show from left to right the corrected data, model fit, fit residuals (data - model), and same-side 2D Gaussian. The bottom panels similarly show the away-side azimuth dipole, the nonjet azimuth quadrupole, the 1D $\eta_{\Delta}$ Gaussian, and the 2D exponential. This centrality is just below the sharp transition at $v_{\text {trans }}=3$. Fit residuals (c) are scaled up eightfold relative to the data.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 3. Fit parameters for $\left(\eta_{\Delta}, \phi_{\Delta}\right)$ correlation data from Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{N N}}=62$ (open symbols) and 200 GeV (solid symbols) versus centrality measure $\nu$ computed at fixed energy $(200 \mathrm{GeV})$. The SS $2 \mathrm{D}$ Gaussian amplitudes, $\eta_{\Delta}$ widths, and $\phi_{\Delta}$ widths are shown in the left, center, and right panels, respectively of the top row. The bottom row shows from left to right the amplitudes for the dipole, quadrupole, and SS peak width aspect ratio $\sigma_{\eta_{\Delta}} / \sigma_{\phi_{\Delta}} .$ Fitting errors are indicated by error bars where larger than the symbols. Solid lines connect the points for clarity. The dotted and dashed curves indicate Glauber linear superposition estimates for 62 - and 200 -GeV peak amplitudes respectively, as discussed in the text. The quadrupole data are consistent with Ref. [60]. The hatched regions indicate the full range of systematic uncertainties listed in Appendix F. The vertical dark bands indicate estimated $v$ equivalents for $N-N$ collisions and $b=0$ Au-Au collisions.

FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) 2D data histogram from $0 \%-5 \%$ central 200 GeV Au-Au collisions $[(0,0)$ bin suppressed]. (b) Additional model component fitted to the $2 \mathrm{D}$ histogram and consisting of an AS azimuth dipole modulated by function $F\left(\eta_{\Delta}\right)$ described in the text. (c) Fit residuals including the new model component. (d) Data histogram in the first panel minus the additional model component and fitted offset. Remaining structure is described accurately by an AS dipole and SS 2D Gaussian.

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 9. (a) Amplitude of SS 2D peak (jet-correlated pairs per final-state hadron) for data (solid points), GLS extrapolation from $p$ - $p$ data (dashed curve) and from the HIJING Monte Carlo (open points, dotted curve). (b) Single-particle production extrapolated from $p-p$ data (dashed curve, GLS), and from more-central Au-Au data (solid line) and HIJING (dash-dotted line, open points). (c) Single-particle hard-component production per $N-N$ binary collision from $p-p$ data, from more-central Au-Au data and from HIJING (open points). (d) Jet-correlated pair production (SS 2D peak) per $N-N$ binary collision extrapolated from $p-p$ data (GLS), and from Au-Au data (solid points) and HIJING (open points).

FIG. 11. (Color online) (Left) Uncorrected angular correlations from 62-GeV $37 \%-46 \%$ central Au-Au collisions showing pileup distortions, especially evident as the W-shaped nonuniformity of the AS ridge on $\eta_{\Delta}$. (Right) The same data with pileup correction applied.

Elliptic flow versus $p_{T}$ for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV measured with the subevent method with a pseudorapidity gap of 0.3 units compared with previously published STAR results for 200 and 62.4 GeV Cu+Cu [27] measured with full TPC event plane method $v_{2}${TPC} and full FTPC event plane method $v_{2}${FTPC}. The error bars are statistical. Results are also compared to $v_{2}$($p_{T}$) model calculations.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}(\eta)$ for charged hadrons fromCu+Cu collisions at 0–60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV. The present STAR results are compared to the measurement from the PHOBOS [29] collaboration for Cu+Cu at 22.4 GeV. The PHOBOS results include statistical and systematic errors whereas the STAR results are plotted with statistical uncertainties only, and systematic errors are discussed in Section III C. Results are also compared to $v_{2}(\eta)$ calculations from the indicated models.

Elliptic flow $v_{2}${TPC} and $v_{2}${4} as a function of centrality for charged hadrons from Cu+Cu collisions at 0 − 60% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 22.4 GeV, compared with previously published results from the STAR collaboration at 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV.

Fit results from a fit to data using Eq. 11 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations and Eq. 15 for non-femtoscopic ones (EMCIC fit from Figure 6 in the paper)

Fit results from a fit to 1D correlation function using Eq. 6 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations (standard fit from Figure 7 in the paper)

Fit results from a fit to 1D correlation function using Eq. 6 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations and Eq. 12 for non-femtoscopic ones (delta - q fit from Figure 7 in the paper)

Fit results from a fit to 1D correlation function using Eq. 6 to parameterize the femtoscopic correlations and Eq. 15 for non-femtoscopic ones (EMCIC fit from Figure 7 in the paper). The non-femtoscopic parameters M1−4 were not varied, but kept fixed to the values in Table IV

Multiplicity dependence of fit results to 1D correlation function for different fit parameterizations (Figure 8 in the paper).

Multiplicity dependence of fit parameters to two-dimensional correlation functions using Equations 7 and 8. To consistently compare to previous measurements, Omega was set to unity (c.f. Equation 5).

raw correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

raw correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

raw correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

flow background with default flow, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

flow background with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

flow background with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background-subtracted correlation with upper flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background-subtracted correlation with lower flow systematic uncertainty, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 0.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 1.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 2.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 3.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 4.

background normalization systematic uncertainty band, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1, slice 5.

d+Au background-subtracted correlation, Au+Au 200 GeV, 20-60%, 3<p_{T}^{(t)}<4 GeV/c, 1<p_{T}^{(a)}<2 GeV/c, |#eta|<1.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Parameters of Gaussian fit to the background subtracted dihadron correlations as a function of phi_s.

Negatively charged kaon spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 62.4 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Negatively charged proton spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 200 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Negatively charged proton spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 62.4 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Positively charged pion spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 200 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Positively charged pion spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 62.4 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Positively charged kaon spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 200 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Positively charged kaon spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 62.4 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Positively charged proton spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 200 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Positively charged proton spectra from Cu+Cu collisions 62.4 GeV as a function of pT for different centralities.

Mean transverse momentum of negatively charged pions, kaons and protons as a function of charged hadron multiplicity.

Mean transverse momentum of positively charged pions, kaons and protons as a function of charged hadron multiplicity [figure not available in published paper].

Integrated yields of negatively charged pions, kaons and protons as a function of charged hadron multiplicity.

Integrated yields of positively charged pions, kaons and protons as a function of charged hadron multiplicity [figure not available in published paper].

particle Ratios -I (pbar/pi^-, k^-/pi^-) versus multiplicity.

particle ratios -II (p/pi^+, k^+/pi^+) versus multiplicity.

particle ratios -III (p+pbar/pi, k/pi) versus multiplicity.

particle Ratios -IV (pi^-/pi^+, k^-/k^+, pbar/p) versus multiplicity [only pbar/p figure available in paper].

Enhancement factors for negatively charged pions, kaons and protons as a function of Npart [Ref. Phys.Rev.C 81, 044902, 2010]. pp dNdy values are from Ref [Phys.Rev.C 79, 034909, 2009].

The kinetic freeze-out temperature (Tkin) and chemical freeze-out temperature (Tch) versus multiplicity.

flow velocity versus multiplicity.

chemical potentials versus multiplicity.

strangeness suppression factor versus multiplicity.

dNch/deta values for different centrality.

Relative production rates for jets and di-jets in Au+Au collisions of different centralities with respect to d+Au data.

Calculations of the Glauber-based core/corona model that accommodates inclusive hadron suppression and single jet production rate results.

Conditional di-jet survival probability in Au+Au data compared to d+Au reference.

Conditional di-jet survival probability in Au+Au data compared to d+Au reference.