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.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 50-60% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 40-50% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 30-40% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 20-30% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 10-20% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 0-10% Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV using FTPC flow vectors, and that with subtracting the azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 integrated over pT and eta vs centrality in Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV for the various methods.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 integrated over pT and eta vs centrality in Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV for the various methods.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 50-60% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 40-50% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 30-40% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 20-30% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 10-20% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 0-10% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.4.

Charged hadron azimuthal anisotropy v2 as a function of pT in 0-60% Cu+Cu collisions at 62.4 GeV using FTPC flow vectors. Data tables for 200 GeV are shown in Fig.3.

K0S azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

K0S azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-20% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

K0S azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 20-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Lambda azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Lambda azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-20% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Lambda azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 20-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

Xi azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

phi azimuthal anisotropy v2 vs pT in 0-60% central Cu+Cu collisions at 200 GeV.

$\rho^0$ production cross section determined with the data set collected with trigger B, as a function of momentum transfer $t$, fitted with a double exponential fit function in the range $t < 0.1$. The statistical errors are shown. The ratio of incoherent to coherent cross sections is measured to be $0.20 \pm 0.8$. The fit parameters are shown in Table I.

Comparison of theoretical predictions to the measured total cross section for coherent $\rho^0$ production as a functionof $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ . The measured cross section is based on the dataset collected with trigger B. The error bars show the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. See text for details.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

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.

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.

The same as the left but for Cu+Cu collisions. The systematic errors are shown as thin lines with wide caps at the ends and statistical errors are shown as thick lines with small caps at the end. Statistical and systematic errors are very small.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) v2{2} and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{2\}$ for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 (top panel) and 62.4 (bottom panel) GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.The statistical errors are smaller than the marker size and not visible for most of the data.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) v2{2} and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{2\}$ for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 (top panel) and 62.4 (bottom panel) GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.The statistical errors are smaller than the marker size and not visible for most of the data.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) v2{2} and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{2\}$ for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 (top panel) and 62.4 (bottom panel) GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.The statistical errors are smaller than the marker size and not visible for most of the data.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) v2{2} and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{2\}$ for Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at 200 (top panel) and 62.4 (bottom panel) GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.The statistical errors are smaller than the marker size and not visible for most of the data.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < pT < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The systematic errors are shown as narrow lines with wide caps at the end and statistical errors are shown as thick lines with narrow caps at the end. Statistical errors are not visible for most of the points.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < pT < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The systematic errors are shown as narrow lines with wide caps at the end and statistical errors are shown as thick lines with narrow caps at the end. Statistical errors are not visible for most of the points.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Cu+Cu collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/c. The most central points (two points for Cu+Cu 62.4 GeV) gives $v_2\{4\}^4 < 0$ for all the data sets. The negative values are probably due to large fluctuations in agreement with Eq. (1). These may include contributions from impact parameter spread and finite multiplicity bin width.

The LS and CI four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}^4$ for Cu+Cu collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV for $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/c. The most central points (two points for Cu+Cu 62.4 GeV) gives $v_2\{4\}^4 < 0$ for all the data sets. The negative values are probably due to large fluctuations in agreement with Eq. (1). These may include contributions from impact parameter spread and finite multiplicity bin width.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) $v_2\{4\}$ and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{4\}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.

The difference of charge-independent (CI) $v_2\{4\}$ and like-sign (LS) $v_2\{4\}$ for Au+Au collisions at 200 and 62.4 GeV vs. the log of $\langle dN_{ch}/d\eta\rangle$.

(Left) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 200 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations.

(Left) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 200 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations.

(Right) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations. The statistical and systematic errors are shown as in previous figures.

(Right) The difference between $v_2\{2\}^2$ and $v_2\{4\}^2$ for 62.4 GeV Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions for both LS and CI combinations. The statistical and systematic errors are shown as in previous figures.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Au+Au collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models. The upper limit is found using the LS results for $v_2\{2\}$. Data are from the range $0.15 < p_T < 2.0$ GeV/$c$. The shaded bands reflect the uncertainties on the models which are dominated by uncertainty on the distribution of nucleons inside the nucleus. The uncertainty is only shown for the MCG-N and fKLN-CGC models. The uncertainty on the MCG-Q model is the same as for the MCG-N model but is not shown for the visual clarity.

The STAR data compared to PHOBOS data [34] on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ with $\delta_2$ for $\Delta\eta > 2$ taken to be zero (see Fig. 6 from Ref. [34]). The shaded band shows the errors quoted from Ref. [34].

The STAR data compared to PHOBOS data [34] on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ with $\delta_2$ for $\Delta\eta > 2$ taken to be zero (see Fig. 6 from Ref. [34]). The shaded band shows the errors quoted from Ref. [34].

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

The upper limit on $\sigma_{v_2}/\langle v_2 \rangle$ for 200 GeV (left) and 62.4 GeV (right) Cu+Cu collisions from Eq. (9) compared to $\sigma_\varepsilon/\varepsilon$ from Eq. (10) for three different models.

The K$\pi$ pair invariant mass distribution integrated over the $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ =62.4 GeV after mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (top left) pT = 0.4–0.6 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (top right) pT = 0.6–0.8 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 62.4 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (bottom left) pT = 0.8–1.0 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The Kπ pair invariant mass distribution for various pT bins (bottom right) pT = 1.0–1.2 GeV/c in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 62.4 GeV after the mixed-event background subtraction.

The signal-to-background ratio for $K^{*0}$ measurements as a function of $p_T$ for different collision centrality bins (0-10%, 10-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%) in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV.

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$K^{*0}$ mass as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

$K^{*0}$ width as a function of $p_T$ for minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The $K^{*0}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au (|$\eta$| < 0.8) collisions at 200 GeV for different collision centrality bins (0-20% ,20-40% , 40-60%)

The $K^{*0}$ reconstruction efficiency multiplied by the detector acceptance as a function of $p_T$ in Cu+Cu (|$\eta$| < 1.0) collisions at 200 GeV for different collision centrality bins (0-20% ,20-40% , 40-60%)

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%) in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80%) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

Mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $p_T$ spectra for various collision centrality bins (0-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%) in Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity yields dN/dy of $K^{*0}$ as a function of the average number of participating nucleons, $⟨N_{part}⟩$, for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity $K^{*0}$ $⟨p_T⟩$ as a function $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

The mid-rapidity $⟨p_T⟩$ of $\pi$, K, p and $K^{*0}$ as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$ for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ in Au+Au collisions divided by $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ in Cu+Cu collisions divided by $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ in d+Au collisions divided by $N(K^{*0})N(K^-)$ ratio in d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(K^{*0})/N(K^-)$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ in Au+Au collisions divided by $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ in Cu+Cu collisions divided by $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ in d+Au collisions divided by $[N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})]$ ratio in p+p collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as a function of $⟨N_{part}⟩$

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Au+Au collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias Cu+Cu collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

Mid-rapidity $N(\phi)/N(K^{*0})$ ratio in minimum bias p+p collisions as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$.

The $K^{*0}$ $v_2$ (Run IV) as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $v_2$ (Run II) as a function of $p_T$ in minimum bias Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ $R_{CP}$ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

The $K^{*0}$ ~$R_{CP}$~ as a function of $p_T$ in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 and 200 GeV compared to the $R_{CP}$ of $K^0_S$ and $\Lambda$ at 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of moments of $\Delta N_p$ distributions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions from Lattice QCD Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $S\sigma$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations for net-baryon.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations for net-proton (No Decay).

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

Centrality dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for $\Delta N_p$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV from Transport Model Calculations.

$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for net proton distributions measured at RHIC. The results are STAR data.

$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for net proton distributions measured at RHIC. The results are from UrQMD net-proton.

$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for net proton distributions measured at RHIC. The results are from AMPT default net-proton.

$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for net proton distributions measured at RHIC. The results are from AMPT String Melting net-proton.

$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for net proton distributions measured at RHIC. The results are from Therminator net-proton.

$\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of $\kappa\sigma^2$ for net proton distributions measured at RHIC. The results are from Hijing net-proton.

Figure 4a

Figure 4b

Figure 4c

Figure 5a

Figure 5b

Figure 5c

Figure 7

Figure 8a

Figure 8b

Figure 8c

Figure 9a

Figure 9b

Figure 9c

Figure 10a

Figure 10b

Figure 10c