High transverse-momentum spectra ($p_{T} > 2.5$ GeV/c) of charged pions, protons, and antiprotons for the rapidity regions $|y| < 0.5$ (solid symbols) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (open symbols) for $d+Au$ collisions and various event centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

High transverse-momentum spectra ($p_{T} > 2.5$ GeV/c) of charged pions, protons, and antiprotons for the rapidity regions $|y| < 0.5$ (solid symbols) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (open symbols) for $d+Au$ collisions and various event centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

High transverse-momentum spectra ($p_{T} > 2.5$ GeV/c) of charged pions, protons, and antiprotons for the rapidity regions $|y| < 0.5$ (solid symbols) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (open symbols) for $d+Au$ collisions and various event centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

High transverse-momentum spectra ($p_{T} > 2.5$ GeV/c) of charged pions, protons, and antiprotons for the rapidity regions $|y| < 0.5$ (solid symbols) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (open symbols) for $d+Au$ collisions and various event centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

High transverse-momentum spectra ($p_{T} > 2.5$ GeV/c) of charged pions, protons, and antiprotons for the rapidity regions $|y| < 0.5$ (solid symbols) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (open symbols) for $d+Au$ collisions and various event centrality classes at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

High transverse-momentum rapidity asymmetry factor ($Y_{\scriptsize{\mbox{Asym}}}$) for $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ and $p+\bar{p}$ for $|y| < 0.5$ and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ for minimum bias $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. For comparison the inclusive charged hadron results from STAR [5] are also shown by the curves.

Centrality dependence of high transverse-momentum rapidity asymmetry factor ($Y_{\scriptsize{\mbox{Asym}}}$) for $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ and $p+\bar{p}$ for $|y| < 0.5$ (left panels) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (right panels) for $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Centrality dependence of high transverse-momentum rapidity asymmetry factor ($Y_{\scriptsize{\mbox{Asym}}}$) for $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ and $p+\bar{p}$ for $|y| < 0.5$ (left panels) and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ (right panels) for $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Variation of nuclear modification factor ($R_{CP}$) for $\pi^{+}+\pi^{-}$ and $p+\bar{p}$ with rapidity for $p_{T} > 2.5$ GeV/c for $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Also shown for comparison are the $R_{CP}$ values for inclusive charged hadrons as a function of pseudorapidity [5]. The errors shown as boxes are the systematic errors. The error due to number of binary collisions is $\sim 14\%$ and is not shown in the figure.

Variation of $\pi^{-} / \pi^{+}$ and $\bar{p} / p$ with rapidity for $2.5 < p_{T} < 10$ GeV/c for peripheral ($40-100\%$) and n-tag events for $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Also shown for comparison are the $\bar{p} / p$ for minimum bias $p+p$ collisions. The boxes are the systematic errors. The ratios for n-tag events are shifted by 0.05 units in rapidity and those for $p+p$ collisions by -0.05 units in rapidity for clarity of presentation.

Variation of $\pi^{-} / \pi^{+}$ and $\bar{p} / p$ with rapidity for $2.5 < p_{T} < 10$ GeV/c for peripheral ($40-100\%$) and n-tag events for $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Also shown for comparison are the $\bar{p} / p$ for minimum bias $p+p$ collisions. The boxes are the systematic errors. The ratios for n-tag events are shifted by 0.05 units in rapidity and those for $p+p$ collisions by -0.05 units in rapidity for clarity of presentation.

Variation of double ratio $(\pi^{-} / \pi^{+})_{\scriptsize{\mbox{n-tag}}}/(\pi^{-} / \pi^{+})_{40-100\%}$ and $(\bar{p} / p)_{\scriptsize{\mbox{n-tag}}}/(\bar{p} / p)_{40-100\%}$ with rapidity for $2.5 < p_{T} < 10$ GeV/c for $d+Au$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. The boxes are the systematic errors.

K0sK0s correlation function

K0sK0s theoretical correlation function

K0sK0s correlation function with fit functions

K0sK0s radius versus pair purity

K0sK0s lambda versus pair purity

K0sK0s radius versus Mean KT

K0sK0s radius versus MT

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $p_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

$v_2$ vs $KE_T$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${p_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

${v_2}/{n_q}$ vs ${KE_T}/{n_q}$ for identified particle species obtained in minimum bias Au+Au collisions.

Differential cross section for XI- production.

Differential cross section for XI(1530)0 production.

Differential cross section for XI(1530)0 production.

Differential cross section for LAMBDA production.

Differential cross section for LAMBDA production.

Differential cross section for XI- production.

Mean number per hadronic event in the restricted PT and ETARAP phase space.

Mean number per hadronic event extrapolated to the full phase space.

Non photonic electron yield in minimum bias D+AU collisions versus $p_{T}$.

Non photonic electron yield in AU+AU collisions versus PT, for a centrality range of 40-80% To obtain a differential cross-section in mb/(GeV2), multiply listed data by 30 Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 40-80%.

Non photonic electron yield in AU+AU collisions versus PT, for a centrality range of 10-40% To obtain a differential cross-section in mb/(GeV2), multiply listed data by 30 Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 10-40%.

Non photonic electron yield in AU+AU collisions versus PT, for a centrality range of 0-5% To obtain a differential cross-section in mb/(GeV2), multiply listed data by 30 Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Non photonic electron yield in Au+Au collisions versus $p_{T}$, for a centrality range of 0-5%.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in minimum bias D+AU reactions Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in minimum bias d+Au reactions.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in AU+AU reactions in the centrality range of 0-5% Note that, in addition to the statistical and systematical errors, there is a normalization error on the value, given in the second column.

Nuclear modification factor for non-photonic electrons in Au+Au reactions in the centrality range of 0-5%.

Corrected mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) pT spectra for $K^{+}$, $K^{−}$, $K^{0}_{S}$, Λ, Ξ, and Ω. Λ spectra that have been corrected for feed-down are shown as open symbols in the Λ panel. The dashed lines are fits using Equation 11 except for the $\Omega+\overline{\Omega}$ where the fit uses Equation 9. The error bars displayed include systematic errors while the fits were done using statistical errors only for all species except the charged kaons.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) ratios of $\overline{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ to $\Xi^{-}$ vs $p_{T}$. The dashed lines in 10(b) and 10(c) are the errorweighted means over the measured $p_{T}$ range, 0.882±0.017 for $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$, 0.921±0.062 for $\overline{\Xi}/\Xi$. Figure 10(a) shows the $p_{T}$ averaged ratio for our measured species compared with measurements from Au+Au. The error bars are statistical only. The dashed line in 10(a) is at unity for reference.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) ratios of $\overline{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ to $\Xi^{-}$ vs $p_{T}$. The dashed lines in 10(b) and 10(c) are the errorweighted means over the measured $p_{T}$ range, 0.882±0.017 for $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$, 0.921±0.062 for $\overline{\Xi}/\Xi$. Figure 10(a) shows the $p_{T}$ averaged ratio for our measured species compared with measurements from Au+Au. The error bars are statistical only. The dashed line in 10(a) is at unity for reference.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.5) ratios of $\overline{\Lambda}$ to $\Lambda$ and $\overline{\Xi}^{+}$ to $\Xi^{-}$ vs $p_{T}$. The dashed lines in 10(b) and 10(c) are the errorweighted means over the measured $p_{T}$ range, 0.882±0.017 for $\overline{\Lambda}/\Lambda$, 0.921±0.062 for $\overline{\Xi}/\Xi$. Figure 10(a) shows the $p_{T}$ averaged ratio for our measured species compared with measurements from Au+Au. The error bars are statistical only. The dashed line in 10(a) is at unity for reference.

⟨$p_{T}$⟩ vs particle mass for different particles measured by STAR. Error bars include systematic errors. The ISR parameterization is given in reference [32]

⟨$p_{T}$⟩ vs charged multiplicity for $K^{+}$, $K^{−}$, $K^{0}_{S}$, $\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$, and $\Xi+\overline{\Xi}$. The points for $\Xi+\overline{\Xi}$ have been determined using only the measured region. The error bars are statistical only. See text for more details.

Ratios of multiplicity binned spectra to minimum bias spectra ($R_{pp}$) for $K^{0}_{S}$ and Λ and the ratio of the Λ spectrum to the $K^{0}_{S}$ spectrum in each multiplicity bin. See text for further details.

Ratios of multiplicity binned spectra to minimum bias spectra ($R_{pp}$) for $K^{0}_{S}$ and Λ and the ratio of the Λ spectrum to the $K^{0}_{S}$ spectrum in each multiplicity bin. See text for further details.

Ratios of multiplicity binned spectra to minimum bias spectra ($R_{pp}$) for $K^{0}_{S}$ and Λ and the ratio of the Λ spectrum to the $K^{0}_{S}$ spectrum in each multiplicity bin. See text for further details.

Parameters of ratio data to statistical model fit using THERMUS. Filled circles are ratios from $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV collisions in STAR. Solid lines are the results from the statis- tical model fit. All ratios to the left of the vertical line were used in the fit. The $(\Omega^{-}+\overline{\Omega^{+}})/\Xi^{-}$ ratio was then predicted from the fit results. The dashed lines in the lower panel are guides for the eye at 1 σ.

Parameters of ratio data to statistical model fit using THERMUS. Filled circles are ratios from $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV collisions in STAR. Solid lines are the results from the statis- tical model fit. All ratios to the left of the vertical line were used in the fit. The $(\Omega^{-}+\overline{\Omega^{+}})/\Xi^{-}$ ratio was then predicted from the fit results. The dashed lines in the lower panel are guides for the eye at 1 σ.

FIG. 2: a) left side: The correlation data for the ratio of the histograms of same-event-pairs to mixed-event-pairs for unlike-sign charged pairs, shown in a two-dimensional (2-D) perspective plot $\Delta\phi$ - $\Delta\eta$. The plot was normalized to a mean of 1. b) right side: The similar correlation data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 3: a) left side: Folded correlation data for unlike-sign charge pairs on $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ based on demonstrated symmetries in the data. This increases the statistics in a typical bin by a factor of four. Henceforth we will be dealing with folded data only. b) right side: Similar folded data for like-sign charge pairs.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 4: “(Color online)”a) left side: The 2 dimensional (2-D) approximately gaussian signal shape equation (4) from the fit to the normalized and folded unlike-sign charge pairs signal data. b) right side: The unlike-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjoining signal function on the left side.

FIG. 5 :“(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 5: “(Color online)”a) left side: A perspective plot of the fit to the 2-D like-sign charge pairs signal shape of equation (5). b) right side: Like-sign charge pairs signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left side.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 6: “(Color online)”a) left side: The charge dependent (CD) signal shape is a 2 dimensional (2-D) approximate gaussian which is symmetrical. The average gaussian width is 27.5$^{\circ}$ $\pm$ 3.2$^{\circ}$ (0.48 $\pm$ 0.056 rad) both in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$. Thus we are observing a greater probability for unlike-sign charge pairs of particles than for like-sign charge pairs emitted randomly on 2-D $\eta\phi$ directions. b) right side: The CD signal data corresponding to the adjacent signal fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 7: “(Color online)”a) left side: The fit to the charge independent (CI) signal shape which is the sum of the fits of like-sign plus unlike-sign charge pairs signals. The 2-D gaussian equivalent RMS signal has a $\Delta\phi$ width of about 32$^{\circ}$ (0.52 rad), and $\Delta\eta$ width of about 66$^{\circ}$ (1.15 rad) which is about double the $\Delta\phi$ width. b) right side: The CI signal data corresponding to the adjacent fit on the left.

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).

FIG. 8: a) left side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with the lower range of elliptic flow amplitude and the best $\chi^2$ (the same as Figure 7b) plotted as a 2-D perspective plot on $\Delta\phi$ vs. $\Delta\eta$. b) right side: The charge independent (CI) signal data with our maximum elliptic flow amplitude used in our analysis ($\chi^2$ was worse by 1$\sigma$).