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$\sigma$).

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $Corr_{\gamma\,-ch}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $Corr_{\gamma\,-ch}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $\omega_{\gamma}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $\omega_{\gamma}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $v_{dyn}^{real}$ is plotted.

The $v_{dyn}$ and the three terms of $v_{dyn}$ vs $\sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }$ for mixed events. $v_{dyn}^{mixed}$ is plotted.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the same side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the same side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the away-side.

The values of the observable $v_{dyn}^{ch-\gamma}$ for the away-side.

The correlation between positive and negative charged particles measured by the FTPC and photons measured by the PMD using $v_{dyn}$ for real events.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for first order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for first order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for second order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for second order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for third order of m.

$r_{m,1}$ vs multiplicity for third order of m.

The moments $r_{m,1}$(m=1-3) for real and mixed events as a function of order m in a fixed multiplicity bin of 47$\langle \sqrt{\langle N_{ch}\rangle \langle N_{\gamma}\rangle }\langle 54$.

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

Slope parameter T, dN/y, $N_\phi/N_h^-$. Systematic uncertainties on T are 12%, on dN/dy are 12%, and on $N_{\phi}/N_{h^-}$ are 22%.

mT dependence of HBT parameters for high multiplicity (0-12%) collisions in pi+ pi+ channel. They are Coulomb corrected (5 fm Gaussian source assumed), corrected for merging effects ("bad systematic" for STAR-HBT insiders), and corrected for finite-momentum-resolution effects. Systematic errors are estimated by the size of the merging correction and the effect of varying source size used in the Coulomb correction by +/- 1 fm.

For plotting purposes, it is often useful to know what is the average pT or mT for singles and low-Q pairs. These are listed in table below.

Differential elliptic flow of pions for different centrality bins. The systematic uncertainty is smallest for the centrality region with the best reaction plane resolution and is estimated to be 20% for the most central bin, 8% for the mid-central bin, and 22% for the most peripheral bin.

Differential elliptic flow of protons + antiprotons for different centrality bins. The systematic uncertainty is smallest for the centrality region with the best reaction plane resolution and is estimated to be 20% for the most central bin, 8% for the mid-central bin, and 22% for the most peripheral bin.

$<M_{inv}>$ asymmetries, $\eta$ > 0, maximum opening angle 0.2.

$p_T$ asymmetries, $\eta$ < 0, maximum opening angle 0.3.

$<M_{inv}>$ asymmetries, $\eta$ < 0, maximum opening angle 0.3.

$p_T$ asymmetries, $\eta$ > 0,maximum opening angle 0.3.

$<M_{inv}>$ asymmetries, $\eta$ > 0, maximum opening angle 0.3.

$p_T$ asymmetries, $\eta$ < 0, maximum opening angle 0.4.

$<M_{inv}>$ asymmetries, $\eta$ < 0, maximum opening angle 0.4.

$p_T$ asymmetries, $\eta$ > 0, maximum opening angle 0.4.

$<M_{inv}>$ asymmetries, $\eta$ > 0, maximum opening angle 0.4.

$\eta$ asymmetries, maximum opening angle 0.2.

$\eta$ asymmetries, maximum opening angle 0.3.

$\eta$ asymmetries, maximum opening angle 0.4.