This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Parton collisional effect on the conversion of geometry eccentricities into momentum anisotropies in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

Long Ma [email protected] Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China    Guo-Liang Ma [email protected] Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China    Yu-Gang Ma [email protected] Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Institute of Modern Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
Abstract

We explore parton collisional effects on the conversion of geometry eccentricities into azimuthal anisotropies in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV using a multi-phase transport model. The initial eccentricity εn\varepsilon_{n} (n = 2,3) and flow harmonics vnv_{n} (n = 2,3) are investigated as a function of the number of parton collisions (NcollN_{coll}) during the source evolution of partonic phase. It is found that partonic collisions leads to generate elliptic flow v2v_{2} and triangular flow v3v_{3} in Pb+Pb collisions. On the other hand, partonic collisions also result in an evolution of the eccentricity of geometry. The collisional effect on the flow conversion efficiency is therefore studied. We find that the partons with larger NcollN_{coll} show a lower flow conversion efficiency, which reflect differential behaviors with respect to NcollN_{coll}. It provides an additional insight into the dynamics of the space-momentum transformation during the QGP evolution from a transport model point of view.

pacs:
25.75.-q

I Introduction

In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, at the extreme conditions of high temperature and high baryon density, strongly-interacting quark gluon plasma (QGP) is expected to be created. The pressure gradient of the initial compressed QGP leads to an anisotropic expansion and transfers initial-state spatial anisotropy to the final-state momentum azimuthal anisotropy, which can be measured through momentum information of the final charged hadrons Ollitrault (1992); Voloshin et al. (2008a); Ackermann et al. (2001); Teaney et al. (2001); Romatschke and Romatschke (2007); Luo and Xu (2017); Chen et al. (2018). Characterized by the flow coefficients vnv_{n} (n = 2,3,4), azimuthal anisotropies of the final-state particles are suggested to be sensitive to not only the early stage partonic dynamics but also properties of the source Adams et al. (2004); Adamczyk et al. (2013); Adare et al. (2011); Margutti et al. (2019); Acharya et al. (2019). Experimentally, systematic studies have been performed for vnv_{n} in both large heavy-ion collision systems and small collision systems Abelev et al. (2013); Aad et al. (2013); Chatrchyan et al. (2013); Abelev et al. (2014); Adare et al. (2015); Aidala et al. (2017); Khachatryan et al. (2015); Aidala et al. (2018); Adam et al. (2019). Sizable vnv_{n} observed in experiment indicates that the hot and dense QGP source is like a nearly perfect fluid.

Due to the fluid-like behavior observed for QGP, hydrodynamic models have been widely used to make predictions and are successful in describing flow harmonics at both RHIC and LHC energies Heinz and Snellings (2013); Heinz (2005); Gale et al. (2013); Qiu and Heinz (2012); Song et al. (2011, 2017); Schenke et al. (2011); Alver et al. (2010a). Besides hydrodynamic models, a multiphase transport model (AMPT) is also employed in studies of anisotropic flow in high energy collisions. Including both partonic and hadronic interactions, a multiphase transport model can reasonably reproduce experimental flow measurements in both large and small collision systems Chen et al. (2004); Bzdak and Ma (2018); Nie et al. (2018); Bzdak and Ma (2014); Nagle and Zajc (2018); Han et al. (2011); Koop et al. (2015); Huang et al. (2020).

In recent years, an escape mechanism was proposed challenging the commonly believed hydrodynamical origin of the flow anisotropies He et al. (2016); Lin et al. (2015). It is found that instead of collectivity from partonic interactions, anisotropic parton escape dominates the flow generation in d+Au collision system as well as the semi-central Au+Au collisions. Though parton escape makes considerable contribution, it was also realized that partonic interaction is essential for generating vnv_{n} in strong interacting systems and vnv_{n} from partonic interaction becomes dominant in collision systems with large parton-parton interaction cross-section. Extensive studies have been performed on the harmonic flow, dihadron correlation and energy loss induced by partonic collisions Djordjevic (2006); Adil et al. (2007); Qin et al. (2008); Shin et al. (2010); Ma et al. (2014); Ma and Bzdak (2016); Edmonds et al. (2017).

Theoretically, final flow anisotropy is suggested to be strongly correlated with the initial geometric anisotropy in relativistic heavy-ion collisions Qiu and Heinz (2011); Lacey et al. (2014); Alver and Roland (2010); Derradi de Souza et al. (2012); Alver et al. (2010b); Sorensen (2007); Margutti et al. (2019); Andrade et al. (2006); Petersen et al. (2010). It has been argued that the magnitude and trend of the partonic participant eccentricity εn\varepsilon_{n}(n = 2,3) imply specifically testable predictions for the final flow harmonics Ma and Wang (2011); Ma et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2013). For a deeper understanding of the transport, it is essential to investigate the parton collisional effect on the initial geometric anisotropy as well as the conversion from coordinate space to momentum space which is expected to provide important information about the evolution dynamics of early stage .

In this paper, we present a systematic study of the partonic collision effect on the initial eccentricity and flow anisotropy in high energy Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV, from a multi-phase transport model. Of particular interest are central collisions in which the averaged energy density is relatively higher than in non-central collisions. Furthermore, influences of partonic collision on the transfer of eccentricity anisotropy to flow anisotropy are also investigated. This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, a multiphase transport (AMPT) model is briefly introduced. Results and discussion are presented In Sec. III. A summary is given in Sec. IV.

II Model setup

The multi-phase transport model (AMPT) is widely used for studying transport dynamics in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The model consists of four main components: the initial condition, partonic interaction, hadronization (quark coalescence), and hadronic interactions Zhang et al. (2000); Lin et al. (2005). Fluctuating initial conditions including minijet partons and soft string excitations are generated from the Heavy Ion Jet Interaction Generator (HIJING) model Wang and Gyulassy (1991). In the string melting scenario, both excited strings and minijet partons are melted into partons, i.e. decomposed into constituent quarks according to their flavor and spin structures. The following evolution of partonic matter is described by a parton cascade model - Zhang’s parton cascade (ZPC) model Zhang (1998), which includes elastic partonic scatterings at present. Partons stop interacting when no parton pairs can be found within the interaction range of pQCD cross section. The transition from the partonic matter to the hadronic matter is achieved using a simple quark coalescence model which combines partons into hadrons. The final-stage hadronic interactions are modeled by a relativistic transport model (ART) including both elastic and inelastic scattering descriptions for baryon-baryon, baryon-meson and meson-meson interactions Li and Ko (1995).

At the parton cascade stage, the differential parton-parton elastic scattering cross section is formularized based on the leading order pQCD gluon-gluon interaction:

dσdt=9παs22(1+μ2s)1(tμ2)2,\frac{d\sigma}{dt}=\frac{9\pi\alpha^{2}_{s}}{2}(1+\frac{\mu^{2}}{s})\frac{1}{(t-\mu^{2})^{2}}, (1)

where αs\alpha_{s} is the strong coupling constant, ss and tt are the usual Mandelstam variables and μ\mu is the Debye screening mass in partonic matter. Previous studies show that by setting proper parton scattering cross sections, AMPT model with string melting scenario has been successful in describing many experimental results in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and LHC energies Han et al. (2011); Ma et al. (2014); Zhou et al. (2016); Nie and Ma (2014); Xu et al. (2016); Wang et al. (2019); Jin et al. (2018); Xu et al. (2018).

In this study, we employ the string melting version of the AMPT model to focus on the partonic phase only. The parton cross section is set to be 3 mb according to Ref. Lin (2014) which reasonably reproduces the experimental results. Pb+Pb collision events are generated over a wide centrality range at center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV. Table. 1 shows the definition of centrality classes and the corresponding mean number of participant nucleons.

Table 1: Centrality classes of the AMPT events in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV.
Centrality percentile Impact parameter b(fm) Npart\left\langle{N_{part}}\right\rangle
0%\% - 10%\% 0.0 - 4.9 362.8
10%\% - 20%\% 4.9 - 7.0 263.5
20%\% - 30%\% 7.0 - 8.6 188.2
30%\% - 40%\% 8.6 - 10.0 131.8
40%\% - 50%\% 10.0 - 11.2 86.1
50%\% - 60%\% 11.2 - 12.3 53.8

III Results and Discussion

III.1 Parton collisions in Pb+Pb collisions

We trace the collisional history of the initially produced partons during the source evolution in Pb+Pb collisions. The total number of parton-parton scatterings suffered by each parton before its freezing out is difined as NcollN_{coll}.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (Color online) Probability distributions of NcollN_{coll} for the freezeout partons for Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV in AMPT simulation. Results are shown for six centrality classes.

Fig. 1 shows the NcollN_{coll} distributions of the freezeout partons for different centrality classes. As expected, partons in central Pb+Pb collisions on average suffer more partonic collisions than non-central collisions before freezing out as the energy density is higher in more central collisions. The probability distribution shows a non-monotonic NcollN_{coll} dependence in central collisions which is different from that of the peripheral collisions. A peak around NcollN_{coll} \sim 6 is observed for the 0-10%\% most central collisions. The average number of NcollN_{coll} in 0-10%\% centrality is found to be roughly three times as large as that in 40-60%\% centrality. It indicates that the fraction of partons which never collided with other partons decreases from peripheral to central collision class.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (Color online) Distributions of initial partons (upper panels) and freezeout partons (lower panels) for different NcollN_{coll} intervals in the transverse plane for the most central (b = 0 fm) Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV.
Refer to caption
Figure 3: (Color online) Same as Fig. 2 but for b = 11.5 fm.

We study in particular the spatial evolution of the initial partons in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Figs. 2 and  3 present the two-dimensional distributions of the initial partons [plots (a)-(c)] and freezeout partons [plots (d)-(f)] in central and peripheral Pb+Pb collisions, where the initial parton distributions in the collision zone are compared with the final parton distributions for different NcollN_{coll} intervals. We find that partons suffering small NcollN_{coll} tend to distribute in the outer region close to the source surface whereas partons with large NcollN_{coll} are seen concentrating more in the central area. This is consistent with the expectation that due to the energy density distribution of the bulk matter, outgoing partons from the inner source suffers more collisions when passing through the bulk matter than partons close to the source surface.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: (Color online) The NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll} probability distributions of the “associated parton” collided with different NcollselN^{sel}_{coll} intervals of selected partons for two centrality classes of 50-60%\% (a) and 0-10%\% (b) in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV. Panel (c) shows the Ncollassoc\langle N^{assoc}_{coll}\rangle as functions of Ncollsel\langle N^{sel}_{coll}\rangle for the two centrality classes.

We further investigate the partonic collision history of some selected partons before their freezing out. For a selected parton, we define those partons which collided with the selected parton during its evolution as “associated partons” of the selected parton. The numbers of parton collisions for the selected parton and associated parton are defined as NcollselN^{sel}_{coll} and NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll}, respectively. Fig. 4 (a) and (b) show the NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll} probability distributions for five NcollselN^{sel}_{coll} intervals of the selected partons for peripheral and central Pb+Pb collisions, respectively. One can find that for a selected freezeout parton which suffered NcollselN^{sel}_{coll} collisions, the number of collisions that its associated partons suffer (NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll}) can be distributed over a wide range. For example, for a selected parton with a small NcollselN^{sel}_{coll}, a long-tailed NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll} distribution can be observed suggesting that many large-NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll} partons play an important role in the collisional history of small-NcollselN^{sel}_{coll} parton. We quantitatively extract the mean value of NcollassocN^{assoc}_{coll} for each NcollselN^{sel}_{coll} intervals and plot the relations as shown in Fig. 4(c). One can find that Ncollassoc\langle N^{assoc}_{coll}\rangle is larger than Ncollsel\langle N^{sel}_{coll}\rangle at small Ncollsel\langle N^{sel}_{coll}\rangle, which indicates the partons which suffer a small number of collisions prefer to collide with the partons which suffer a larger number of collisions. But with the increasing of Ncollsel\langle N^{sel}_{coll}\rangle, Ncollassoc\langle N^{assoc}_{coll}\rangle tends to be close to and then less than Ncollsel\langle N^{sel}_{coll}\rangle. It indicates that the partons which suffer a large number of collisions prefer to collide with the partons which suffer a small number of collisions. In this sense, all partons are complemented with each other during the whole evolution of the partonic phase in Pb+Pb collisions.

III.2 Collisional effect on the flow anisotropy

Azimuthal anisotropy coefficients vnv_{n} (n = 2,3..) are typically used to characterize the different orders of harmonic flow of the collision system. In simulation studies, one can calculate vnv_{n} with respect to the participant plane of the collision event Voloshin et al. (2008b). The nnth-order participant plane angle ψn\psi_{n} for a single event is in the form:

ψn{PP}=1n[arctanr2sin(nφPP)r2cos(nφPP)+π],\psi_{n}\left\{PP\right\}=\frac{1}{n}\left[\arctan\frac{\left\langle{r^{2}\sin(n\varphi_{PP})}\right\rangle}{\left\langle{r^{2}\cos(n\varphi_{PP})}\right\rangle}+\pi\right], (2)

where rr and φPP\varphi_{PP} are the position and azimuthal angle of each parton in the transverse plane in the initial stage of AMPT and the bracket \langle...\rangle denotes per-event average. Then vnv_{n} with respect to the participant plane ψn{PP}\psi_{n}\left\{PP\right\} is defined as

vn{PP}=cos[n(ϕψn{PP})],v_{n}\left\{PP\right\}=\left\langle cos[n(\phi-\psi_{n}\left\{PP\right\})]\right\rangle, (3)

where ϕ\phi in this study is the azimuthal angle of parton in the momentum space, and the average \langle\cdots\rangle denotes event average. The above method for vnv_{n} calculation is referred to as participant plane method. Participant plane method takes into account initial geometric fluctuation effect, and has been widely used in many studies Derradi de Souza et al. (2012).

Besides the participant plane method, the multi-particle cumulant method was also proposed for studying flow via particle correlations. It has been successfully used in both model and experimental studies to quantified the harmonic flow Bilandzic et al. (2011); Zhou et al. (2016); Abelev et al. (2014). Usually, the two- and four-particle cumulants can be written as

Cn{2}=2,Cn{4}=4222.C_{n}\left\{2\right\}=\langle\langle 2\rangle\rangle,C_{n}\left\{4\right\}=\langle\langle 4\rangle\rangle-2\langle\langle 2\rangle\rangle^{2}. (4)

The integral flow can be derived directly from two- and four-particle cumulants through the following equations

vn{2}=Cn{2},vn{4}=Cn{4}4.v_{n}\left\{2\right\}=\sqrt{C_{n}\left\{2\right\}},v_{n}\left\{4\right\}=\sqrt[4]{-C_{n}\left\{4\right\}}. (5)

and estimation of differential flow is according to

vn{2}=dn{2}cn{2},vn{4}=dn{4}cn{4}3/4v^{{}^{\prime}}_{n}\left\{2\right\}=\frac{d_{n}\left\{2\right\}}{\sqrt{c_{n}\left\{2\right\}}},v^{{}^{\prime}}_{n}\left\{4\right\}=\frac{d_{n}\left\{4\right\}}{-c_{n}\left\{4\right\}^{3/4}} (6)

where the dn{2}d_{n}\left\{2\right\} and dn{4}d_{n}\left\{4\right\} are the two- and four-particle differential cumulants as defined in Ref. Bilandzic et al. (2011).

By extracting the parton information in AMPT simulation, we study the collisional effects on the development of partonic flow and eccentricity in the early stage of the heavy-ion collisions.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: (Color online) vnfv_{n}^{f} (n = 2,3) of final freezeout partons from participant plane method as a function of NcollN_{coll} for Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV in the AMPT model. Results are shown for different centality classes.

Fig. 5 shows the simulation results of the anisotropic flow of freezeout partons as a function of NcollN_{coll} in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV. The second and third order flow harmonics of the freezeout partons are defined as v2fv^{f}_{2} and v3fv^{f}_{3} respectively. Similar to the probablity distribution of NcollN_{coll}, v2fv^{f}_{2} shows non-monotonic NcollN_{coll} dependence for central collisions. A maximum value of v2fv^{f}_{2} around NcollN_{coll} \sim 5 is observed for 0-10%\% centrality. For the periphral collisions, v2fv^{f}_{2} shows a similar decreasing trend and is comparably much larger in magnitude than that of the central collisions in magnitude. It generally shows that partons with larger NcollN_{coll} tends to have smaller v2fv^{f}_{2} indicating that with increasing NcollN_{coll} the momentum azimuthal distribution of freezeout partons tend to be isotropic. This could be because large NcollN_{coll} partons come mostly from the center where the effective gradients are small. In other words, large NcollN_{coll} partons are less sensitive to the geometry than small NcollN_{coll} partons which are closer to the surface. The same conclusion also holds for v3fv^{f}_{3} but which originates basically from the initial-state fluctuations.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: (Color online) v2fv^{f}_{2} of final freezeout partons from two-particle (v2{2}v_{2}\left\{2\right\}) and four-particle (v2{4}v_{2}\left\{4\right\}) cumulant method as a function of NcollN_{coll} for Pb+Pb collisions at sNN\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV in the AMPT model. Comparisons are made with participant plane method for different centrality classes.

Besides the participant plane method, we further studied vnfv^{f}_{n} based on multi-particle cumulant methods. Fig. 6 shows the two-particle (v2{2}v_{2}\left\{2\right\}) and four-particle (v2{4}v_{2}\left\{4\right\}) cumulant flow results. Comparisons are made with the results from the participant plane method. It is generally found that v2fv^{f}_{2} from cumulant methods are similar in trend with the v2fv^{f}_{2} results from participant plane method. An ordering of v2{2}>v2{part}>v2{4}v_{2}\left\{2\right\}>v_{2}\left\{part\right\}>v_{2}\left\{4\right\} is observed, because v2{2}v_{2}\left\{2\right\} involves flow fluctuations but v2{4}v_{2}\left\{4\right\} suppresses non-flow contributions.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: (Color online) vniv^{i}_{n} of initial state partons and vnfv^{f}_{n} of final freezeout partons as a function of impact parameter for different NcollN_{coll} intervals.

Towards a more quantitative study, we compare the flow anisotropies of the initial partons (vniv^{i}_{n}) and final freezeout partons (vnfv^{f}_{n}) for n = 2,3. Note that the averaged vnv_{n} for all the initial partons is zero due to the isotropy of initial azimuthal distribution in the AMPT model. As can be seen in Fig. 7, showing the change of vnv_{n} from the initial to the final stage of the partonic evolution, the parton-parton collisions generally make v2v_{2} and v3v_{3} increase for different NcollN_{coll} regions. For the partons with a larger number of NcollN_{coll}, the change of v2v_{2} and v3v_{3} is smaller, since they are more probably located at the center of the source where more collisions may randomize their motion.

Refer to caption
Figure 8: (Color online) The AMPT results of Δ\Deltavn=vnfvniv_{n}=v^{f}_{n}-v^{i}_{n} (n = 2,3) as a function of NcollN_{coll}, where the upper panels show Δ\Deltavnv_{n} from participant plane method and the lower panels show Δ\Deltavnv_{n} from two-particle cumulant methods.

In order to quantitatively study the collisional effect on the flow harmonics, we examine the change of parton vnv_{n} after NcollN_{coll} collisions, i.e. Δ\Deltavnv_{n} = vnfv^{f}_{n} - vniv^{i}_{n}. Fig. 8 shows the Δ\Deltavnv_{n} (n = 2,3) in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of NcollN_{coll}. Results are compared for different flow methods. Significant centrality dependence can be seen for Δ\Deltavnv_{n}. It is interesting to see that in central collisions Δ\Deltav2v_{2} shows non-monotonic NcollN_{coll} dependence whereas Δ\Deltav3v_{3} presents monotonic NcollN_{coll} dependence. As shown in Fig. 7, the initial intrinsic parton vnv_{n} is quite tiny, the gain in vnv_{n} is primarily due to the partonic scatterings throughout the source evolution. In general, Δ\Deltavnv_{n} decreases with increasing of NcollN_{coll} indicating that small NcollN_{coll} partons contribute to most of the flow anisotropies.

III.3 Collisional effect on the initial eccentricity

Initial geometry anisotropy of the QGP matter is a main source responsible for generating the final flow anisotropy in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Thus, it is important to study the partonic effect on the initial spatial anisotropy. In nuclear-nuclear collisions, the spatial anisotropy of the collision zone in the transverse plane (perpendicular to the beam direction) can be characterized by the eccentricity εn\varepsilon_{n}. It has been argued that the magnitude and trend of the eccentricity imply testable predictions for final-state hadronic flow Miller and Snellings (2003); Lacey et al. (2011); Drescher and Nara (2007); Broniowski et al. (2007).

The definition of the nnth-order harmonic eccentricity in the coordinate space of the participant nucleons or partons for single collision event is in the form:

εn{part}=rncos(nφ)2+rnsin(nφ)2rn,\varepsilon_{n}\left\{part\right\}=\frac{{\sqrt{\left\langle{r^{n}\cos(n\varphi)}\right\rangle^{2}+\left\langle{r^{n}\sin(n\varphi)}\right\rangle^{2}}}}{{\left\langle{r^{n}}\right\rangle}}, (7)

where rr and φ\varphi are position and azimuthal angle of each nucleon or parton in the transverse plane. εn{part}\varepsilon_{n}\left\{part\right\} characterizes the eccentricity through the distribution of participant nucleons or partons which naturally contains event-by-event fluctuation. εn{part}\varepsilon_{n}\left\{part\right\} defined in this way is usually named as “participant eccentricity”.

Refer to caption
Figure 9: (Color online) ε2i,f{part}\varepsilon_{2}^{i,f}\left\{part\right\} (upper panels) and ε3i,f{part}\varepsilon_{3}^{i,f}\left\{part\right\} (lower panels) of the initial state and final freezeout partons as a function of impact parameter for Pb+Pb collisions at SNN\sqrt{S_{NN}} = 5.02 TeV. Simulation results are shown for different NcollN_{coll} intervals.

We study the parton collisional effects on the partonic eccentricity in Pb+Pb collisions. Fig. 9 shows the AMPT results of the second and third order eccentricities calculated with Eq. (7). Eccentricities of the initial and final freezeout partons are denoted as εni{part}\varepsilon^{i}_{n}\left\{part\right\} and εnf{part}\varepsilon^{f}_{n}\left\{part\right\} respectively. Similarly to the flow harmonics, partonic scattering is found to play an important role in the evolution of eccentricities. εn\varepsilon_{n} of the freezeout partons is larger at larger NcollN_{coll}. One can see in the figures that parton collisions generally reduce εn\varepsilon_{n} which is consistent with our expectation - during the expansion of the QGP source, the transition of the initial pressure gradient from coordinate space to the momentum space will significantly diminish the spatial anisotropy.

Refer to caption
Figure 10: (Color online) The AMPT results of Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n}=εnf{part}\varepsilon^{f}_{n}\left\{part\right\} - εni{part}\varepsilon^{i}_{n}\left\{part\right\} (n=2,3) as a function of NcollN_{coll} for different centrality classes.

In addition, we studied Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n}=εnf{part}\varepsilon^{f}_{n}\left\{part\right\} - εni{part}\varepsilon^{i}_{n}\left\{part\right\} as a function of the number of parton collisions for different centrality classes. The results for second and third order harmonics are shown in Fig. 10 (a) and (b), respectively. We find that Δ\Deltaε2\varepsilon_{2} and Δ\Deltaε3\varepsilon_{3} exhibit clear decreasing NcollN_{coll} dependences. Quantitative difference are seen between the results for Δ\Deltaε2\varepsilon_{2} and Δ\Deltaε3\varepsilon_{3} , because ε3\varepsilon_{3} is purely driven by initial fluctuations but ε2\varepsilon_{2} is driven by initial geometry.

III.4 Collisional effect on the flow response to the eccentricity

Impressive progress has been made in studying the final-state flow response to the initial eccentricity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions Petersen et al. (2012); Niemi et al. (2013). The success of hydrodynamical models tells us that elliptic flow v2v_{2} and triangular flow v3v_{3} are mainly driven by the linear response to the initial ellipticity and triangularity of the source geometry. As space-momentum correlation is also expected to be built during the partonic evolution stage, quantitative study of the partonic flow response in a event-by-event transport model is also important for understanding the development of final flow .

Refer to caption
Figure 11: (Color online) Conversion efficiency Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} for n=2 (left panel) and n=3 (right panel) as a function of NcollN_{coll} for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV.
Refer to caption
Figure 12: (Color online) Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/εni\varepsilon^{i}_{n} for n=2 (left panel) and n=3 (right panel) as a function of NcollN_{coll} for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, where εni\varepsilon^{i}_{n} is the initial partonic eccentricity.

Based on the AMPT model simulations, we studied NcollN_{coll} effects on the flow response by looking into the ratio Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n}. Since Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} (n = 2,3) are negative and Δ\Deltavnv_{n} (n = 2,3) are positive over all the NcollN_{coll} classes, one could take the absolute value of Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} as an estimation of the flow conversion efficiency. Fig. 11 and  12 show the results for the flow conversion efficiency with respect to Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} and εni\varepsilon^{i}_{n} as a function of NcollN_{coll}. Considering absolute value, results in both figures show similar trend. The ratio of Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} presents obvious NcollN_{coll} dependences for different centrality classes. We observe that for both elliptic and triangular flow the conversion efficiency is strongest in the collision class of 0-10%. It indicates that more collisions in more central collisions help transfer εn\varepsilon_{n} into vnv_{n}, which is a normal concept about the flow conversion efficiency which is an integral effect of all NcollN_{coll} partons. For the differential NcollN_{coll} dependence, Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} (n = 2,3) presents a smooth increasing trend from small to large NcollN_{coll}, which indicates that the larger NcollN_{coll} is, the lower the flow conversion efficiency is. The feature seems against common sense, but it can be understood through the above results that parton collisional contribution to flow change Δ\Deltavnv_{n} is more significant at smaller NcollN_{coll} whereas that to eccentricity change Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} is more significant at larger NcollN_{coll}, i.e. changes of Δ\Deltavnv_{n} and Δ\Deltaεn\varepsilon_{n} are not in sync with respect to NcollN_{coll}. But since small-NcollN_{coll} and large-NcollN_{coll} partons are complemented with each other during the evolution, it is actually hard to fairly say which should be given the first credit to the generation of the final flow. In the limit of long evolution time, final eccentricity εnf\varepsilon^{f}_{n} is supposed to approach zero, and we observe the similar results for Δ\Deltavnv_{n}/εni\varepsilon^{i}_{n} except with the opposite sign, as shown in Fig.  12.

IV Summary

In summary, we studied initial partonic flow anisotropy (vnv_{n}) and spatial anisotropy (εn\varepsilon_{n}) in Pb+Pb collisions at center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV using a multi-phase transport model. By tracing the partonic cascade history in AMPT, the effect of the parton-parton collisions was intensively investigated. We find that partonic collision plays an important role in the development of flow anisotropies in heavy-ion collisions. We find that the partons which suffer a small number of collisions prefer to collide with the partons which suffer a larger number of collisions, and vice versa. The change of vnv_{n} decreases with increasing of NcollN_{coll} indicating that small NcollN_{coll} partons contribute to most of the flow anisotropies. However, the change of eccentricity is more significant for the large-NcollN_{coll} partons. As a result, the partons with larger NcollN_{coll} show a lower flow conversion efficiency, which reflect the differential behaviors of the flow conversion efficiency with respect to NcollN_{coll}. However, since small-NcollN_{coll} and large-NcollN_{coll} partons are always complemented with each other, it is hard to rank their roles in generating flow.

However, one has to be aware that although the AMPT model provides an effective tool to simulate and study parton-parton collisions in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, the initial partonic source configured using constituent quarks in the string-melting scenario could introduce some intrinsic bias into our study, since the created QGP should consist of both current quarks and gluons. In addition, the approximation of the model treatment of the parton interactions is in a way analogous to gluon-gluon elastic interaction based on the leading order pQCD cross section which could also introduce some bias and lead to an incomplete or improper description, since the QGP evolution involves non-perturbative QCD processes. Nevertheless, such a simplified picture of the partonic evolution in this model is expected to provide some guides to the study of the effect on the conversion rules of the initial eccentricity to the final flow anisotropy.

As anisotropic flow of initial partons will transfer to the final hadrons which are formed from the coalescence of freeze-out quarks in the transport model, further study by tracing the hadronization and hadronic evolution of particles would be important for fully understanding the complete behavior of the anisotropic flow. We postpone such investigations for our future study.

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Bzdak and Z. -W. Lin for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contracts No. 11961131011, No. 11890710, No.11890714, No.11835002, No.11421505, No.11905034, the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH002, the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. XDB34030000, and the Guangdong Major Project of Basic and Applied Basic Research No. 2020B0301030008.

References

  • (1)
  • Ollitrault (1992) J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46, 229 (1992),
  • Voloshin et al. (2008a) S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings (2008a), eprint 0809.2949.
  • Ackermann et al. (2001) K. H. Ackermann et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 402 (2001).
  • Teaney et al. (2001) D. Teaney, J. Lauret, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4783 (2001).
  • Romatschke and Romatschke (2007) P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172301 (2007).
  • Luo and Xu (2017) X. F. Luo and N. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 112 (2017).
  • Chen et al. (2018) J. Chen, D. Keane, Y.-G. Ma, A. Tang, and Z. Xu, Physics Report 760, 1 (2018).
  • Adams et al. (2004) J. Adams, C. Adler, et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 062301 (2004).
  • Adamczyk et al. (2013) L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C88, 014904 (2013).
  • Adare et al. (2011) A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 252301 (2011).
  • Margutti et al. (2019) J. Margutti et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nuclear Physics A 982, 367 (2019).
  • Acharya et al. (2019) S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 142301 (2019).
  • Abelev et al. (2013) B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B719, 18 (2013).
  • Aad et al. (2013) G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 182302 (2013).
  • Chatrchyan et al. (2013) S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 718, 795 (2013).
  • Abelev et al. (2014) B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C90, 054901 (2014).
  • Adare et al. (2015) A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 142301 (2015).
  • Aidala et al. (2017) C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 95, 034910 (2017).
  • Khachatryan et al. (2015) V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 012301 (2015).
  • Aidala et al. (2018) C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 062302 (2018).
  • Adam et al. (2019) J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 172301 (2019).
  • Heinz and Snellings (2013) U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 63, 123 (2013).
  • Heinz (2005) U. Heinz, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 31, S717 (2005).
  • Gale et al. (2013) C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1340011 (2013).
  • Qiu and Heinz (2012) Z. Qiu and U. Heinz, AIP Conf. Proc. 1441, 774 (2012), eprint 1108.1714.
  • Song et al. (2011) H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 192301 (2011).
  • Song et al. (2017) H. Song, Y. Zhou, and K. Gajdosova, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 7 (2017).
  • Schenke et al. (2011) B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 042301 (2011).
  • Alver et al. (2010a) B. H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C82, 034913 (2010a).
  • Chen et al. (2004) L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and Z.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 69, 031901 (2004).
  • Bzdak and Ma (2018) A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 781, 117 (2018).
  • Nie et al. (2018) M.-W. Nie, P. Huo, J. Jia, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034903 (2018).
  • Bzdak and Ma (2014) A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 252301 (2014).
  • Nagle and Zajc (2018) J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 68, 211 (2018).
  • Han et al. (2011) L. X. Han, G. L. Ma, Y. G. Ma, X. Z. Cai, J. H. Chen, S. Zhang, and C. Zhong, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064907 (2011).
  • Koop et al. (2015) J. O. Koop, A. Adare, D. McGlinchey, and J. Nagle, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054903 (2015).
  • Huang et al. (2020) S. Huang, Z. Chen, W. Li, and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 101, 021901 (2020).
  • He et al. (2016) L. He, T. Edmonds, Z.-W. Lin, F. Liu, D. Molnar, and F. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 753, 506 (2016).
  • Lin et al. (2015) Z.-W. Lin, L. He, T. Edmonds, F. Liu, D. Molnar, and F. Wang, arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.06465 (2015).
  • Djordjevic (2006) M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 74, 064907 (2006).
  • Adil et al. (2007) A. Adil, M. Gyulassy, W. Horowitz, and S. Wicks, Phys. Rev. C 75, 044906 (2007).
  • Qin et al. (2008) G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, G. D. Moore, and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 072301 (2008).
  • Shin et al. (2010) G. R. Shin, S. A. Bass, and B. Müller, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 37, 105112 (2010).
  • Ma et al. (2014) L. Ma, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044907 (2014).
  • Ma and Bzdak (2016) G.-L. Ma and A. Bzdak, Nuclear Physics A 956, 745 (2016).
  • Edmonds et al. (2017) T. Edmonds, Q. Li, and F. Wang, Nuclear Physics A 966, 124 (2017).
  • Qiu and Heinz (2011) Z. Qiu and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C84, 024911 (2011).
  • Lacey et al. (2014) R. A. Lacey, A. Taranenko, J. Jia, D. Reynolds, N. N. Ajitanand, J. M. Alexander, Y. Gu, and A. Mwai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 082302 (2014).
  • Alver and Roland (2010) B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010).
  • Derradi de Souza et al. (2012) R. Derradi de Souza, J. Takahashi, T. Kodama, and P. Sorensen, Phys. Rev. C85, 054909 (2012), eprint 1110.5698.
  • Alver et al. (2010b) B. Alver et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 142301 (2010b).
  • Sorensen (2007) P. Sorensen, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 34, S897 (2007).
  • Andrade et al. (2006) R. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, T. Kodama, and O. Socolowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 202302 (2006).
  • Petersen et al. (2010) H. Petersen, G.-Y. Qin, S. A. Bass, and B. Müller, Phys. Rev. C 82, 041901 (2010).
  • Ma and Wang (2011) G.-L. Ma and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 162301 (2011).
  • Ma et al. (2016) L. Ma, G. L. Ma, and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044915 (2016).
  • Wang et al. (2013) J. Wang, Y. G. Ma, G. Q. Zhang, D. Q. Fang, L. X. Han, and W. Q. Shen, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 24, 030501 (2013).
  • Zhang et al. (2000) B. Zhang, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, and Z. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 61, 067901 (2000).
  • Lin et al. (2005) Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005).
  • Wang and Gyulassy (1991) X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501 (1991).
  • Zhang (1998) B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 109, 193 (1998).
  • Li and Ko (1995) B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037 (1995).
  • Zhou et al. (2016) Y. Zhou, K. Xiao, Z. Feng, F. Liu, and R. Snellings, Phys. Rev. C93, 034909 (2016).
  • Nie and Ma (2014) M. W. Nie and G. L. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 37, 100519 (2014).
  • Xu et al. (2016) Y. F. Xu, Y. J. Ye, J. H. Chen, Y. G. Ma, S. Zhang, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 27, 87 (2016).
  • Wang et al. (2019) H. Wang, J. H. Chen, Y. G. Ma, et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 30, 185 (2019).
  • Jin et al. (2018) X. H. Jin, J. H. Chen, Y. G. Ma, S. Zhang, C. J. Zhang, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 54 (2018).
  • Xu et al. (2018) Z. W. Xu, S. Zhang, Y. G. Ma, J. H. Chen, and C. Zhong, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 186 (2018).
  • Lin (2014) Z.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 90, 014904 (2014).
  • Voloshin et al. (2008b) S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, A. Tang, and G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B659, 537 (2008b).
  • Bilandzic et al. (2011) A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044913 (2011).
  • Miller and Snellings (2003) M. Miller and R. Snellings (2003), eprint nucl-ex/0312008.
  • Lacey et al. (2011) R. A. Lacey, R. Wei, N. N. Ajitanand, and A. Taranenko, Phys. Rev. C83, 044902 (2011).
  • Drescher and Nara (2007) H.-J. Drescher and Y. Nara, Phys. Rev. C 76, 041903 (2007).
  • Broniowski et al. (2007) W. Broniowski, P. Bozek, and M. Rybczynski, Phys. Rev. C 76, 054905 (2007).
  • Petersen et al. (2012) H. Petersen, R. La Placa, and S. A. Bass, J. Phys. G39, 055102 (2012).
  • Niemi et al. (2013) H. Niemi, G. Denicol, H. Holopainen, and P. Huovinen, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054901 (2013).