Content uploaded by Chunjian Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chunjian Zhang on Feb 13, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
PHYSICAL REVIEW C 105, 024904 (2022)
Higher-order transverse momentum fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions
Somadutta Bhatta ,1Chunjian Zhang ,1and Jiangyong Jia 1,2,*
1Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA
2Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11976, USA
(Received 8 December 2021; accepted 26 January 2022; published 7 February 2022)
In relativistic heavy-ion collisions, the event-by-event mean transverse momentum fluctuations are sensitive
to overlap area and energy density fluctuations in the initial state. We present a framework to calculate pT
fluctuations up to fourth order using standard and subevent methods, which is validated using the HIJING model.
We observe a power-law dependence for cumulants of all orders as a function of charged particle multiplicity
Nch, consistent with a simple independent source picture. The fluctuation in pp collisions is observed to be larger
than for p+Pb, Pb +Pb, and Xe +Xe collisions at the same Nch due to bias in the number of contributing
sources. The short-range correlations are greatly suppressed in the subevent method in comparison to calculations
based on the standard method. This paper provides a baseline for transverse momentum fluctuations without the
presence of final-state effects.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.024904
I. INTRODUCTION
Heavy-ion collisions at ultrarelativistic energies creates a
hot and dense QCD matter whose space-time evolution is
well described by relativistic viscous hydrodynamics [1,2].
Fluctuations of the position of participating nucleons lead to
large event-by-event fluctuations in the initial state of the col-
lision. As the system expands, initial-state fluctuations survive
various stages of system evolution and influence the final-state
observables [3–5]. Within hydrodynamic model framework,
the average transverse momentum pTin each event depends
on the initial energy density and is inversely related to the
size of overlap region area [6–9]. The variance of the pTand
the initial overlap size Ris expected to have a simple rela-
tion σ(pT)/pT=(pT−pT)2/pT∝σ(R)/R[10].
The pTfluctuations can be quantified by its cumulants, such
as mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis. But so far, only
the mean and variance have been measured experimentally
[11–16]. Recently Ref. [8] predicted that the skewness of pT
fluctuations should be significantly larger than expectation
from the independent source scenario, and they can be used to
probe nuclear deformation effects [9,17]. But no experimental
measurement has been carried out for skewness and kurtosis.
The cumulants of pTfluctuations are intensive quantities.
Within the independent source picture, such as that imple-
mented in the HIJING model, each collision is composed
of superposition of independent pp-like collisions and in-
teraction between the sources are ignored [18]. Under these
conditions, the nth-order cumulant is expected to scale as
∝1/Ns(n−1), where Nsis the number of sources often taken
to be Npart (number of participating nucleons) or Nch (charged
particle multiplicity) [8,19,20]. However, the dynamics of
*Corresponding author: jjia@bnl.gov
evolution and final-state interaction can lead to a deviation
from this power-law behavior. Indeed, experimental measure-
ments of pTvariance in Au +Au collisions at √sNN =
200 GeV and Pb +Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV have
reported the power to be ≈0.81 instead of the expected value
of 1. This clear deviation from the baseline of the independent
source picture in the experimental data indicates the presence
of long-range collective correlations and significant final-state
effects [13,15,21].
The direct calculation of higher-order cumulants in heavy-
ion collisions are computationally expensive, we provide a
framework based on the standard and subevent methods to
ease this calculation [22,23]. We use the HIJING model to
extract the baseline in which pTfluctuations arise mostly from
superposition of contributions from independent sources. The
contribution from each source contains both long-range cor-
relations associated with strings and short-range correlations
from jets and resonance decays [18]. The short-range corre-
lations can be suppressed using rapidity-separated subevent
methods, which are widely used in previous flow analyses
[21,23–28]. To test the power-law scaling and its system size
dependence, we repeated the study using Pb +Pb, Xe +Xe,
p+Pb, and pp collisions at similar center-of-mass energy
around 5 TeV.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II provides the
formulas for calculating pTcumulants in both standard and
subevent methods and describes the setup for the HIJING
model. The main results are presented in Sec. III. Section IV
gives a summary.
II. METHODOLOGY AND MODEL SETUP
We first provide the framework for mean-pTcumulants
following the approach prescribed in Refs. [23,29]. The
2469-9985/2022/105(2)/024904(5) 024904-1 ©2022 American Physical Society
BHATTA, ZHANG, AND JIA PHYSICAL REVIEW C 105, 024904 (2022)
2
10 3
10
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.57
²²
T
p¢¢
|<2.5KHIJING, |
< 2.0 GeV
T
0.2 <p
Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV
2
10 3
10
5
10
4
10
²
2
c¢
0.001rb = 1.009
0.001rb = 1.010
b
)
ch
Fit fn.:a/(N
2
10 3
10
ch
N
9
10
7
10
²
3
c¢
0.019rb = 2.218
0.015rb = 2.132
b
)
ch
Fit fn.:a/(N
2
10 3
10
ch
N
12
10
9
10
2
²
2
c¢ - 3²
4
c¢
0.084rb = 2.920
0.083rb = 3.124
b
)
ch
Fit fn.:a/(N
FIG. 1. The pTcumulants without normalizing by pT for particles in 0.2<pT<2 GeV as a function of Nch in Pb +Pb and Xe +Xe
collisions. The solid lines show the fit of the data to a/(Nch)b.
n-particle pTcorrelator in one event is defined as
cn=
i1=···=in
wi1···win(pT,i1−pT)···(pT,in−pT)
i1=···=in
wi1···win
,
(1)
where wiis the weight for particle i. Following Ref. [23]
and denoting p≡pT, this relation can be expanded alge-
braically into a simple polynomial function of the following
quantities:
pmk =
i
wk
ipm
i
i
wk
i,τ
k=
i
wk+1
i
i
wik+1,
¯p1k≡p1k−pT,
¯p2k≡p2k−2p1kpT + pT2,
¯p3k≡p3k−3p2kpT + 3p1kpT2−pT3,
¯p4k≡p4k−4p3kpT + 6p2kpT2
−4p1kpT3+pT4.(2)
Note there pT = p11 is the mean-pTaveraged over the
event ensemble.
Using these auxiliary variables, the correlator in
Eq. (1) in the standard method can be expressed
as
c2=¯p2
11 −¯p22
1−τ1
,c3=¯p3
11 −3¯p22 ¯p11 +2¯p33
1−3τ1+2τ2
,
c4=¯p4
11 −6¯p22 ¯p2
11 +3¯p2
22 +8¯p33 ¯p11 −6¯p44
1−6τ1+3τ2
1+8τ2−6τ3
(3)
where particles are taken from |η|<2.5 and only unique
particle combinations in the event are considered.
In the subevent method (2sub), particle combinations are
chosen from two rapidity separated subevents a(−2.5<
η<−0.75) and c(2.5>η>0.75). The gap between the
subevents reduce short-range correlations. The correlators in
this case are given by
c2,2sub =(¯p11 )a(¯p11)c,c3,2sub1 =¯p2
11 −¯p22a(¯p11 )c
1−τ1a
,
c3,2sub2 =¯p2
11 −¯p22c(¯p11 )a
1−τ1c
,
c4,2sub =¯p2
11 −¯p22a¯p2
11 −¯p22c
(1 −τ1a)(1 −τ1c),(4)
where the lettered subscripts in Eq. (5) denote the subevents
from which particles are taken. Note that there are two differ-
ent ways of calculating two-subevent c3, and the final results
are calculated as average, i.e., 2c3,2sub =c3,2sub1 +c3,2sub2.
The validity of these formulas is confirmed by comparison
with results obtained from direct loop calculations.
The cumulants are then calculated by averaging cnover
a given ensemble of events. In practice, they are calculated
over a unit Nch bin and are then combined over wider bins. In
024904-2
HIGHER-ORDER TRANSVERSE MOMENTUM FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 105, 024904 (2022)
2
10 3
10
ch
N
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
2
k
Standard method
Two-subevent method
< 5.0 GeV
T
0.2 < p
2
10 3
10
ch
N
0.2
0.3
2sub/std
2
10 3
10
ch
N
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
k
HIJING Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
|<2.5K|
2
10 3
10
ch
N
0.6
0.7
0.8
2sub/std
2
10 3
10
ch
N
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
4
k
2
10 3
10
ch
N
0.6
0.8
1
2sub/std
FIG. 2. The variance (left), skewness (middle), and kurtosis (right) in Pb +Pb collisions using the standard (solid points) and two-subevent
method (open points) for charged particles in 0.2<pT<5.0 GeV as a function of Nch.
this paper, we use the following dimensionless definition for
cumulants (also called scaled cumulants),
k2=c2
pT2,k3=c3
pT3,
k4=c4−3c22
pT4,k2,2sub =c2,2sub
pTapTc
,
k3,2sub1 =c3,2sub1
pT2
apTc
,k3,2sub2 =c3,2sub2
pTapT2
c
,
k4,2sub =c4,2sub−2c2,2sub 2−c2ac2c
pT2
apT2
c
.(5)
Note that c2aand c2cdenote the c2obtained from the
standard method in subevents aand c, respectively. The final
skewness is taken as 2k3,2sub =k3,2sub1 +k3,2sub2.
For HIJING simulation, we generate pp,p+Pb, and
Pb +Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV and Xe +Xe
collisions at √sNN =5.44 TeV. The particles are chosen from
|η|<2.5 and two pTranges: 0.2<pT<2 and 0.2<pT<
5 GeV. The lower pTrange is less sensitive to contribution
from short-range correlations. To facilitate direct comparison
with experimental measurements, the calculations are carried
out as a function of Nch consisting only of charged hadrons
within |η|<2.5 and 0.5<pT<5 GeV. The Nch range, thus,
obtained is consistent with the choice used in the ATLAS
Collaboration experiment [27].
III. RESULTS
Figure 1shows the pTcumulants without the normalization
by pT in Pb +Pb and Xe +Xe collisions as a function of
Nch. A double-logarithmic scale is used to show clearly the
power-law dependence is as a function of Nch. The extracted
power-law index from a simple fit of the form a/(Nch )bgives
the value of bthat is very close to (n−1) expected for the
0 2000 4000
ch
N
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
k
HIJING Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
|<2.5K|
< 2.0 GeV
T
0.2 < p
std
= 0K'2sub
= 0.5K'2sub
= 1.0K'2sub
= 2.0K'2sub
= 3.0K'2sub
0 2000 4000
ch
N
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
2,std
/k
K'2,2sub
k
FIG. 3. (Left) The variance obtained for the standard method and two-subevent method with various rapidity separations in Pb +Pb
collisions for 0.2<pT<2 GeV as a function of Nch. (Right) Ratio of results from two-subevent method to those obtained from the standard
method.
024904-3
BHATTA, ZHANG, AND JIA PHYSICAL REVIEW C 105, 024904 (2022)
0.55
0.6
²²
T
p¢¢
HIJING
< 2.0 GeV
T
|<2.5, 0.2 < pK|
3
10
2
k
2
10 ch
N
5
10
4
10
3
k
Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV
Xe+Xe 5.44 TeV
p+Pb 5.02 TeV
p+p 5.02 TeV
2
10 ch
N
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
k
FIG. 4. The pTcumulants compared between different collision systems as a function of Nch.
nth-order cumulant. This confirms that the pTfluctuations in
HIJING originate from superposition of independent sources.
Figure 2compares knbetween the standard and the
subevent calculations to estimate the influence of short-range
correlations. The k2,2sub is suppressed by a factor of 3 in
comparison to k2from the standard method, suggesting the
scaled variance in the HIJING model is dominated by the
short-range correlations. The influence for k3and k4are signif-
icantly smaller. This is consistent with the expectation that the
short-range correlations have smaller impact for higher-order
cumulants.
Figure 3shows how the scaled variance k2depends on
the rapidity separation between the two subevents. Most of
the decrease is obtained between the subevent method and
the standard method. Further decrease is observed when one
increases the separation between the two subevents. Beyond
the edge gap of 0.5 unit, however, the values of k2do not
change further. This residual signal probably reflects the gen-
uine long-range correlations associated with strings in the
HIJING model.
Figure 4compares the pTcumulants among pp,p+Pb,
Xe +Xe, and Pb +Pb collisions as a function of Nch.In
HIJING, we expect fluctuations to decrease with increasing
system size in accordance with increase in the number of
sources. The magnitude of pT shows a clear system size
ordering, whereas for higher-order cumulants, only pp has a
higher magnitude than those for p+Pb, Xe +Xe, and Pb
+Pb collisions. The latter is expected since the number of
sources in pp is small, and the events with large Nch are domi-
nated by fluctuations in the particle production in each source,
i.e., from minijets, instead of fluctuations in the number of
sources.
IV. SUMMARY
To summarize, we provide a framework for calculating the
higher-order dynamical pTcumulants up to fourth order using
the standard and subevent methods. In the HIJING model, the
higher-order cumulants are found to follow a simple power-
law scaling as a function of charged particle multiplicity
Nch as expected from a simple superposition of independent
sources. The subevent method is found to effectively suppress
short-range correlations that dominates the variance of the pT
fluctuations; such short-range correlations have smaller influ-
ence on skewness and kurtosis of the pTfluctuations. The pT
cumulants are found to follow a common scaling as a function
of Nch, except in the pp collisions where they are influenced
by fluctuations of particle production within each source. Our
paper provides a useful baseline for pTfluctuations that is
based on simple superposition of independent sources and
short-range correlations but without final-state effects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by DOE Grant No.
DEFG0287ER40331.
[1] P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics
In and Out of Equilibrium, Cambridge Monographs on Mathe-
matical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
2019).
024904-4
HIGHER-ORDER TRANSVERSE MOMENTUM FLUCTUATIONS … PHYSICAL REVIEW C 105, 024904 (2022)
[2] W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Annu. Rev.
Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 339 (2018).
[3] B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010);
[Erratum: 82, 039903(E) (2010)].
[4] D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys.Rev.C83, 064904 (2011).
[5] B. Schenke, C. Shen, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034905
(2020).
[6] E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B 423, 9 (1998).
[7] F. G. Gardim, G. Giacalone, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Nat.
Phys. 16, 615 (2020).
[8] G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y.
Ollitrault, Phys.Rev.C103, 024910 (2021).
[9] J. Jia, arXiv:2109.00604.
[10] P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044910
(2012).
[11] J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 72, 044902
(2005).
[12] B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 727,
371 (2013).
[13] B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J.C74,
3077 (2014).
[14] L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys.Rev.C96,
044904 (2017).
[15] J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99, 044918
(2019).
[16] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J.C79, 985
(2019).
[17] J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014905 (2022).
[18] X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys.Rev.D44, 3501 (1991).
[19] M. Zhou and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 98, 044903 (2018).
[20] M. Cody, S. Gavin, B. Koch, M. Kocherovsky, Z. Mazloum,
and G. Moschelli, arXiv:2110.04884.
[21] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 97,
024904 (2018).
[22] A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83,
044913 (2011).
[23] J. Jia, M. Zhou, and A. Trzupek, Phys.Rev.C96, 034906
(2017).
[24] P. Huo, K. Gajdošová, J. Jia, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 777,
201 (2018).
[25] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Colaboration), Phys. Lett. B 789, 444
(2019).
[26] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 103,
014902 (2021).
[27] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys.
01 (2020) 051.
[28] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126,
122301 (2021).
[29] P. Di Francesco, M. Guilbaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault,
Phys.Rev.C95, 044911 (2017).
024904-5