Processing math: 100%

Universal scaling of kinetic freeze-out parameters across different collision systems at LHC energies

  • In this study, we perform Tsallis Blast-Wave analysis on the transverse momentum spectra of identified hadrons produced in a wide range of collision systems at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) including pp, pPb, XeXe, and PbPb collisions. The kinetic freeze-out properties varying with event multiplicity are investigated across these systems. We find that the extracted kinetic freeze-out temperature, radial flow velocity, and non-extensive parameter exhibit a universal scaling behavior for these systems with very different geometric sizes, especially when the independent baryon Tsallis non-extensive parameter is considered. This universality may indicate the existence of a unified partonic evolution stage in different collision systems at the LHC energies.
  • Nuclear matter under extreme pressure and temperature conditions is of particular interest, as its properties and evolution can shed light on quantum chromodynamics (QCD). High-energy heavy-ion collisions have been used to create possibly deconfined quark matter, which could have existed a few microseconds after the Big Bang. Among the final states, the light nuclei production is a sensitive probe of their production mechanism and the properties of system evolution [1, 2]. They can be used to extract information on nucleon correlations and density fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions, which may provide crucial insights for the space-time evolution of the collision and searching for a possible critical point [36]. Light nuclei may also abundantly appear in stellar objects such as supernova and binary neutron star mergers [7, 8]. Their presence may impact the evolution and equation-of-state of these systems by affecting the transport coefficients in the dissipative process and the neutrino emission [9, 10]. Another reason to study light nuclei production in heavy-ion collisions is the investigation of anti-nucleus's origin in comic rays [11, 12]. In the AMS-02 experiment [13] in the International Space Station, anti-nuclei flux may have been observed in space [14]. It is debated whether these events come from dark matter annihilation or anti-matter in space. The answer depends on the background estimates from pp and pA collisions [11, 12].

    Currently, there are several popular but very different theoretical models describing the mechanism of light nuclei production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. The statistical model depicts the light nuclei as thermally produced during the hadronization, and the total yields of light nuclei do not change after chemical freeze-out [1, 15]. The statistical model has successfully described the yields of light nuclei and yield ratios of different light nuclei species [1618]. While the binding energy of light nuclei is around several MeV, the thermal model cannot explain the survival of these loosely bounded nuclei in the fireball, in which the temperature near chemical freeze-out is approximately 100 MeV [16]. The nucleon coalescence model assumes that light nuclei are formed at the late stage near the kinetic freeze-out of the fireball evolution via the coalescence of nucleons when these constituent nucleons are close to each other in both the coordinate space and momentum space [19, 20]. The coalescence picture has been used for understanding the light nuclei yields and flow from the STAR experiment at sNN=3200 GeV [2123]. Additionally, dynamical formation and dissociation of light nuclei based on kinetic nuclear reactions have been used to explore the light nuclei production for many years [24, 25]. With the recent inclusion of light nuclei size in the relativistic kinetic equations, the light nuclei yield in both p+p and Au+Au (Pb+Pb) can be well described [26].

    This paper discusses the light nuclei production in Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV by utilizing a simple nucleon coalescence model. The nucleons are produced via the Jet AA Microscopic Transport Model (JAM) [27]. The aim of such calculations is to investigate the coalescence parameter dependencies on different light nuclei species. The light nuclei transverse momentum pT spectra from the coalescence calculations are compared with the data measured by STAR [28]. This study will provide an improved understanding of coalescence calculations and light nuclei formation mechanisms in heavy-ion collisions.

    The JAM is designed to simulate relativistic nuclear collisions from the initial stage of nuclear collision to the final state interaction at finite and high baryon densities [27, 29]. In the model, the initial position of each nucleon is sampled by the distribution of nuclear density, and the nuclear collision is described by the sum of independent binary hadron-hadron collisions. At low energies (sNN<4GeV), inelastic hadron-hadron collisions produce resonances that can decay into hadrons. All the established hadronic states and resonances can propagate in space and time and interact with each other via binary collisions. The JAM has both a cascade mode and a mean-field mode. In the cascade mode, each hadron is propagated as in the vacuum between collisions with other hadrons. In the mean-field mode, the nuclear equation-of-state effects have been included through a momentum-dependent potential acting on the particle propagation [30]. The calculations from the mean-field mode have successfully described the light nuclei flow measurements at sNN=3 GeV Au+Au collisions, while the cascade mode failed to explain the data [23]. In our analysis, we use the JAM in its mean-field mode (incompressibility parameter κ= 380 MeV) to generate the Au+Au collision events.

    We obtain phase-space distributions for protons and neutrons from the JAM for Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV. Figure 1 shows the pT distribution of protons in various rapidity (y) intervals at 0%−10% most central collisions. The proton (p) pT spectra generally agree with the data measured by the STAR experiment [28] at pT<1.4 GeV/c for all rapidity intervals. However, the model calculations overestimate the data in the higher pT region.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Proton pT spectra from the JAM calculations (solid lines) in various rapidity bins for 0%−10% Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV. Markers represent data measured by the STAR experiment.

    The JAM does not produce light nuclei. Therefore, we utilize a simple afterburner coalescence to form deuteron (d), triton (t), 3He, and 4He. In an event from the JAM, the positions and momentum of p and neutron (n) are recorded at a fixed time of 50 fm/c at which nearly all the nucleons are kinetically frozen out. Each (p,n) pair is boosted to its rest frame, and then one obtains its relative space distance |R1R2| and relative momentum difference |P1P2|. If both the values satisfy |R1R2|<ΔR and |P1P2|<ΔP, where ΔR and ΔP are required values for d formation, this (p,n) pair is marked as a d. For a t formation, a (p,n) pair is first formed according to the ΔR and ΔP of t, and then one additional n is included, and we calculate its relative space distance and momentum difference from the formed (p,n) pair. The 3He and 4He are formed similarly with different ΔR and ΔP. This simple form of coalescence at a fixed time can be improved by using the wave function of light nuclei [31, 32]. However, the phase space coalescence worked successfully [23] and gave results similar to those obtained via the wave function approach [33]. Therefore, we utilize the simple coalescence method to provide qualitative results for coalescence parameters ΔR and ΔP of different light nuclei species.

    To determine the values of ΔR and ΔP that have the best descriptions for the light nuclei pT spectra, we carry out the scan of ΔR and ΔP for each light nuclei species, in which ΔR is varied from 2 to 6 fm with a step length of 0.2 fm and ΔP is varied from 0.1 to 0.5 Gev/c with a step length of 0.04 Gev/c.

    Under the assumption that n has the same phase space distribution as p in the collisions, the invariant distribution of light nuclei can be expressed by the following equation:

    EAd3NAd3pA(Epd3Npd3pp)Z(End3Nnd3pn)AZ(Epd3Npd3pp)A,

    (1)

    where A represents the atomic mass number. Because the pT spectra of the proton from the JAM calculations overestimate the data at high pT, as shown in Fig. 1, the discrepancy with the model will be enhanced by a power factor of A for light nuclei with a mass number of A according to Eq. (1). To reduce the impact on the determination of coalescence parameters, the pT spectra for light nuclei are corrected following Eq. (2). The yield ratio of data to the model calculation is obtained in a given (pT,y) cell of proton results, and then the light nuclei yield from the model calculation is corrected by the A-th power of the factor in the (ApT,y) cell.

    dNAdata dNmodel (ApT,y)=(dNpdata dNmodel (pT,y))A.

    (2)

    For light nuclei in a given rapidity interval, the pT range for applying the correction is determined by the pT coverage of the data points of the proton.

    Figure 2 shows the pT spectra for d, t, 3He, and 4He in various rapidity bins in 0%−10% Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV. The results of the model calculations are obtained using the coalescence parameters ΔR=4.0 fm and ΔP=0.3 GeV/c. The distributions with and without the correction based on Eq. (2) are indicated by solid and dashed lines, respectively. After the correction, the model calculations qualitatively reproduce the experimental data for all light nuclei species, including the high pT region. This supports the validity of using the simple coalescence approach for light nuclei production in heavy-ion collisions at several GeV.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) pT spectra for d, t, 3He, and 4He data measured by the STAR experiment and calculations from the JAM. Markers represent data. The dashed and solid lines represent the model calculations without and with corrections based on Eq. (2), respectively. The cut-off for the correction result is caused by the low limit of proton pT in the data.

    Near the target rapidity y=1.045, the fragmentation of the target ions may also contribute to the production of light nuclei. Currently, most transport models are unable to describe the production of the fragments in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. Meanwhile it is found that our calculations can match the pT spectra of light nuclei at the target rapidity with the same coalescence parameters as for the mid-rapidity at 0%−10% centrality, where the light nuclei are believed to be formed mainly through the nucleon coalescence. This agreement can be understood using a simple picture. In the collisions, the protons and neutrons near the target rapidity are less affected by the system evolution compared with those at the mid-rapidity; their momentum magnitude and direction will remain close to each other. Thus, the nucleons near the target rapidity have a higher chance to combine, and the light nuclei production will be enhanced compared with the mid-rapidity, especially for 4He. Meanwhile, at peripheral collisions, the contribution of fragments near the target rapidity become more important [28]; thus, the model calculations no longer match the data.

    The light nuclei pT spectra in each rapidity interval obtained with a chosen (ΔR,ΔP) are compared with the data using the χ2

    χ2=pT(vdatavmodeledata)2,

    (3)

    where vdata and edata represent the light nuclei yield and its statistical uncertainty measured by the STAR experiment, and vmodel represents the model calculation for light nuclei yield with the correction based on Eq. (2). If the model has a better overall description of the data, the extracted χ2 will be smaller.

    Figure 3 shows the dependencies of the χ2 on the ΔR and ΔP at the mid-rapidity 0.1<y<0 in 0%−10% Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV. The minimum position of the χ2 can be constrained by the ΔR in a given ΔP bin for all the studied light nuclei species, especially for d owing to its large number of data points and small statistical errors. At low ΔP, the ΔR for the minimum χ2 decreases with an increase in ΔP, while the product ΔRΔP remains nearly unchanged; the corresponding values are 1.2 for d and t and 1.15 for 3He and 4He. Following χ2 minimization, the ΔR is constant in the high ΔP region for d, t, and 3He, which means that the light nuclei yields will not increase with an increase in ΔP. The values of (ΔR,ΔP) at the minimum χ2 are (ΔR=5.6 fm, ΔP=0.22 GeV/c) for d, (ΔR=5.6 fm, ΔP=0.22 GeV/c) for t, (ΔR=5.2 fm, ΔP=0.22 GeV/c) for 3He, and (ΔR=3 fm, ΔP=0.42 GeV/c) for 4He at 0.1<y<0. For each light nuclei species, the χ2 distributions in other rapidity bins are very similar to the one in Fig. 3, and the (ΔR,ΔP) extracted using χ2 minimization has no strong dependence on the particle rapidity. The average values of ΔR and ΔP in all the rapidity bins are (ΔR=5.78 fm, ΔP=0.219 GeV/c) for d, (ΔR=5.43 fm, ΔP=0.237 GeV/c) for t, (ΔR=5.24 fm, ΔP=0.242 GeV/c) for 3He, and (ΔR=4.585 fm, ΔP=0.3 GeV/c) for 4He. A weak dependence of ΔR and ΔP on the light nuclei rapidity implies that light nuclei are formed after the cascade stage of the reaction in high-energy heavy-ion collisions.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Dependencies of χ2 on the coalescence parameters (ΔR,ΔP) for d, t, 3He, and 4He within 0.1<y<0 in 0%−10% Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV. The dots represent the minimum position of χ2 for a given ΔP. The solid lines are the fits to these minimum values with an inversely proportional function.

    Figure 4 shows the extracted ΔR and ΔP with the minimum χ2 describing the data in all rapidity bins at 0%−10% centrality, as well as their dependencies on the nuclei diameter and binding energy [34]. Among the studied light nuclei species, d has the largest ΔR and smallest ΔP, while 4He exhibits the opposite trend. In the middle and right panels of Fig. 4, ΔR is almost positively associated with the nuclei diameter, and ΔP is positively correlated with the nuclei binding energy. This suggests that nuclei with lower binding energies can be formed with a higher upper limit for the relative momentum difference between their component nucleons. 3He and t have very similar ΔP and ΔR, as both their radii and binding energies are close. This investigation indicates that the radius and binding energy of light nuclei are crucial for their formation in heavy-ion collisions.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  Left:ΔR and ΔP of the minimum χ2 in all rapidity bins for d, t, 3He, and 4He. Middle: ΔR as a function of the nuclei rms diameter. Right: ΔP as a function of the nuclei binding energy per nucleon.

    The ΔR and ΔP are supposed to be unique for a given nuclear species; thus, they are expected to be independent of the collision system and energy. This enables us to repeat the calculations for other collision energies with the same parameter sets and predict the light nuclei spectra and collective behavior. In this simple coalescence model, the formed light nuclei will sustain the collective flow of the produced nucleons, which are expected to be sensitive to the initial pressure gradient of the collision system. Light nuclei are heavier than nucleons, and their collective flow has stronger energy dependence according to the coalescence model [23] and thus is more sensitive to the change in pressure or the equation-of-state (EoS). Work in this direction is ongoing.

    In summary, the light nuclei d, t, 3He, and 4He are formed via the phase space coalescence of nucleons produced by the JAM in a mean field mode at sNN=3 GeV Au+Au collisions. We investigate the cut-off of the coalescence parameters ΔR and ΔPby comparing the calculations with the data measured by the STAR experiment. For a given light nuclei species, a unique (ΔR, ΔP) is obtained, which can describe the pT spectra both at the mid-rapidity and at the target rapidity at 0%−10% centrality. The result implies that at central collisions, the nucleons near the target rapidity may have a higher coalescence probability than those at the mid-rapidity, as they are less affected by the system expansion. It is found that ΔP and ΔR are nearly positively correlated with the nuclei binding energy and nuclei diameter, respectively. The result suggests that the radius and binding energy of light nuclei are crucial for their formation in heavy-ion collisions.

    [1] W. Broniowski, M. Chojnacki, W. Florkowski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 022301 (2008), arXiv:0801.4361[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.022301
    [2] U. W. Heinz, arXiv: 0407360
    [3] F. Retiere and M. A. Lisa, Phys. Rev. C 70, 044907 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0312024 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.044907
    [4] U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013)), arXiv:1301.2826[nucl-th doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540
    [5] C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893[nucl-th doi: 10.1142/S0217751X13400113
    [6] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2462 (1993), arXiv:nucl-th/9307020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2462
    [7] E. Schnedermann and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 50, 1675 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9402018 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.50.1675
    [8] B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 79, 034909 (2009), arXiv:0808.2041[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034909
    [9] B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 88, 044910 (2013), arXiv:1303.0737[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044910
    [10] C. Tsallis, Braz. J. Phys. 29, 1 (1999) doi: 10.1590/S0103-97331999000400001
    [11] B. De, S. Bhattacharyya, G. Sau et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 16, 1687 (2007) doi: 10.1142/S0218301307006976
    [12] G. Wilk and Z. Wlodarczyk, Eur. Phys. J. A 40, 299 (2009), arXiv:0810.2939[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epja/i2009-10803-9
    [13] W. M. Alberico, A. Lavagno, and P. Quarati, Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 499 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9902070 doi: 10.1007/s100529900220
    [14] T. Osada and G. Wilk, Phys. Rev. C77, 044903 (2008), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 78, 069903(2008)], arXiv: 0710.1905[nucl-th]
    [15] T. S. Biro and B. Muller, Phys. Lett. B 578, 78 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309052 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.052
    [16] T. Bhattacharyya, J. Cleymans, A. Khuntia et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 30 (2016), arXiv:1507.08434[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16030-5
    [17] K. Urmossy, G. G. Barnafoldi, and T. S. Biro, Phys. Lett. B 701, 111 (2011), arXiv:1101.3023[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.03.073
    [18] K. Urmossy, T. S. Biró, G. G. Barnaföldi et al., arXiv: 1405.3963
    [19] M. Shao, L. Yi, Z. Tang et al., J. Phys. G 37, 085104 (2010), arXiv:0912.0993[nucl-ex doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/085104
    [20] C.-Y. Wong, G. Wilk, L. J. L. Cirto et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 114027 (2015), arXiv:1505.02022[hepph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.114027
    [21] Z. Tang, L. Yi, L. Ruan et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 30, 031201 (2013), arXiv:1101.1912[nucl-ex doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/30/3/031201
    [22] J. Chen, J. Deng, Z. Tang, Z. Xu, and L. Yi, Phys. Rev. C 104, 034901 (2021), arXiv:2012.02986[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.034901
    [23] H.-L. Lao, F.-H. Liu, and R. A. Lacey, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 44 (2017), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 143 (2008)], arXiv:1611.08391[nucl-th]
    [24] H.-L. Lao, F.-H. Liu, B.-C. Li et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 82 (2018), arXiv:1703.04944[nucl-th doi: 10.1007/s41365-018-0425-x
    [25] S. Zhang, Y. G. Ma, J. H. Chen et al., Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 460590 (2015), arXiv:1411.1500[nucl-th doi: 10.1155/2015/460590
    [26] K. Jiang, Y. Zhu, W. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. C 91, 024910 (2015), arXiv:1312.4230[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024910
    [27] Z. Tang, Y. Xu, L. Ruan et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 051901 (2009), arXiv:0812.1609[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.051901
    [28] G. Che, J. Gu, W. Zhang et al., J. Phys. G, 48, 095103 (2021), arXiv:2010.14880[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ac09dc
    [29] J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 211 (2018), arXiv:1801.03477[nucl-ex doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101916-123209
    [30] J. Adolfsson et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 288 (2020), arXiv:2003.10997[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00270-1
    [31] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 09, 091 (2010), arXiv:1009.4122[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2010)091
    [32] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 765, 193 (2017), arXiv:1606.06198[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.009
    [33] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nature Phys. 13, 535 (2017), arXiv:1606.07424[nucl-ex doi: 10.1038/nphys4111
    [34] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 226 (2015), arXiv:1504.00024[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3422-9
    [35] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99, 024906 (2019), arXiv:1807.11321[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024906
    [36] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 167 (2020), arXiv:1908.01861[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7673-8
    [37] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 758, 389 (2016), arXiv:1512.07227[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.027
    [38] G. Wilk and Z. Wlodarczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2770 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9908459 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2770
    [39] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 693 (2020), arXiv:2003.02394[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8125-1
    [40] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 760, 720 (2016), arXiv:1601.03658[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.050
    [41] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 584 (2021), arXiv:2101.03100[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09304-4
    [42] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93, 034913 (2016), arXiv:1506.07287[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034913
    [43] S. Acharya et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 044907 (2020), arXiv:1910.07678[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044907
    [44] E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044915 (2013), arXiv:1301.4470[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044915
    [45] P. Castorina, A. Iorio, D. Lanteri et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 054902 (2020), arXiv:1912.12513[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.054902
    [46] C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054910 (2019), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 99, 019901 (2019)], arXiv: 1710.07098[nucl-ex]
    [47] M. Petrovici, A. Lindner, A. Pop et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 024904 (2018), arXiv:1805.04060[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.024904
    [48] B. Schenke and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 102301 (2014), arXiv:1405.3605[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.102301
    [49] L. Zheng, G.-H. Zhang, Y.-F. Liu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 755 (2021), arXiv:2104.05998[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09527-5
    [50] P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044910 (2012), arXiv:1203.1810[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044910
    [51] S. Basu, S. Chatterjee, R. Chatterjee et al., Phys. Rev. C 94, 044901 (2016), arXiv:1601.05631[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.044901
    [52] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Han, M. Mangano et al., Phys. Rept. 652, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.06495[hepph doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.07.004
    [53] J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, arXiv: 2103.01939
  • [1] W. Broniowski, M. Chojnacki, W. Florkowski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 022301 (2008), arXiv:0801.4361[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.022301
    [2] U. W. Heinz, arXiv: 0407360
    [3] F. Retiere and M. A. Lisa, Phys. Rev. C 70, 044907 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0312024 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.044907
    [4] U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013)), arXiv:1301.2826[nucl-th doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540
    [5] C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893[nucl-th doi: 10.1142/S0217751X13400113
    [6] E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2462 (1993), arXiv:nucl-th/9307020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2462
    [7] E. Schnedermann and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 50, 1675 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9402018 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.50.1675
    [8] B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 79, 034909 (2009), arXiv:0808.2041[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034909
    [9] B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 88, 044910 (2013), arXiv:1303.0737[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044910
    [10] C. Tsallis, Braz. J. Phys. 29, 1 (1999) doi: 10.1590/S0103-97331999000400001
    [11] B. De, S. Bhattacharyya, G. Sau et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 16, 1687 (2007) doi: 10.1142/S0218301307006976
    [12] G. Wilk and Z. Wlodarczyk, Eur. Phys. J. A 40, 299 (2009), arXiv:0810.2939[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epja/i2009-10803-9
    [13] W. M. Alberico, A. Lavagno, and P. Quarati, Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 499 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9902070 doi: 10.1007/s100529900220
    [14] T. Osada and G. Wilk, Phys. Rev. C77, 044903 (2008), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 78, 069903(2008)], arXiv: 0710.1905[nucl-th]
    [15] T. S. Biro and B. Muller, Phys. Lett. B 578, 78 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309052 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.052
    [16] T. Bhattacharyya, J. Cleymans, A. Khuntia et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 30 (2016), arXiv:1507.08434[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epja/i2016-16030-5
    [17] K. Urmossy, G. G. Barnafoldi, and T. S. Biro, Phys. Lett. B 701, 111 (2011), arXiv:1101.3023[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.03.073
    [18] K. Urmossy, T. S. Biró, G. G. Barnaföldi et al., arXiv: 1405.3963
    [19] M. Shao, L. Yi, Z. Tang et al., J. Phys. G 37, 085104 (2010), arXiv:0912.0993[nucl-ex doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/085104
    [20] C.-Y. Wong, G. Wilk, L. J. L. Cirto et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 114027 (2015), arXiv:1505.02022[hepph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.114027
    [21] Z. Tang, L. Yi, L. Ruan et al., Chin. Phys. Lett. 30, 031201 (2013), arXiv:1101.1912[nucl-ex doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/30/3/031201
    [22] J. Chen, J. Deng, Z. Tang, Z. Xu, and L. Yi, Phys. Rev. C 104, 034901 (2021), arXiv:2012.02986[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.034901
    [23] H.-L. Lao, F.-H. Liu, and R. A. Lacey, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 44 (2017), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 143 (2008)], arXiv:1611.08391[nucl-th]
    [24] H.-L. Lao, F.-H. Liu, B.-C. Li et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29, 82 (2018), arXiv:1703.04944[nucl-th doi: 10.1007/s41365-018-0425-x
    [25] S. Zhang, Y. G. Ma, J. H. Chen et al., Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 460590 (2015), arXiv:1411.1500[nucl-th doi: 10.1155/2015/460590
    [26] K. Jiang, Y. Zhu, W. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. C 91, 024910 (2015), arXiv:1312.4230[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024910
    [27] Z. Tang, Y. Xu, L. Ruan et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 051901 (2009), arXiv:0812.1609[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.051901
    [28] G. Che, J. Gu, W. Zhang et al., J. Phys. G, 48, 095103 (2021), arXiv:2010.14880[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ac09dc
    [29] J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 211 (2018), arXiv:1801.03477[nucl-ex doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101916-123209
    [30] J. Adolfsson et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 288 (2020), arXiv:2003.10997[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00270-1
    [31] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 09, 091 (2010), arXiv:1009.4122[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2010)091
    [32] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 765, 193 (2017), arXiv:1606.06198[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.009
    [33] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nature Phys. 13, 535 (2017), arXiv:1606.07424[nucl-ex doi: 10.1038/nphys4111
    [34] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 226 (2015), arXiv:1504.00024[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3422-9
    [35] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99, 024906 (2019), arXiv:1807.11321[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024906
    [36] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 167 (2020), arXiv:1908.01861[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7673-8
    [37] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 758, 389 (2016), arXiv:1512.07227[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.027
    [38] G. Wilk and Z. Wlodarczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2770 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9908459 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2770
    [39] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 693 (2020), arXiv:2003.02394[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8125-1
    [40] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 760, 720 (2016), arXiv:1601.03658[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.050
    [41] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 584 (2021), arXiv:2101.03100[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09304-4
    [42] J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93, 034913 (2016), arXiv:1506.07287[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034913
    [43] S. Acharya et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 044907 (2020), arXiv:1910.07678[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044907
    [44] E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044915 (2013), arXiv:1301.4470[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044915
    [45] P. Castorina, A. Iorio, D. Lanteri et al., Phys. Rev. C 101, 054902 (2020), arXiv:1912.12513[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.054902
    [46] C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054910 (2019), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 99, 019901 (2019)], arXiv: 1710.07098[nucl-ex]
    [47] M. Petrovici, A. Lindner, A. Pop et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 024904 (2018), arXiv:1805.04060[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.024904
    [48] B. Schenke and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 102301 (2014), arXiv:1405.3605[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.102301
    [49] L. Zheng, G.-H. Zhang, Y.-F. Liu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 755 (2021), arXiv:2104.05998[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09527-5
    [50] P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044910 (2012), arXiv:1203.1810[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044910
    [51] S. Basu, S. Chatterjee, R. Chatterjee et al., Phys. Rev. C 94, 044901 (2016), arXiv:1601.05631[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.044901
    [52] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Han, M. Mangano et al., Phys. Rept. 652, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.06495[hepph doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.07.004
    [53] J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, arXiv: 2103.01939
  • 加载中

Figures(8) / Tables(2)

Get Citation
Lian Liu, Zhong-Bao Yin and Liang Zheng. The universal scaling of kinetic freeze-out parameters across different collision systems at the LHC energy[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/aca38d
Lian Liu, Zhong-Bao Yin and Liang Zheng. The universal scaling of kinetic freeze-out parameters across different collision systems at the LHC energy[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/aca38d shu
Milestone
Received: 2022-07-10
Article Metric

Article Views(1297)
PDF Downloads(26)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Universal scaling of kinetic freeze-out parameters across different collision systems at LHC energies

  • 1. School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, China
  • 2. Key Laboratory of Quark and Lepton Physics (MOE) and Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China

Abstract: In this study, we perform Tsallis Blast-Wave analysis on the transverse momentum spectra of identified hadrons produced in a wide range of collision systems at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) including pp, pPb, XeXe, and PbPb collisions. The kinetic freeze-out properties varying with event multiplicity are investigated across these systems. We find that the extracted kinetic freeze-out temperature, radial flow velocity, and non-extensive parameter exhibit a universal scaling behavior for these systems with very different geometric sizes, especially when the independent baryon Tsallis non-extensive parameter is considered. This universality may indicate the existence of a unified partonic evolution stage in different collision systems at the LHC energies.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • It is indicated by lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations that a deconfined quark-gluon plasma (QGP) state of nuclear matter might exist at high enough temperature and density [1]. These extreme conditions are believed to be achievable in relativistic nucleus nucleus (AA) collisions, in which the QCD parton degrees of freedom are released from the nucleons and interact with each other creating the thermalized QGP medium. The deconfined parton matter expands rapidly under the thermal pressure against the surrounding vacuum until the temperature of the system drops below the point at which the partons are converted to hadrons, developing substantial expansion flow in the parton evolution stage [2]. After further rescatterings between the produced hadronic objects for a while, the system becomes so dilute that all particle interactions are ceased [3]. The evolving information of the medium usually described by relativistic fluid hydrodynamics [4, 5] is thus encoded in the momentum distributions of the final state particles. The transverse momentum (pT) spectra of identified hadrons can be utilized to extract the system properties even in the early stage of evolution within the Blast-Wave global analysis framework [6, 7]. In the Blast-Wave model, particle spectra are obtained within a hydrodynamic framework through thermal particle emissions from a freeze-out surface of the flowing medium with the kinetic freeze-out temperature T and the radial expansion flow velocity profile β(r).

      The Boltzmann-Gibbs Blast-Wave (BGBW) model has been widely used to study the pT distributions of identified hadrons in heavy ion collisions. This approach assumes local equilibrium of the system so that a Boltzmann distribution can be applied to describe the emitting particles in the local rest frame of the expanding fluid. Considering that the equilibrium assumption generally fails at high pT, this BGBW framework is believed to work only in the low pT region and is sensitive to the choice of the fitted pT range [8, 9]. The Blast-Wave model is further developed with the inclusion of Tsallis statistics [10], by assuming Tsallis distributions for the emitting particles rather than the exponential type distributions used in the BGBW model. The Tsallis Blast-Wave (TBW) model is expected to account for the non-equilibrium or hard scattering effects by incorporating the non-extensive parameter q and describing the final state hadron spectra for an extended pT range [1116]. Owing to its success in understanding a wide range of complex systems and utilization in studying various high energy collisions [1719], the physical interpretation of the non-extensive parameter q in Tsallis statistical method is still under discussion. It is found that the hard scattering process in high energy collisions can deliver a power law distribution of high pT hadrons from jet fragmentations with the power index related to the non-extensive parameter q [20]. This q parameter characterizes the degree of deviation from the equilibrium assumption. If q approaches unity, the TBW model returns to the BGBW model.

      The energy dependence of the radial flow and the kinetic freeze-out temperature has been systematically studied [19, 2125]. With its unique capabilities to account for non-equilibrium effects, the TBW model is also believed to be useful in describing hadron production in small systems such as proton proton (pp), proton nucleus (pA), and peripheral AA collisions [2628]. The recent collectivity like behaviors observed in small collision systems have generated a considerable amount of discussion on whether the QGP matter is formed in these collisions [2935]. The universal strangeness enhancement effect scaled with the event multiplicity found at the LHC energies suggests that a unified mechanism might induce enhanced multi-strange hadron production in both small and large systems [33, 36, 37]. Searching for universality in other collectivity related effects such as the radial expansion flow velocity and the freeze-out temperature across different collision systems and studying its system size dependence are important for understanding the appearance of QGP like effects in small systems. It is speculated that initial energy density induced hot spots caused by the Color Glass Condensate formalism may generate strong collective flow and sizable temperature fluctuations especially in small systems. The imprints of the initial fluctuations that survive in the final state hadron momentum spectra at low and intermediate pT region are expected to be captured in the TBW model with the non-extensive parameter q. The temperature and flow velocity extracted from the TBW model are correlated with the q parameter by the shear and bulk viscosity in linear and quadratic forms [12, 38]. Investigating the kinetic freeze-out features dependent on the event multiplicity may shed some light on the understanding of the origin of the collectivity like behavior observed in small systems.

      In this study, we use the Tsallis Blast-Wave model to fit the transverse momentum spectra of identified hadronsπ±,K±,p,ˉp produced in s=7 and 13 TeV pp collisions [35, 39], sNN=5.02 TeV pPb collisions [40], sNN=5.44 TeV XeXe collisions [41], and sNN=2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV PbPb collisions [42, 43]. The extracted parameters T, β, and q are systematically compared across different systems with and without considering the separate non-equilibrium parameter q for baryons. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We illustrate the implementation of the Tsallis Blast-Wave model approach in Sec. II. The results of the extracted kinetic freeze-out parameters are presented in Sec. III. The major conclusions and discussions are summarized in Sec. IV.

    II.   TSALLIS BLAST-WAVE MODEL
    • The BGBW model derived from the hydrodynamic framework has been widely used to fit the transverse momentum distribution data in heavy ion collisions. It is well known that the BGBW model follows the local thermal equilibrium assumption and only works in the low pT region of the momentum spectra. The Tsallis distribution smoothly connects the power law type jet induced high pT part and the exponential type hydrodynamics dominant low pT region of the momentum distributions. With the inclusion of the non-extensive parameter, the TBW model is expected to describe the evolution from pp collisions to the central AA collisions in a consistent manner. It is straightforward to implement the TBW model by replacing the particle emission sources in the local rest frame of the fluid cell from the Boltzmann distribution to the Tsallis distribution.

      The invariant differential particle yield for a hadron with mass m in the TBW model can be written in the form

      d2N2πmTdmTdy|y=0=A+ybybmTcosh(ys)dysππdϕ×R0rdr[1+q1T(mTcosh(ys)cosh(ρ)pTsinh(ρ)cos(ϕ))]1/(q1).

      (1)

      T is the global temperature of the expanding thermal sources from which particles are emitted. R is the hard sphere edge along the transverse radial direction. A denotes the normalization constant. mT=p2T+m2 is the transverse mass of a particle. ys represents the source rapidity. yb gives the beam rapidity. ϕ is the particle emission angle with respect to the flow velocity. ρ=tanh1β(r) is the radial flow profile obtained in a self-similar way with the transverse flow velocity parametrized as β(r)=βS(rR)n under the longitudinal boost invariant assumption. β(r) is defined in the range 0rR with the surface velocity βS at the edge of the fireball hard sphere R and the flow profile index n. The average transverse flow velocity can be expressed as β=βS2/(2+n). The relevant model parameters can be extracted based on Eq. (1) using the least χ2 method.

      In this study, the value of n is fixed to 1 for the consideration of a linear velocity profile; thus, one obtains β=2/3βS. It has been argued that, in small collision systems, the baryon number might play an important role in hadron production, and the characteristic grouping of meson and baryon sectors are needed to provide a better description of the pT spectra in TBW fits [26, 27]. In the rest of this paper, we refer to the fits including all of the mesons and baryons with a combined non-extensive parameter q as the default TBW fit and those with four fit parameters using different q values for mesons (qM) and baryons (qB) as the TBW4 fit. In this study, we perform both TBW and TBW4 fits to the charged pion, kaon, and proton pT spectra at the LHC energies measured by the ALICE collaboration to extract the kinetic freeze-out parameters.

    III.   RESULTS

      A.   Transverse momentum spectra

    • This section compares TBW and TBW4 model fits of the transverse momentum spectra for charged pions, kaons, and protons in different collision systems at the LHC energies. We restrict ourselves to the comparable spectral range pT<3 GeV/c across all the collision systems to extract the bulk features. The average flow velocity β is required to be less than 2/3 and greater than 0 during the fit procedures to achieve a better convergence and get rid of the non-physical parameter space. For some of the very peripheral collisions, the flow parameters are very close to the boundary. We fix the flow velocity parameter β=0 to reduce the uncertainty of the fits for these peripheral bins. It has been verified that fixing the flow velocity to zero in these peripheral bins does not change the values of the other extracted model parameters.

      We present the transverse momentum spectra fits based on the default TBW model analysis in Fig. 1. Only examples for four collision systems from central to peripheral centralities are demonstrated in this figure; more details about the extracted fitting parameter values can be found in Table 1. The black solid circles, blue solid squares, and red open circles represent the experimental data in each panel. The solid lines mark the corresponding fit functions to each particle species. The results of the extracted model parameters and the χ2/nDoF values are also displayed in the figure. It is shown that a stronger radial flow is expected in central collisions compared to that in peripheral collisions for all systems. The freeze-out temperature mildly changes with the centrality in each collision system. The non-extensive parameter grows from peripheral to central collisions in pp collisions but drops very fast in AA collisions approaching 1 when the system is reaching equilibrium. The χ2/nDoF values become quite large in both very small systems such as pp collisions at s=7 TeV and very large systems such as PbPb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV. The deviations of the fits to experimental data divided by experimental uncertainties (usually defined as pull=(fitdata)/(dataerror)) are shown in Fig. 2. The pull distributions can be used to quantify the agreement between the model fits and the experimental data. In all systems, the fit results seem to be consistent with data in the intermediate pT region around 1.5 GeV/c, but sizable deviations can be found generally in both smaller and higher pT regimes. It is speculated that the deviations in the low pT part may come from contributions due to resonance decay effects.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Default TBW fits to hadron spectra in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN= 5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV from top to bottom panels. Results from the central, semi-central, and peripheral collisions are shown in the left column, middle column, and right column, respectively. The markers represent ALICE experimental data [ 35, 3943] of identified particle species. Uncertainties in the experimental data represent quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid curves represent fit results from the TBW model.

      system dN/dηcentrality (%)βST/MeVq1χ2/nDoF
      Pb+Pb194305 0.908±0.00494±20.018±0.005324/89
      5.02 TeV1587510 0.903±0.00392±20.028±0.004313/89
      11801020 0.895±0.00395±20.029±0.004323/89
      7862030 0.874±0.00496±20.039±0.004267/89
      5123040 0.838±0.00595±20.055±0.004212/89
      3184050 0.779±0.00693±20.074±0.003182/89
      1835060 0.692±0.00793±20.090±0.003183/89
      96.36070 0.578±0.01490±20.107±0.003170/89
      44.97080 0.399±0.02690±20.122±0.003182/89
      17.58090 0±089±20.131±0.002169/89
      Pb+Pb160100 0.887±0.00696±30.016±0.007157/104
      2.76 TeV1294510 0.877±0.00696±30.024±0.007151/104
      9661020 0.866±0.00796±30.031±0.00713/104
      537.52040 0.820±0.00898±30.049±0.005133/104
      2054060 0.714±0.01292±30.080±0.00490/104
      55.56080 0.488±0.02494±20.105±0.003134/104
      Xe+Xe116705 0.899±0.00989±40.032±0.012140/88
      5.44 TeV939510 0.889±0.00388±20.041±0.002135/88
      7061020 0.880±0.01087±30.047±0.010116/88
      4782030 0.855±0.01186±30.060±0.008100/88
      3153040 0.809±0.01183±30.079±0.00685/88
      1984050 0.765±0.01383±30.089±0.00589/88
      1185060 0.682±0.01680±20.107±0.00476/88
      64.76070 0.586±0.02279±20.118±0.00477/88
      22.57090 0.412±0.03780±20.127±0.00486/88
      p+Pb4505 0.663±0.013080±20.124±0.003232/99
      5.02 TeV36.2510 0.620±0.01581±20.128±0.003250/99
      30.51020 0.574±0.01782±20.130±0.003254/99
      23.22030 0.492±0.02183±20.134±0.003292/99
      16.13040 0.332±0.03586±20.137±0.003314/99
      9.84060 0±087±20.136±0.001345/99
      4.46080 0±090±20.119±0.001447/99
      p+p26.0200.92 0.561±0.01970±20.154±0.003226/89
      13 TeV20.020.924.6 0.493±0.02373±20.151±0.003271/89
      16.174.69.2 0.414±0.02976±20.149±0.003288/89
      13.779.213.8 0.329±0.03979±20.148±0.003308/89
      12.0413.818.4 0.236±0.05680±20.148±0.002316/89
      10.0218.427.6 0±082±20.146±0.002342/89
      7.9527.636.8 0±084±20.140±0.002375/89
      6.3236.846.0 0±085±20.134±0.002436/89
      4.5046.064.5 0±087±20.125±0.001544/89
      2.5564.5100 0±090±10.106±0.001819/89
      p+p21.300.95 0.513±0.02175±20.144±0.003257/89
      7 TeV16.50.954.7 0.414±0.02678±20.144±0.003296/89
      13.54.79.5 0.300±0.03980±20.143±0.002308/89
      11.59.514 0.155±0.07982±20.143±0.002325/89
      10.11419 0±084±20.141±0.002326/89
      8.451928 0±085±20.136±0.002360/89
      6.722838 0±089±20.123±0.001400/89
      5.43848 0±089±20.123±0.001480/89
      3.94868 0±092±20.114±0.002523/89
      2.2668100 0±094±20.098±0.002606/89

      Table 1.  Charge particle density, extracted kinetic freeze-out parameters, and χ2/nDoF from TBW fits to identified particle transverse spectra in pp collisions at s=7 TeV and 13 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN=2.76TeV and 5.02 TeV with different centralities.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Deviations of TBW model fits to hadron spectra divided by data uncertainties in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN= 5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV from top to bottom panels. The markers represent the results for different particle species. The dashed lines represent where the difference between the model and experimental data is three times the error of the data.

      For comparison, we also show the transverse momentum spectra and pull distributions based on the TBW4 fits in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4; more details about the extracted fitting parameters can be found in Table 2. Modifying the TBW model to enable the independent qB parameter for baryons achieves high quality fits for small systems, whereas the improvements to large collision systems are quite limited. The TBW4 fits are found to work significantly better, especially in pp and pPb collisions, whereas the χ2/nDoF values in the central XeXe and PbPb collisions shown in Fig. 3 are quite similar to those obtained in the TBW fits presented in Fig. 1. The improvement in small systems mainly comes from a better description of the proton pT distributions, as shown in Fig. 4. This is expected due to the inclusion of the baryon grouped non-extensive parameter qB. This improvement indicates the importance of baryon number in the fragmentation process of small systems. However, it is found that the pull distributions are not flattened to zero, especially for protons in large systems, even with the independent qB considered. There is a possibility that in central AA collisions, nuclear medium modifications such as shadowing effects and parton energy loss effects can be important in understanding this discrepancy. From Fig. 3, it is also found that the extracted freeze-out temperature is smaller than that in the default TBW fits for pp and pPb collisions. The non-extensive parameter for mesons is usually larger than that for baryons except in the central AA collisions when the off equilibrium effects are vanishing. These two non-extensive parameters qM and qB become similar in central XeXe and PbPb collisions.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Default TBW4 fits to hadron spectra in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN= 5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV from top to bottom panels. Results from the central, semi-central and peripheral collisions are shown in the left column, middle column, and right column, respectively. The markers represent ALICE experimental data [35, 3943] of identified particle species. Uncertainties on experimental data represent quadratic sums of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid curves represent fit results from the TBW4 model.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Deviations of TBW4 model fits to hadron spectra divided by data uncertainties in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN= 5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV from top to bottom panels. The markers represent the results for different particle species. The dashed lines represent where the difference between the model and experiment data is three times the error of the data.

      systemdN/dηcentrality (%)βST/MeVqB1qM1χ2/nDoF
      Pb+Pb1943050.894±0.005100±20.018±0.0060.039±0.007279/88
      5.02 TeV15875100.894±0.00597±20.026±0.0050.039±0.005294/88
      118010200.887±0.00598±20.028±0.0050.038±0.005310/88
      7862030 0.871±0.00596±20.039±0.0040.042±0.005266/88
      51230400.849±0.00692±20.055±0.0040.048±0.005203/88
      31840500.805±0.00687±20.075±0.0030.062±0.004150/88
      18350600.740±0.00884±20.092±0.0030.077±0.003122/88
      96.360700.674±0.01377±20.110±0.0030.088±0.0064/88
      44.970800.575±0.01574±20.123±0.0020.098±0.00351/88
      17.580900.478±0.03174±30.129±0.0020.103±0.00449/88
      Pb+Pb1601050.883±0.00998±30.017±0.0090.020±0.011156/103
      2.76 TeV12945100.878±0.00696±30.024±0.0060.023±0.007151/103
      96610200.871±0.00994±30.031±0.0070.026±0.009134/103
      537.520400.845±0.00891±30.047±0.0050.034±0.006113/103
      20540600.770±0.013580±30.083±0.0040.063±0.00555/103
      55.560800.644±0.017775±30.109±0.0030.083±0.00444/103
      Xe+Xe1167050.892±0.01390±40.033±0.0130.042±0.017138/87
      5.44 TeV9395100.891±0.01290±40.037±0.0110.039±0.015134/87
      70610200.882±0.00987±30.046±0.0070.044±0.009116/87
      47820300.864±0.01084±30.058±0.0070.050±0.00997/87
      31530400.829±0.01479±30.078±0.0070.064±0.00975/87
      19840500.791±0.01478±30.088±0.0050.074±0.00776/87
      11850600.717±0.01675±30.107±0.0040.094±0.00563/87
      64.760700.656±0.02270±30.120±0.0040.101±0.00547/87
      22.570900.547±0.03069±30.129±0.0040.106±0.00437/87
      p+Pb45050.768±0.01365±30.126±0.0040.091±0.00588/98
      5.02 TeV36.25100.740±0.01265±20.130±0.0030.096±0.00593/98
      30.510200.710±0.01366±20.132±0.0030.100±0.00491/98
      23.220300.673±0.01664±30.137±0.0030.103±0.00476/98
      16.130400.604±0.01665±20.138±0.0020.105±0.00369/98
      9.840600.507±0.02765±30.140±0.0020.107±0.00337/98
      4.460800.279±0.04671±20.134±0.0020.104±0.00321/98
      p+p26.0200.92 0.678±0.01659±30.154±0.0030.119±0.005102/88
      13 TeV20.020.924.60.647±0.01560±20.152±0.0030.113±0.00489/88
      16.174.69.20.608±0.01961±30.150±0.0030.111±0.00480/88
      13.779.213.80.576±0.02163±30.148±0.0030.109±0.00472/88
      12.0413.818.40.548±0.01763±20.147±0.0020.109±0.00364/88
      10.0218.427.60.511±0.02664±30.145±0.0020.107±0.00456/88
      7.9527.636.80.453±0.02466±20.143±0.0020.105±0.00343/88
      6.3236.846.00.399±0.02968±20.140±0.0020.103±0.00335/88
      4.5046.064.50.284±0.04471±20.136±0.0020.100±0.003323/88
      2.5564.51000±076±10.121±0.0010.088±0.00180/88
      p+p21.300.95 0.678±0.01260±10.144±0.0020.105±0.004100/88
      7 TeV16.50.954.70.631±0.01861±20.143±0.0020.105±0.00498/88
      13.54.79.50.591±0.01662±20.142±0.0020.104±0.00384/88
      11.59.5140.560±0.01863±20.140±0.0020.102±0.00374/88
      10.114190.532±0.02564±30.139±0.0020.102±0.00365/88
      8.4519280.498±0.02865±30.137±0.0020.100±0.00352/88
      6.7228380.444±0.022671±20.135±0.0010.099±0.00236/88
      5.438480.385±0.04769±30.132±0.0020.097±0.00326/88
      3.948680.253±0.12073±50.129±0.0020.097±0.00518/88
      2.2668100 0±075±20.117±0.0020.086±0.00142/88

      Table 2.  Charge particle density, extracted kinetic freeze-out parameters, and χ2/nDoF from TBW4 fits to identified particle transverse spectra in pp collisions at s=7 TeV and 13 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN=2.76TeV and 5.02 TeV with different centralities.

    • B.   Kinetic freeze-out parameters

    • The model parameters extracted from the TBW and TBW4 fits dependent on event multiplicity are studied in this section. We present the results of kinetic freeze-out temperature T, average radial flow velocity in the transverse plane β, and non-extensive parameter q extracted from the TBW analysis varying with the mid-rapidity charged particle multiplicity in Fig. 5. The charged multiplicity is quantified with the average charged particle number within |η|<0.5 per unit pseudorapidity dN/dη in each event class. The black circles, cyan crosses, red stars, green diamonds, blue triangles, and magenta squares represent the results of pp 7 TeV, pp 13 TeV, pPb 5.02 TeV, XeXe 5.44 TeV, PbPb 2.76 TeV, and PbPb 5.02 TeV, respectively. It is shown in Fig. 5(a) that the multiplicity dependent flow velocity can be divided into two groups: one group mainly contains large symmetric systems such as XeXe 5.44 TeV, PbPb 2.76 TeV, and PbPb 5.02 TeV, and the other group includes small systems such as pp 7 TeV, pp 13 TeV, and pPb 5.02 TeV. The average flow velocity grows with the multiplicity rapidly in the low dN/dη region but saturates at approximately 0.6 when the average charge number density dN/dη approaches 1000. The onset of non-zero radial flow starts from dN/dη around 10 to 20 in two groups. The branching of the small system flow velocity with respect to the large system flow at the same dN/dη can be understood in the context of parton density difference in the transverse plane. Higher initial densities in pp and pA collisions might produce a larger pressure against the surrounding environment [44, 45].

      Figure 5.  (color online) Charge multiplicity dependence of the extracted freeze-out parameters and the effective temperature Teff of different collision systems from TBW fits. Solid symbols with the same style represent different centrality classes in each collision system.

      The non-extensive parameter is shown in Fig. 5(b) as (q1) versus the average charge particle density. It is found that the non-extensive parameter initially increases with charge particle density and then drops when dN/dη becomes larger than 10. The non-extensive parameters from different collision systems seem to scale together. Deviations arise in the region of dN/dη between 10 and 50. The non-extensive parameter in pPb collisions in the high multiplicity regime follows the AA collision trend, unlike the radial flow velocity, which follows the trend of pp collisions. In contrast, the extracted kinetic freeze-out temperature T shows the opposite dependence on the event multiplicity compared to the non-extensive parameter (q1). As displayed in Fig. 5(c), a slight decrease within dN/dη<10 and a mild increase in the kinetic freeze-out temperatures dependent on the charge particle density in the region of dN/dη>40 are observed. In both non-extensive parameter and freeze-out temperature comparisons, the high multiplicity pp 13 TeV results are found to slightly deviate from the global trend. It is also interesting to see that the radial flow velocity in high multiplicity pPb collisions is similar to that in pp collisions, whereas the non-extensive parameter in the same events follows the AA trend.

      Finally, we also present the effective temperature of the system defined as Teff=1+β1βT [2, 28] in Fig. 5(d). The effective temperature incorporating the radial flow velocity seems to be insensitive to the collision system but only relies on the charge multiplicity. A turning point in the Teff distribution is seen at dN/dη10, similar to that in the non-extensive parameter distribution, above which the temperature increases monotonously up to dN/dη103 in a unified way across all different systems ranging from pp collisions to AA collisions.

      In the framework of non-equilibrium statistics, the temperature and the flow velocity can be related to viscosity with a linear or quadratic dependence on the non-extensive parameter (q1). The β vs. (q1) and T vs. (q1) distributions from TBW fits are shown in Fig. 6. The non-zero radial flow velocity and (q1) can be roughly described by a universal quadratic dependence, with the exception that high multiplicity pp collisions are more likely to have larger non-extensive parameters instead of having vanishing (q1) values as seen in central AA collisions. The kinetic freeze-out temperature T vs. (q1) also shows little sensitivity to the collision system, while a slightly diverged branch consisting of XeXe collisions and pPb collisions is observed. The deviation of the XeXe and pPb results compared to the large symmetric systems possibly comes from the fluctuation effects in the initial conditions, whose initial spatial geometries can vary significantly due to the non-spherical shape of Xe nuclei and the asymmetric colliding nuclei involved in the pPb collisions. The potentially produced hot spot regions during the fluctuations may lead to a longer lifetime of the evolving medium and a lower freeze-out temperature.

      Figure 6.  (color online) β vs. q1 and T vs. q1 of different collision systems from TBW fits. Solid symbols with the same style represent different centrality classes in each collision system.

      The extracted freeze-out parameters are also studied in the case with two independent non-extensive parameters qM for mesons and qB for baryons. Compared to the results shown in Fig. 5, much better scaling features are observed in Fig. 7 for TBW4 fits. The radial flow velocity distribution is still divided into two groups with a quite early onset of non-zero radial flow in dN/dη as shown in Fig. 7(a). The non-extensive parameters qB for the baryons are represented by the hollow markers and compared to qM in Fig. 7(b). qM is found to be larger than qB, especially in the low multiplicity regime. The separated meson and baryon non-extensive parameters seem to automatically converge in the high multiplicity region. This indicates that the baryon number is mostly important for the hadronization process in small systems. For large systems, the non-equilibrium effects become negligible, and the non-extensive parameter turns out to be independent of the hadron species. The radial flow velocity and the non-extensive parameter in high multiplicity pPb collisions show diverged features similar to the findings in Fig. 5, following the pp collision behavior in β and the AA collision behavior in (q1). This deviation arises because the transverse overlap area in small systems is much smaller than that in large systems at the same event multiplicities [46]. The initial entropy density, represented by the particle density per unit transverse overlap area, in small systems is thus significantly enhanced, which leads to stronger collective expansion in high multiplicity pPb collisions in contrast to that in peripheral PbPb collisions. The extracted radial flow velocity is expected to scale with the charged particle density per unit transverse overlap area across the large and small systems in a more coherent way [47].

      Figure 7.  (color online) Charge multiplicity dependence of the extracted freeze-out parameters and the effective temperature Teff of different collision systems from TBW4 fits. Solid symbols with the same style represent different centrality classes in each collision system. In panel (c), open markers represent the results of qB and solid markers represent the results of qM.

      A two staged temperature dependence varying with dN/dη is found in Fig. 7(c) and Fig. 7(d), similar to the results shown in Fig. 5(c) and Fig. 5(d). The deviation of the temperature from PbPb collisions to XeXe collisions is less important in TBW4 fits than that in the TBW case. Without the initial decreasing part, Teff in TBW4 grows all the way from low to high multiplicity only with different slopes in the two regions separated by dN/dη20.

      It is noteworthy that a turning behavior exists in the multiplicity dependence of the freeze-out parameters β, q, and T around dN/dη 10 to 15, as shown both in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7. Considering that the hadronic interactions are believed to be dominant in the low multiplicity events and the parton interactions become more important in the high multiplicity limit, the region in between may suffer from the mixture of the two types of contributions. The emergence of this feature suggests that the dominant physics mechanism dictating the evolution of the system changes from hadron gas rescatterings to deconfined quark gluon matter interactions. This turning behavior can be regarded as a signature that the quark and gluon degrees of freedom begin to take over in the high multiplicity region.

      Considering the TBW4 fits generally give better descriptions of the experimental data, we also examine the β vs. (q1) and T vs. (q1) in Fig. 8 from TBW4 analysis. The large system β vs. (q1) relationship can be roughly described by a quadratic fit, while more complicated structures can be found for the smaller systems as displayed in Fig. 8(a) and Fig. 8(b). Similar to the findings in Fig. 7(b), central pp collisions have a large q and sizable flow, while large collision systems tend to have a small q and large β in central events. The parameters of peripheral pPb events are close to those in the pp case but become similar to those in the AA case in high multiplicity pPb collisions. The T vs. (q1) relationships shown in Fig. 8(c) and Fig. 8(d) are found to be universal for all collision systems. Central pp collisions approach large q and small T, while central AA collisions are found to have large T and small q. It is interesting to see that both the AA system and the pp system have similar model parameter values in the peripheral collisions. These two types of collision systems follow two distinguished evolution curves on theβ vs. (q1) plane and move in opposite directions along a universal curve in the T vs. (q1) space. The difference between the large systems and the small systems in the β vs. (q1) space can be partly understood after considering the striking β gap between the two types of systems shown in Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 7(a). Additionally, the initial spatial fluctuation effects can be important in accounting for this behavior. The initial geometries of large systems are supposed to be controlled by the average shape of the overlap region, while the sub-nucleon level fluctuation effects arise in the determination of initial densities for the high multiplicity small systems [48, 49]. The sizable non-equilibrium effects induced by the strong fluctuations in central pp collisions lead to an increasing non-extensive parameter, unlike in the central AA collisions in which q vanishes as the system approaches equilibrium. As the dynamical fluctuations in freeze-out temperature induced by the system size effects are encoded in the non-extensive parameter [11, 50, 51], the variations in temperature are compensated by the corresponding non-extensive parameters, and universal scalings are observed in the T vs. (q1) space. It is expected that the pp collisions and pPb collisions with extremely high multiplicities will approach the environment created in AA collisions, indicated by the behaviors of β and (q1) in Fig. 5 and Fig. 7. Examining whether the turning behavior shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b) exists in the ultra-central pp and pPb collisions is an interesting research direction with future experimental data.

      Figure 8.  (color online) β vs. q1 and T vs. q1 of different collision systems from TBW4 fits for the meson non-extensive parameter (left column) and baryon non-extensive parameter (right column). Solid symbols with the same style represent different centrality classes in each collision system. Arrows indicate the direction from peripheral to central classes for AA and pp collisions in the parameter space.

    IV.   SUMMARY
    • In this study, we use the Tsallis Blast-Wave model with and without independent baryon non-extensive parameters to fit the transverse momentum spectra of charged pions, kaons, and protons produced at mid-rapidity in pp collisions ats=7 and 13 TeV, pPb collisions at sNN= 5.02 TeV, XeXe collisions at sNN= 5.44 TeV, and PbPb collisions at sNN= 2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV at the LHC to extract kinetic freeze-out parameters. It is found that the introduction of qB for the baryons in the TBW4 fits improves the description of identified hadron spectra, especially in pp, pA, and peripheral AA collisions. The multiplicity dependence of the freeze-out properties are examined across the the largely varied collision systems. A general universal scaling of the freeze-out parameters can be observed, especially in the Tsallis analysis with a separate baryon non-extensive parameter.

      The radial flow velocities obtained from both the TBW fits and the TBW4 fits are divided into two categories consisting of small systems and large symmetric systems, respectively. The temperatures from different collision systems scale with the charge multiplicity in a unified way. A similar universality is also found in the non-extensive parameter distributions with some minor deviations in the most central pp collisions. By investigating the correlation of radial flow velocity β vs. (q1) and kinetic freeze-out temperature T vs. (q1) in the TBW4 fits with independent qB assumptions, the peripheral AA collisions and pp collisions are found to be quite similar, while the two types of systems move in completely different directions toward central collisions in the parameter space. The asymmetric pPb collisions are close to the pp collisions in the low multiplicity region but become AA like in the high multiplicity region. A transitional behavior can be found in the evolution of the pPb collision system.

      The universality of the freeze-out properties revealed in this study suggests that Tsallis Blast-Wave analysis is applicable to various collision systems covering a wide range of event multiplicities. This feature also indicates that the evolution properties of the small size collision systems with high multiplicities and the large systems at the LHC energy can be driven by a unified physics mechanism. A parton evolution stage with sizable collective motion might exist even in the small collision systems. Extending the study to pp collision events with a considerably high charge particle density [52] or to intermediate size collision systems such as oxygen-oxygen collisions [53] in future experiments may be important for further understanding the universality of freeze-out properties observed in different collision systems at the LHC energies.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • We would like to thank Zebo Tang, Wangmei Zha, and Qiye Shou for helpful discussions.

Reference (53)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return