Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Finite V2Δ puzzle in low-multiplicity pp collisions from ultralong-range azimuthal correlations in the string-shoving model

Antonio Ortiz and Dushmanta Sahu*

Gyula Bencedi

  • Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM Circuito exterior s/n Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico City, Mexico

  • *Contact author: Dushmanta.Sahu@cern.ch

Phys. Rev. D 113, 114035 – Published 18 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/7mb1-8lxd

Abstract

Ultralong range angular correlations have been recently reported by the ALICE collaboration in pp collisions at s=13  TeV below dNch/dη=7. The measurements have been performed as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity at midrapidity (Nch in |η|<0.8), which is known to be strongly sensitive to local multiplicity fluctuations. The present work investigates the impact of the event-activity estimator on ultralong range angular correlations. The study is conducted in the framework of pythia8 with the string shoving mechanism since it gives a nonzero elliptic flow coefficient, V2Δ. Such collectivelike effects arise from repulsive interactions between overlapping color strings, without invoking hydrodynamic collectivity. The analysis is conducted as a function of Nch, the number of parton-parton scatterings (Nmpi) and flattenicity. Surprisingly, for ultralong range correlations, pp collisions with Nmpi=1 (dijets) seem to be the most sensitive to string shoving. The effect diminishes with increasing Nmpi. While in data, within uncertainties, V2Δ exhibits a weak multiplicity dependence; the string shoving mechanism gives a V2Δ that decreases with the increase in Nch. The present work therefore supports the picture stating that mechanisms such as string shoving might explain the low multiplicity limit, whereas, hydro becomes relevant in high-multiplicity pp collisions. This work also suggests that flattenicity might be more effective than Nch to better handle collectivelike effects.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2017) 039.
  2. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 013.
  3. B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 728, 216 (2014); 734, 409(E) (2014).
  4. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 849, 138451 (2024).
  5. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2011) 076.
  6. K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 708, 249 (2012).
  7. J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46, 229 (1992).
  8. S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. C 70, 665 (1996).
  9. K. H. Ackermann et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 402 (2001).
  10. P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172301 (2007).
  11. H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064901 (2008).
  12. T. Hirano and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A769, 71 (2006).
  13. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 765, 193 (2017).
  14. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 122301 (2017).
  15. J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nat. Phys. 13, 535 (2017).
  16. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 693 (2020).
  17. D. Sahu, S. Tripathy, R. Sahoo, and S. K. Tiwari, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 78 (2022).
  18. D. Sahu and R. Sahoo, J. Phys. G 48, 125104 (2021).
  19. A. N. Mishra, D. Sahu, and R. Sahoo, MDPI Phys. 4, 315 (2022).
  20. D. Sahu, S. Tripathy, R. Sahoo, and A. R. Dash, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 187 (2020).
  21. R. Scaria, D. Sahu, C. R. Singh, R. Sahoo, and J. e. Alam, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 140 (2023).
  22. M. Habich, G. A. Miller, P. Romatschke, and W. Xiang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 408 (2016).
  23. U. W. Heinz and J. S. Moreland, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1271, 012018 (2019).
  24. N. Hatwar and M. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054902 (2022).
  25. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), arXiv:2504.02359.
  26. R. Vertesi and A. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. D 112, 036009 (2025).
  27. A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 142301 (2024).
  28. K. Dusling, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 93, 014034 (2016).
  29. W. Zhao, S. Ryu, C. Shen, and B. Schenke, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014904 (2023).
  30. B. Schenke, S. Schlichting, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094023 (2022).
  31. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).
  32. T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).
  33. C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, and L. Lönnblad, Phys. Lett. B 779, 58 (2018).
  34. C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, and L. Lönnblad, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2016) 139.
  35. C. Bierlich, Universe 10, 46 (2024).
  36. A. Ortiz, A. Khuntia, O. Vázquez-Rueda, S. Tripathy, G. Bencedi, S. Prasad, and F. Fan, Phys. Rev. D 107, 076012 (2023).
  37. C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad, and H. Shah, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 134.
  38. B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjostrand, Phys. Rep. 97, 31 (1983).
  39. T. Sjostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun. 27, 243 (1982).
  40. P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3024 (2014).
  41. C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, and L. Lönnblad, arXiv:1612.05132.
  42. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 172301 (2016).
  43. B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 726, 164 (2013).
  44. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 718, 795 (2013).
  45. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2024) 092.
  46. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 082301 (2020).
  47. J. E. Muñoz Méndez and A. Ortiz, J. Phys. G 52, 095001 (2025).
  48. A. Ortiz Velasquez, P. Christiansen, E. Cuautle Flores, I. Maldonado Cervantes, and G. Paić, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 042001 (2013).
  49. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 111, 012010 (2025).
  50. J. Kim, E. J. Kim, S. Ji, and S. Lim, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 79, 447 (2021).
  51. C. Bierlich, Nucl. Phys. A982, 499 (2019).
  52. J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus and U. A. Wiedemann, arXiv:2407.07484.
  53. C. Bierlich, P. Christiansen, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad, R. Törnkvist, and K. Zapp, Phys. Lett. B 874, 140216 (2026).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation