- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

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
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Probing the path-length dependence of parton energy loss via scaling properties in heavy ion collisions

François Arleo1 and Guillaume Falmagne1,2,3

  • 1SUBATECH UMR 6457 (IMT Atlantique, Université de Nantes, IN2P3/CNRS), 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44307 Nantes, France
  • 2Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, École polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
  • 3High Meadows Environmental Institute, Guyot Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1003, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 109, L051503 – Published 20 March, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L051503

Abstract

The scaling property of large-p⊥ hadron suppression, RAA(p⊥), measured in heavy ion collisions at the relativistic heavy ion collider and at the large hadron collider (LHC) leads to the determination of the average parton energy loss ⟨ε⟩ in quark-gluon plasma produced in a variety of collision systems and centrality classes. Relating ⟨ε⟩ to the particle multiplicity and collision geometry allows for probing the dependence of parton energy loss on the path length L. We find that ⟨ε⟩∝Lβ with β=1.02−0.06+0.09, which is consistent with the perturbative quantum chromodynamics expectation of parton energy loss in a longitudinally expanding quark-gluon plasma. We then demonstrate that the azimuthal anisotropy coefficient divided by the collision eccentricity, v2/e, follows the same scaling property as RAA. This scaling is observed in data, which are reproduced by the model at large p⊥. Finally, a linear relationship between v2/e and the logarithmic derivative of RAA is found and confirmed in data, offering an additional way to probe the L dependence of parton energy loss using coming measurements from LHC run 3.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (72)

  1. S. Cao and X.-N. Wang, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84, 024301 (2021).
  2. L. Cunqueiro and A. M. Sickles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 124, 103940 (2022).
  3. R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigné, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B483, 291 (1997).
  4. R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigné, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B484, 265 (1997).
  5. B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 63, 952 (1996).
  6. B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 65, 615 (1997).
  7. M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B571, 197 (2000).
  8. M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B594, 371 (2001).
  9. U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B588, 303 (2000).
  10. P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2000) 001.
  11. J.-P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530012 (2015).
  12. E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C 66, 027902 (2002).
  13. S. A. Bass, C. Gale, A. Majumder, C. Nonaka, G.-Y. Qin, T. Renk, and J. Ruppert, Phys. Rev. C 79, 024901 (2009).
  14. F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, A. H. Mueller, B. Wu, and B.-W. Xiao, Nucl. Phys. A811, 197 (2008).
  15. P. M. Chesler, K. Jensen, A. Karch, and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. D 79, 125015 (2009).
  16. A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 142301 (2010).
  17. B. Betz and M. Gyulassy, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2014) 090; 10 (2014) 43(E).
  18. J. Noronha-Hostler, B. Betz, J. Noronha, and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 252301 (2016).
  19. M. Djordjevic, D. Zigic, M. Djordjevic, and J. Auvinen, Phys. Rev. C 99, 061902 (2019).
  20. F. Arleo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 062302 (2017).
  21. M. Spousta and B. Cole, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 50 (2016).
  22. M. Spousta, Phys. Lett. B 767, 10 (2017).
  23. Y. He, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 252302 (2019).
  24. J. Wu, W. Ke, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034911 (2023).
  25. R. Sassot, P. Zurita, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D 82, 074011 (2010).

  26. Assuming a ±5% variation of the local slope n(p⊥) from low to high p⊥ leads to negligible scaling violations and does not affect our results.

  27. R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, and D. Schiff, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2001) 033.
  28. F. Arleo, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2002) 044.
  29. A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 87, 034911 (2013).
  30. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2018) 013.
  31. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2015) 050.
  32. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1945 (2012).
  33. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2017) 039.
  34. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 138.
  35. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 174.
  36. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 782, 474 (2018).
  37. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 762 (2018).
  38. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 509 (2018).
  39. C. Loizides and A. Morsch, Phys. Lett. B 773, 408 (2017).

  40. For clarity, only statistical uncertainties are shown and data points with uncertainties larger than 0.1 are removed.

  41. C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 092303 (2002).
  42. S. P. Adhya, C. A. Salgado, M. Spousta, and K. Tywoniuk, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2020) 150.
  43. P. Caucal, E. Iancu, and G. Soyez, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 209.
  44. M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2537 (2001).
  45. J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27, 140 (1983).
  46. C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, Phys. Rev. C 97, 054910 (2018); 99, 019901(E) (2019).
  47. A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93, 024901 (2016).
  48. J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 222302 (2016).
  49. K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 032301 (2011).
  50. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 790, 35 (2019).
  51. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2011) 141.
  52. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 799, 135049 (2019).
  53. S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 71, 034908 (2005); 71, 049901(E) (2005).
  54. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 022002 (2010).
  55. F. Arleo and G. Falmagne (to be published).
  56. J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, arXiv:2103.01939.
  57. K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. C 89, 064903 (2014).

  58. This definition of e is different than the usual eccentricity ϵ=(⟨y⟩2−⟨x⟩2)/(⟨y⟩2+(⟨x⟩2) used to scale v2 at low p⊥.

  59. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 776, 195 (2018).
  60. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 022301 (2012).

  61. The data in the 0%–5% centrality class, not shown here, are subject to important fluctuations [62, 63] that also affect the estimation of e. They deviate from the scaling observed in the other classes.

  62. M. Miller and R. Snellings, arXiv:nucl-ex/0312008.
  63. R. S. Bhalerao and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 641, 260 (2006).
  64. M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, and P. Huovinen, Phys. Lett. B 526, 301 (2002).
  65. D. Molnar and D. Sun, arXiv:1305.1046.
  66. J. Xu, A. Buzzatti, and M. Gyulassy, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2014) 063.
  67. S. K. Das, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B 747, 260 (2015).
  68. C. Andres, N. Armesto, H. Niemi, R. Paatelainen, and C. A. Salgado, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135318 (2020).
  69. D. Zigic, B. Ilic, M. Djordjevic, and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 101, 064909 (2020).
  70. W. Zhao, W. Ke, W. Chen, T. Luo, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022302 (2022).
  71. Y. He, W. Chen, T. Luo, S. Cao, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 106, 044904 (2022).
  72. P. F. Kolb, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054909 (2000).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 109, L051503– Published 20 March, 2024
  • Received 6 December 2022
  • Revised 27 June 2023
  • Accepted 20 February 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation