Showing 10 of 60 results
None
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
We report measurements of the nuclear modification factor, $R_{ \mathrm{CP}}$, for charged hadrons as well as identified $\pi^{+(-)}$, $K^{+(-)}$, and $p(\overline{p})$ for Au+Au collision energies of $\sqrt{s_{_{ \mathrm{NN}}}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 62.4 GeV. We observe a clear high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ net suppression in central collisions at 62.4 GeV for charged hadrons which evolves smoothly to a large net enhancement at lower energies. This trend is driven by the evolution of the pion spectra, but is also very similar for the kaon spectra. While the magnitude of the proton $R_{ \mathrm{CP}}$ at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ does depend on collision energy, neither the proton nor the anti-proton $R_{ \mathrm{CP}}$ at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ exhibit net suppression at any energy. A study of how the binary collision scaled high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ yield evolves with centrality reveals a non-monotonic shape that is consistent with the idea that jet-quenching is increasing faster than the combined phenomena that lead to enhancement.
Charged hadron RCP for RHIC BES energies. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT-independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy. The vertical uncertainty bars correspond to statistical uncertainties and the boxes to systematic uncertainties.
Identified particle (Pion Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Pion Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Kaon Plus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Kaon Minus) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Proton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Identified particle (Antiproton) RCP for RHIC BES energies. The colored shaded boxes describe the point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The uncertainty bands at unity on the right side of the plot correspond to the pT -independent uncertainty in Ncoll scaling with the color in the band corresponding to the color of the data points for that energy.
Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 3.0 - 3.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.
Charged hadron Y(<Npart>) for two ranges of pT (pT 4.0 - 4.5 GeV/c). Statistical uncertainty bars are included, mostly smaller than point size, as well as shaded bands to indicate systematic uncertainties.
Glauber Fit Parameters
Nch at each Collision Energy (GeV)
Ncoll at each Collision Energy (GeV)
Npart at each Collision Energy (GeV)
The value of $\sigma^{NN}_{inel}$ used in the Monte Carlo Glauber simulation at each collision energy
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
Charged hadron $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\\p$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\overline{p}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$K^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{+}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
$\pi^{-}$ $\frac{1}{2\pi p_{T}}$ * $\frac{d^{2}N}{d\eta dp_{T}}$ $\pm$ stat. $\pm$ sys. $(GeV/c)^{-2}$ for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV/c
We present results from a harmonic decomposition of two-particle azimuthal correlations measured with the STAR detector in Au+Au collisions for energies ranging from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV to 200 GeV. The third harmonic $v_3^2\{2\}=\langle \cos3(\phi_1-\phi_2)\rangle$, where $\phi_1-\phi_2$ is the angular difference in azimuth, is studied as a function of the pseudorapidity difference between particle pairs $\Delta\eta = \eta_1-\eta_2$. Non-zero {\vthree} is directly related to the previously observed large-$\Delta\eta$ narrow-$\Delta\phi$ ridge correlations and has been shown in models to be sensitive to the existence of a low viscosity Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) phase. For sufficiently central collisions, $v_3^2\{2\}$ persist down to an energy of 7.7 GeV suggesting that QGP may be created even in these low energy collisions. In peripheral collisions at these low energies however, $v_3^2\{2\}$ is consistent with zero. When scaled by pseudorapidity density of charged particle multiplicity per participating nucleon pair, $v_3^2\{2\}$ for central collisions shows a minimum near {\snn}$=20$ GeV.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Representative results on $v_3^2\{2\}$ from Au+Au collisions as a function of $\Delta\eta$ for charged hadrons with pT > 0.2 GeV/c and |$\eta$| < 1.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
Npart values are for the corresponding centrality at 200 GeV.
No description provided.
Balance functions have been measured in terms of relative pseudorapidity ($\Delta \eta$) for charged particle pairs at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV to 200 GeV using the STAR detector. These results are compared with balance functions measured at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) from Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV by the ALICE Collaboration. The width of the balance function decreases as the collisions become more central and as the beam energy is increased. In contrast, the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events show little dependence on centrality or beam energy and are larger than the observed widths. Balance function widths calculated using events generated by UrQMD are wider than the measured widths in central collisions and show little centrality dependence. The measured widths of the balance functions in central collisions are consistent with the delayed hadronization of a deconfined quark gluon plasma (QGP). The narrowing of the balance function in central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV implies that a QGP is still being created at this relatively low energy.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=7.7$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=11.5$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=27$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=39$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=62.4$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
The balance function in terms of $\Delta \eta$ for all charged particles with $0.2 < p_{T} < 2.0$ GeV/$c$ from central Au+Au collisions (0-5%) for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. The data are the measured balance functions corrected by subtracting balance functions calculated using mixed events. Also shown are balance functions calculated using shuffled events.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Energy dependence of the balance function widths compared with the widths of the balance functions calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are the balance function widths calculated using UrQMD. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution. Error bars represent the statistical error and the shaded bands represent the systematic error.
Balance function widths for the most central events ($0-5\%$) compared with balance function widths calculated using shuffled events. Also shown are balance function widths calculated using UrQMD and shuffled UrQMD events. The dashed line represents the width of the balance function calculated using shuffled events for a constant $dN/d\eta$ distribution.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Acceptance-corrected balance function widths for Au+Au measured over the range $0.1 < \Delta \eta < 1.6$ normalized to the most peripheral centrality bin compared with similar results from Pb+Pb collisions from ALICE. Only statistical errors are shown. Lines represent fits of the form $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
Local parity-odd domains are theorized to form inside a Quark-Gluon-Plasma (QGP) which has been produced in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. The local parity-odd domains manifest themselves as charge separation along the magnetic field axis via the chiral magnetic effect (CME). The experimental observation of charge separation has previously been reported for heavy-ion collisions at the top RHIC energies. In this paper, we present the results of the beam-energy dependence of the charge correlations in Au+Au collisions at midrapidity for center-of-mass energies of 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, 39 and 62.4 GeV from the STAR experiment. After background subtraction, the signal gradually reduces with decreased beam energy, and tends to vanish by 7.7 GeV. The implications of these results for the CME will be discussed.
The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.
The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV.
The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV.
The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV.
The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV.
The three-point correlator, $\gamma$, as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 7.7.
The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.
The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV.
The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV.
The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV.
The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV.
The two-particle correlation as a function of centrality for Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV.
$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 60-80% centrality in Au+Au collisions.
$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 30-60% centrality in Au+Au collisions.
$H_{SS}-H{OS}$, as a function of beam energy for 10-30% centrality in Au+Au collisions.
We present measurements of bulk properties of the matter produced in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV using identified hadrons ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$, $p$ and $\bar{p}$) from the STAR experiment in the Beam Energy Scan (BES) Program at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). Midrapidity ($|y|<$0.1) results for multiplicity densities $dN/dy$, average transverse momenta $\langle p_T \rangle$ and particle ratios are presented. The chemical and kinetic freeze-out dynamics at these energies are discussed and presented as a function of collision centrality and energy. These results constitute the systematic measurements of bulk properties of matter formed in heavy-ion collisions over a broad range of energy (or baryon chemical potential) at RHIC.
The average number of participating nucleons (⟨Npart⟩) for various collision centralities in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7–39 GeV.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π- in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) K− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) K+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) p¯ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (b) π− in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (a) π+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (d) k- in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (c) k+ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (f) pbar in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) transverse momentum spectra for (e) p in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for different centralities. The spectra for centralities other than 0–5% are scaled for clarity as shown in the figure. The curves represent the Bose-Einstein, mT -exponential, and double-exponential function fits to 0–5% central data for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons, respectively. The uncertainties are statistical and systematic added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependence of dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. For clarity, ⟨Npart⟩ uncertainties are not added in quadrature.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Centrality dependences of <pT> for π+, π−, K+, K−, p, and p ̄ at midrapidity (|y|<0.1) in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV. Errors shown are quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 7.7 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 11.5 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 27 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
Variation of K−/π−, p ̄/π−, K+/π+, and p/π+ ratios as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in Au+Au collisions at 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
The midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) dN/dy normalized by ⟨Npart⟩/2 as a function of √sNN for π±, K±, and p and p ̄ in 0–5% Au+Au collisions at BES energies. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
⟨mT⟩ − m of π±, K±, and p and p ̄ as a function of √sNN . Midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) results are shown for 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at BES energies. The errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
π−/π+, K−/K+, and p ̄/p ratios at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) in central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
K/π ratio at midrapidity (|y| < 0.1) for central 0–5% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 11.5, 19.6, 27, and 39 GeV. Errors shown are the quadrature sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties where the latter dominates.
The GCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The GCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The SCE model particle yields fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The SCE model particle ratios fits shown along with standard deviations for Au+Au 7.7 and Au+Au 39 GeV in 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter μS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in GCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μS between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between results from particle yield fits to particle ratio fits in GCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter γS plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter μB plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter Tch plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Chemical freeze-out parameter R plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩ in SCE for particle yields fit. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between yield and ratio fits in SCE plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle ratios in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter γS between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter μB between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter Tch between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Ratio of chemical freeze-out parameter R between GCE and SCE results using particle yields in fits plotted vs ⟨Npart⟩. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
Extracted chemical freeze-out temperature vs baryon chemical potential for (a) GCE and (b) SCE cases using particle yields as input for fitting. Curves represent two model predictions [81,82]. The gray bands represent the theoretical prediction ranges of the Cleymans et al. model [81]. Uncertainties represent systematic errors.
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on constraints: Extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures shown in panels (a), (c), and (e) and baryon chemical potentials shown in panels (b), (d), and (f) for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting, respectively, for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7, 19.6, and 39 GeV. Results are compared for three initial conditions: μQ = 0, μQ constrained to B/2Q value, and μQ constrained to B/2Q along with μS constrained to 0. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Choice on including more particles: Extracted chemical freeze-out parameters (a) Tch, (b) μB, and (c) γS along with (d) χ2/ndf for GCE using particle yields as input for fitting. Results are compared for Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV for four different sets of particle yields used in fitting. Uncertainties represent systematic errors."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Blast wave model fits of π±, K±, p and p p¯ T spectra in 0–5% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = (a) 7.7, (b) 11.5, (c) 19.6, (d) 27, and (e) 39 GeV. Uncertainties on experimental data represent statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Here, the uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
"Variation of Tkin with <β> for different energies and centralities. The centrality increases from left to right for a given energy. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,66]. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
" (a) Energy dependence of kinetic and chemical freezeout temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions. The curves represent various theoretical predictions [81,82]. (b) Energy dependence of average transverse radial flow velocity for central heavy-ion collisions. The data points other than BES energies are taken from Refs. [43,53–64,66] and references therein. The BES data points are for 0–5% central collisions, AGS energies are mostly for 0–5%, SPS energies are for mostly 0–7%, and top RHIC and LHC energies are for 0–5% central collisions. Uncertainties represent systematic uncertainties."
None
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
Elliptic flow (v_2) values for identified particles at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions measured by the STAR experiment in the Beam Energy Scan at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at sqrt{s_{NN}}= 7.7--62.4 GeV are presented for three centrality classes. The centrality dependence and the data at sqrt{s_{NN}}= 14.5 GeV are new. Except at the lowest beam energies we observe a similar relative v_2 baryon-meson splitting for all centrality classes which is in agreement within 15% with the number-of-constituent quark scaling. The larger v_2 for most particles relative to antiparticles, already observed for minimum bias collisions, shows a clear centrality dependence, with the largest difference for the most central collisions. Also, the results are compared with A Multiphase Transport Model and fit with a Blast Wave model.
No description provided.
The difference in $v_{2}$ between particles (X) and their corresponding antiparticles $\bar{X}$ (see legend) as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for 10%-40% central Au + Au collisions. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.
No description provided.
The difference in $v_{2}$ between protons and antiprotons as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for 0%-10%, 10%-40% and 40%-80% central Au + Au collisions. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.
No description provided.
The relative difference. The systematic errors are shown by the hooked error bars. The dashed lines in the plot are fits with a power-law function.
No description provided.
The $v_{2}$ difference between protons and antiprotons (and between $\pi^{+}$ and $pi^{-}$) for 10%-40% centrality Au+Au collisions at 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, and 19.6 GeV. The $v_{2}{BBC} results were slightly shifted horizontally.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
None
No description provided.
No description provided.
FOR P< 1. GEV DATA FOR PROTONS WITH P < .7 WERE USED.
FOR P< 1. GEV DATA FOR PROTONS WITH P < .7 WERE USED.
FOR P< 1. GEV DATA FOR PROTONS WITH P < .7 WERE USED.
Azimuthal correlations of charged particles in xenon-xenon collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $ \sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}} =$ 5.44 TeV are studied. The data were collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC with a total integrated luminosity of 3.42 $\mu$b$^{-1}$. The collective motion of the system formed in the collision is parameterized by a Fourier expansion of the azimuthal particle density distribution. The azimuthal anisotropy coefficients $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, and $v_{4}$ are obtained by the scalar-product, two-particle correlation, and multiparticle correlation methods. Within a hydrodynamic picture, these methods have different sensitivities to non-collective and fluctuation effects. The dependence of the Fourier coefficients on the size of the colliding system is explored by comparing the xenon-xenon results with equivalent lead-lead data. Model calculations that include initial-state fluctuation effects are also compared to the experimental results. The observed angular correlations provide new constraints on the hydrodynamic description of heavy ion collisions.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the two-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the scalar-product technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the four-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the six-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the eight-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Triangular-flow coefficients $v_3$ based on the two-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Triangular-flow coefficients $v_3$ based on the scalar-product technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Triangular-flow coefficients $v_3$ based on the four-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
The $v_4$ coefficients based on the two-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
The $v_4$ coefficients based on the scalar-product technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_2$ flow harmonics with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The $v_2$ results are shown for two-, four-, six-, and eight-particle correlations.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_3$ flow harmonics with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The results are shown for two- and four-particle correlations.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_4$ flow harmonics with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The results are shown for two-particle correlations.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2\}$ ratios.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{6\}/v_2\{4\}$ ratios.
Centrality dependence of $v_3\{4\}/v_3\{2\}$ ratios.
The $v_2$ results measured with two-particle correlations from PbPb collisions at $5.02~$TeV, shown as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in eleven centrality bins.
The $v_3$ results measured with two-particle correlations from PbPb collisions at $5.02~$TeV, shown as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in eleven centrality bins.
The $v_4$ results measured with two-particle correlations from PbPb collisions at $5.02~$TeV, shown as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in eleven centrality bins.
Ratios of the $v_2$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 11 centrality bins.
Ratios of the $v_3$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 11 centrality bins.
Ratios of the $v_4$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 11 centrality bins.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations method for $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ for PbPb collisions at $5.02$~TeV.
Ratios of the $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions or $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ as a function of centrality.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.