Showing 10 of 60 results
We report the measurement of $K^{*0}$ meson at midrapidity ($|y|<$ 1.0) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$~=~7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27 and 39 GeV collected by the STAR experiment during the RHIC beam energy scan (BES) program. The transverse momentum spectra, yield, and average transverse momentum of $K^{*0}$ are presented as functions of collision centrality and beam energy. The $K^{*0}/K$ yield ratios are presented for different collision centrality intervals and beam energies. The $K^{*0}/K$ ratio in heavy-ion collisions are observed to be smaller than that in small system collisions (e+e and p+p). The $K^{*0}/K$ ratio follows a similar centrality dependence to that observed in previous RHIC and LHC measurements. The data favor the scenario of the dominance of hadronic re-scattering over regeneration for $K^{*0}$ production in the hadronic phase of the medium.
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-20%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-40%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$7.7 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$11.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$14.5 GeV (Multiplicity class 60-80%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 0-10%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 10-20%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 20-30%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 30-40%).
$p_{\mathrm T}$-differential yield of $\mathrm{K^{*0}} + \bar{\mathrm{K^{*0}}}$ in AuAu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}~=~$19.6 GeV (Multiplicity class 40-60%).
Notwithstanding decades of progress since Yukawa first developed a description of the force between nucleons in terms of meson exchange, a full understanding of the strong interaction remains a major challenge in modern science. One remaining difficulty arises from the non-perturbative nature of the strong force, which leads to the phenomenon of quark confinement at distances on the order of the size of the proton. Here we show that in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, where quarks and gluons are set free over an extended volume, two species of produced vector (spin-1) mesons, namely $\phi$ and $K^{*0}$, emerge with a surprising pattern of global spin alignment. In particular, the global spin alignment for $\phi$ is unexpectedly large, while that for $K^{*0}$ is consistent with zero. The observed spin-alignment pattern and magnitude for the $\phi$ cannot be explained by conventional mechanisms, while a model with a connection to strong force fields, i.e. an effective proxy description within the Standard Model and Quantum Chromodynamics, accommodates the current data. This connection, if fully established, will open a potential new avenue for studying the behaviour of strong force fields.
Elliptic flow measurements from two-, four- and six-particle correlations are used to investigate flow fluctuations in collisions of U+U at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 193 GeV, Cu+Au at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 200 GeV and Au+Au spanning the range $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$= 11.5 - 200 GeV. The measurements show a strong dependence of the flow fluctuations on collision centrality, a modest dependence on system size, and very little if any, dependence on particle species and beam energy. The results, when compared to similar LHC measurements, viscous hydrodynamic calculations, and T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo model eccentricities, indicate that initial-state-driven fluctuations predominate the flow fluctuations generated in the collisions studied.
We report a systematic measurement of cumulants, $C_{n}$, for net-proton, proton and antiproton multiplicity distributions, and correlation functions, $\kappa_n$, for proton and antiproton multiplicity distributions up to the fourth order in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm {NN}}}$ = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 62.4 and 200 GeV. The $C_{n}$ and $\kappa_n$ are presented as a function of collision energy, centrality and kinematic acceptance in rapidity, $y$, and transverse momentum, $p_{T}$. The data were taken during the first phase of the Beam Energy Scan (BES) program (2010 -- 2017) at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) facility. The measurements are carried out at midrapidity ($|y| <$ 0.5) and transverse momentum 0.4 $<$$p_{\rm T}$$<$ 2.0 GeV/$c$, using the STAR detector at RHIC. We observe a non-monotonic energy dependence ($\sqrt{s_{\mathrm {NN}}}$ = 7.7 -- 62.4 GeV) of the net-proton $C_{4}$/$C_{2}$ with the significance of 3.1$\sigma$ for the 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. This is consistent with the expectations of critical fluctuations in a QCD-inspired model. Thermal and transport model calculations show a monotonic variation with $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm {NN}}}$. For the multiparticle correlation functions, we observe significant negative values for a two-particle correlation function, $\kappa_2$, of protons and antiprotons, which are mainly due to the effects of baryon number conservation. Furthermore, it is found that the four-particle correlation function, $\kappa_4$, of protons plays a role in determining the energy dependence of proton $C_4/C_1$ below 19.6 GeV, which cannot be understood by the effect of baryon number conservation.
The measurements of particle multiplicity distributions have generated considerable interest in understanding the fluctuations of conserved quantum numbers in the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) hadronization regime, in particular near a possible critical point and near the chemical freeze-out. We report the measurement of efficiency and centrality bin width corrected cumulant ratios ($C_{2}/C_{1}$, $C_{3}/C_{2}$) of net-$\Lambda$ distributions, in the context of both strangeness and baryon number conservation, as a function of collision energy, centrality and rapidity. The results are for Au + Au collisions at five beam energies ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4 and 200 GeV) recorded with the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR). We compare our results to the Poisson and negative binomial (NBD) expectations, as well as to Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) and Hadron Resonance Gas (HRG) model predictions. Both NBD and Poisson baselines agree with data within the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The ratios of the measured cumulants show no features of critical fluctuations. The chemical freeze-out temperatures extracted from a recent HRG calculation, which was successfully used to describe the net-proton, net-kaon and net-charge data, indicate $\Lambda$ freeze-out conditions similar to those of kaons. However, large deviations are found when comparing to temperatures obtained from net-proton fluctuations. The net-$\Lambda$ cumulants show a weak, but finite, dependence on the rapidity coverage in the acceptance of the detector, which can be attributed to quantum number conservation.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C1, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 19.6 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions. Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C1, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 27 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C1, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 39 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C1, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 62.4 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C1, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 200 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C2, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 19.6 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C2, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 27 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C2, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 39 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C2, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 62.4 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C2, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 200 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C3, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 19.6 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C3, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 27 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C3, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 39 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C3, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 62.4 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of single cumulants C3, of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 200 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C2/C1, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 19.6 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C2/C1, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 27 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C2/C1, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 39 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C2/C1, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 62.4 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C2/C1, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 200 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C3/C2, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 19.6 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C3/C2, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 27 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C3/C2, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 39 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C3/C2, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 62.4 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Centrality dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratio C3/C2, as a function of net-lambda multiplicity distributions at Au + Au collision 200 GeV. Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.Npart values are from Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021) and they are little different than the values shown in the original paper.
Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C2/C1 in most central (0-5%) and peripheral (50-60%). Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.
Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C3/C2 in most central (0-5%) and peripheral (50-60%). Values are shown with NBD, Poisson and UrQMD predictions.
Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda, net-proton and net-kaon cumulant ratios C2/C1 in most central (0-5%) collision.
Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda, net-proton and net-kaon cumulant ratios C3/C2 in most central (0-5%) collision.
Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C2/C1 in most central (0-5%) collision, along with results from HRG.
Beam-energy dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C3/C2 in most central (0-5%) collision, along with results from HRG.
Rapidity dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C2/C1 in most central (0-5%) collision, along with results from NBD.
Rapidity dependence of net-lambda cumulant ratios C3/C2 in most central (0-5%) collision, along with results from NBD.
Rapidity dependence of normalized C2 in most central (0-5%) collision at Au+Au 19.6 GeV.
Rapidity dependence of normalized C2 in most central (0-5%) collision at Au+Au 200 GeV.
The two-particle angular correlation functions, $R_2$, of pions, kaons, and protons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4, and 200 GeV were measured by the STAR experiment at RHIC. These correlations were measured for both like-sign and unlike-sign charge combinations and versus the centrality. The correlations of pions and kaons show the expected near-side ({\it i.e.}, at small relative angles) peak resulting from short-range mechanisms. The amplitudes of these short-range correlations decrease with increasing beam energy. However, the proton correlation functions exhibit strong anticorrelations in the near-side region. This behavior is observed for the first time in an A+A collision system. The observed anticorrelation is $p_{T}$-independent and decreases with increasing beam energy and centrality. The experimental results are also compared to the Monte Carlo models UrQMD, Hijing, and AMPT.
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 7.7 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 11.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 14.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 19.6 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 27 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 39 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 64.2 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 200 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 7.7 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 11.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 14.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 19.6 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 27 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 39 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 64.2 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign pions in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 200 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 7.7 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 11.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 14.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 19.6 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 27 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 39 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 64.2 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 200 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 7.7 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 11.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 14.5 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 19.6 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 27 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 39 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 64.2 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign protons in Au+Au collisions at mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.4 < pT < 2.0 GeV/c at 200 GeV
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of like- sign kaons in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV, mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 1.6 GeV/c
Angular correlation function R2(∆y,∆φ) of unlike-sign kaons in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV, mid centrality 30%-40% and 0.2 < pT < 1.6 GeV/c.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) pions in Au+Au collisions at 30%-40% centrality and eight different energies from 7.7 GeV (top left) to 200 GeV (bottom right). Also shown at the highest beam energies in the right frames are the antiproton-antiproton correlations.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) protons in Au+Au collisions at 30%-40% centrality and eight different energies from 7.7 GeV (top left) to 200 GeV (bottom right). Also shown at the highest beam energies in the right frames are the antiproton-antiproton correlations.
Near-side and away-side ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ projection of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) pions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom), 30%-40% centrality.
Near-side and away-side ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ projection of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) protons in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom), 30%-40% centrality.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) pions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom), 30%-40% centrality compared with the UrQMD (solid line), Hijing (dash-dotted line), and AMPT (dotted line) simulations.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) protons in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom), 30%-40% centrality compared with the UrQMD (solid line), Hijing (dash-dotted line), and AMPT (dotted line) simulations.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) pions in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom) for the most central 0%-5%, mid-central 30%-40% and pe- ripheral 60%-70% events.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) protons in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom) for the most central 0%-5%, mid-central 30%-40% and pe- ripheral 60%-70% events.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) pions in low and high pT in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom) in 30%-40% centrality.
Projection of correlation function ⟨R2(∆y)⟩ of like-sign (red) and unlike-sign (blue) protons in low and high pT in Au+Au collisions at 14.5 GeV (top) and 62.4 GeV (bottom) in 30%-40% centrality.
We present measurements of 2$^{nd}$ order azimuthal anisotropy ($v_{2}$) at mid-rapidity $(|y|<1.0)$ for light nuclei d, t, $^{3}$He (for $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5, and 7.7 GeV) and anti-nuclei $\bar{\rm d}$ ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, and 19.6 GeV) and $^{3}\bar{\rm He}$ ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV) in the STAR (Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC) experiment. The $v_{2}$ for these light nuclei produced in heavy-ion collisions is compared with those for p and $\bar{\rm p}$. We observe mass ordering in nuclei $v_{2}(p_{T})$ at low transverse momenta ($p_{T}<2.0$ GeV/$c$). We also find a centrality dependence of $v_{2}$ for d and $\bar{\rm d}$. The magnitude of $v_{2}$ for t and $^{3}$He agree within statistical errors. Light-nuclei $v_{2}$ are compared with predictions from a blast wave model. Atomic mass number ($A$) scaling of light-nuclei $v_{2}(p_{T})$ seems to hold for $p_{T}/A < 1.5$ GeV/$c$. Results on light-nuclei $v_{2}$ from a transport-plus-coalescence model are consistent with the experimental measurements.
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.
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.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
No description provided.
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 $a + b(N_{part})^{0.01}$.
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.