![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-fc3c9a00-54cd-423c-bc1e-6a371943524c.jpg)

Nuclear Physics A

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-f56939c3-3528-4da3-a3c6-6558a3cdacc5.jpg)

Nuclear Physics A 00 (2014) 1-8

## Collective phenomena in high-energy nuclear collisions

## Jiangyong Jia

Department of Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA,

Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11796, USA

## Abstract

I review experimental studies of collective phenomena in p + Aand A + Acollisions presented in the Quark Matter 2014 conference.

Keywords: Heavy-ion collisions, Fluctuations, Correlations, Collective flow, Ridge

## 1. Introduction

The goal of high-energy nuclear experiments is to understand the properties of the QCD matter created in the heavy-ion collisions. Most progress to this end has been obtained from study of collective flow phenomena, which are sensitive to the dynamics of the system at various stages of the space-time evolution. Extensive measurements of various flow observables in A + A collisions at RHIC and the LHC, in combination with successful modeling by relativistic viscous hydrodynamics, have placed important constraints the transport properties and initial conditions of the produced matter [1, 2].

Recently, qualitatively similar collective behaviour has also been observed in high-multiplicity p + Acollisions [3]. Current debate is focused on the e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ective mechanism behind the apparent collectivity in these small systems: Is it initial state e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect, final state e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ect or both?

This proceedings reviews the new results from p + A and A + A collisions from RHIC and the LHC, obtained with various flow observables. I first summarize experimental progresses in studying the collectivity in small collision systems. I then make a few remarks on flow results in A + A collisions that I personally found interesting. This is followed by a focused discussion of the event-by-event (EbyE) flow fluctuations measurements in A + A collisions. Finally I discuss open issues and future physics opportunities.

## 2. Collectivity in small system

The observation of collective behaviour in high-multiplicity p + A collisions [3] came as a surprise, since the transverse size of the produced system was thought to be too small for the hydrodynamic description to work. Experimentalists attempt to elucidate this puzzle by mapping out the detailed properties of the azimuthal harmonics in p + A collisions and comparing with those in peripheral A + A collisions.

Figure 1 (a) shows the first five azimuthal harmonics v 1 to v 5 as a function of p T in high-multiplicity p + Pb collisions, obtained from a two-particle correlation (2PC) method [4]. The away-side and near-side short-range correlations have been estimated from events with low multiplicity and subtracted. The vn magnitude is largest for n = 2, and decreases with increasing n . All vn increase with p T up to 3-5 GeV and then decrease, but remain positive at higher p T. It is interesting that the v 2 and v 3 values are sizable at p T &gt; 8 GeV (3-5%), reflecting a significant near-side

Figure 1. The vn ( p T) with n = 2 to 5 for pairs with j GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;17&gt; j &gt; 2 [4]. An overlay sketch of rapidity-even v 1 data is also shown. Results are compared to the CMS data with comparable multiplicity.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-a872af9f-affb-47eb-a1ba-6ed74616c810.jpg)

ridge regardless of the recoil subtraction procedure as shown in the right panels of Figure 1. This maybe the first indication of a small azimuthal anisotropy of jet yield in high-multiplicity p + Pb collisions.

Figure 1 also shows an overlay sketch of the preliminary rapidity-even v 1 [4]. The values of v 1 are comparable to v 3 at p T GLYPH&lt;24&gt; 4 GeV, albeit with larger uncertainties since they are directly sensitive to the recoil subtraction.

Figure 2. The v 2 results obtained from two, four, six, eight-particle cumulants, as well as Lee-Yang Zero (LYZ) method, averaged over the p T range of 0.3-3.0 GeV, as a function of number of charged particles in Pb + Pb (left panel) and p + Pb (right panel) collisions [5].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-6a16154a-8fbd-4208-b0ee-91e14c2ea1e5.jpg)

Multi-particle cumulants beyond 2PC have been argued to be able to distinguish the correlation arising from collective dynamics from those arise from sources involving a few particles. CMS presents a detailed measurement of multi-particle cumulants v 2 f 4 , g v 2 f 6 g and v 2 f 8 , as well as Lee-Yang Zero (LYZ) method g v 2 f LYZ [5]. They agree g within GLYPH&lt;6&gt; 10% over a broad multiplicity range in p + Pb or Pb + Pb collisions (Figure 2), confirming the collective nature of the observed correlations in both systems. The apparent di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erence from v 2 f 2 g reflects the fluctuations either present in the initial geometry or generated in the collective expansion.

Hydrodynamic is the commonly accepted description for vn in central and mid-central A + A collisions. However, as the system size decreases, this description is expected to break down at some point. Comparison of vn between p + Pb and Pb + Pb at similar multiplicity can help us to understand where and how the break down takes place. Figure 3 compares the multiplicity dependence of the integral v 3 (left panel) and the p T dependence of v 3 (right panel) [6] between the two collision systems. Very similar multiplicity and p T dependence are observed between the two systems, suggesting that the collectivity is controlled by total multiplicity, as expected from a argument based on conformal hydrodynamic [7]. This conformal scaling argument also qualitatively explains the similarity of the multiplicity dependence of the HBT radii in p + p , p + Pb and Pb + Pb collisions [8]. CMS also presents a precision measurement of v 2

and v 3 for Ks 0 and GLYPH&lt;3&gt; in p + Pb collisions [9], a clear particle-mass dependence is seen that is persist to at least 5 GeV in p T with a magnitude similar to values in Pb + Pb collisions at comparable multiplicity.

Figure 3. The v 3 data compared between p + Pb and Pb + Pb collisions as a function of charged particle multiplicity in j GLYPH&lt;17&gt; j &lt; 1 [6] (left panel) and as a function of p T [4] at approximately the same multiplicity (right panel) in the two systems. In the right panel, the Pb + Pb data are rescaled horizontally by a constant factor of 1.25 to match the h p T i in p + Pb collisions.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-b55911a7-ccb3-4757-9611-e1cefe283304.jpg)

Here I would like to caution people about one technical aspect of those 2PC analyses that rely on the ZYAM (zero-yield at minimum) procedure. In this procedure, the near-side excess associated with the long-range ridge is obtained by subtracting a constant pedestal that is matched to the minimum of the correlation function. Due to the large and broad away-side jet peak (especially at low p T), the tail of the away-side peak tends to feed into the near-side region and create a minimum at GLYPH&lt;1&gt; GLYPH&lt;30&gt; ZYAM = 0. As long as the ridge yield is not enough to fill the near-side jet valley, one always finds zero ridge yield despite the apparent change in the near-side shape of the correlation function (see Figure 4(a) from [10]). Consequently, the multiplicity dependence of the extracted near-side per-trigger yield exhibits a step-like structure at small N ch [3] (Figure 4(b)). This step could be misinterpreted as the onset of ridge or saturation physics.

Figure 4. (a) Azimuthal correlations between mid-rapidity hadrons and forward E T in the d-going direction in p s NN = 200 GeV d + Au collisions [10]. (b) The per-trigger yield for particle pairs selected in 1 &lt; p T &lt; 2 GeV as a function of charged particle multiplicity in p s NN = 2 76 : TeV p + Pb collisions [3].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-96b10009-4e60-4a82-90bf-0149d210dce1.jpg)

## 3. Comments on selected flow results in A + A collisions

Several new flow results are worthy of mentioning. ALICE publishes a detailed measurement of v 2 for many identified particles [11]. Comparing to the RHIC results, ALICE results imply stronger radial flow and hadronic rescattering e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. The latter is responsible for a poor number-of-constituent-quark (NCQ) scaling for di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent particle species. In particular, the NCQ-scaling of GLYPH&lt;30&gt; -meson v 2 suggests that it flows like a baryon in central collisions and

like a meson in mid-central collisions. This could happen if GLYPH&lt;30&gt; meson undergoes significant hadronic re-scattering in central collision where the radial flow is the largest, despite its small hadronic cross-section.

New flow results in Cu + Au and U + U collisions are reported by PHENIX and STAR [12]. Significant v 1 is measured in Cu + Au collisions with respect to the spectators, reflecting the average dipolar geometry in these collisions. The dependence of the multiplicity dependence of v 2 in ultra-central U + U collisions is found to di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; er from that in the Au + Au collisions, reflecting the influence of the deformed geometry in U + U collisions. However, each collision system introduces its own uncertain in collision geometry, which need to be understood in order to make good use of these new results.

Due to event-by-event fluctuations, it was predicted that the event-plane angle GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n fluctuates in p T, leading to a breakdown of the factorization in extracting the vn from azimuthal harmonics Vn GLYPH&lt;1&gt; in two-particle correlations [13]. This breakdown can be quantified by the rn factor:

$$r _ { n } = \frac { V _ { n \Delta } ( p _ { T } ^ { a }, p _ { T } ^ { b } ) } { \sqrt { V _ { n \Delta } ( p _ { T } ^ { a }, p _ { T } ^ { a } ) V _ { n \Delta } ( p _ { T } ^ { b }, p _ { T } ^ { b } ) } } \approx \frac { \left \langle v _ { n } ( p _ { T } ^ { a } ) v _ { n } ( p _ { T } ^ { b } ) \cos n ( \Phi _ { n } ( p _ { T } ^ { a } ) - \Phi ( p _ { T } ^ { b } ) ) \right \rangle } { \sqrt { \left \langle v _ { n } ^ { 2 } ( p _ { T } ^ { a } ) \right \rangle \left \langle v _ { n } ^ { 2 } ( p _ { T } ^ { b } ) \right \rangle } }$$

rn is expected to be less than one if GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n depends on p T. Experimental data show significant factorization breaking for v 2 in ultra-central Pb + Pb collisions on the order of up to 20% ( r 2 reaches 0.8), consistent with viscous hydrodynamic model predictions [14]. However, the breaking is much smaller for v 2 in other centrality ranges and for other harmonics in the full centrality range [14, 15]. New data in p + Pb collisions from CMS and ALICE suggest the level of breaking is at most a few percents in low p T region [16]. But even some of these deviations could be due to nonflow e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects from jets, hence the use of recoil subtraction procedure [4] could be important.

The vn spectrum in ultra-central A + A collisions post a challenge for theory. The original motivation is that the initial conditions in these collisions are predominantly generated by fluctuations such that the magnitudes of first several " n are comparable, and that the hydrodynamic response is expected to be linear vn / " n for all harmonics. Hence these collisions are expected to provide better constraints on the mechanism of the density fluctuations. The precision data from ATLAS [15] and CMS [14] show several features that are not described by models: 1) v 3 is comparable or larger than v 2 , which is challenging since naively one expect " 3 GLYPH&lt;25&gt; " 2 , but the v 3 should su GLYPH&lt;11&gt; er larger viscous correction. 2) The v 2 ( p T) has very di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent shape comparing to other harmonics; It peaks at much lower p T, around 1.5 GeV compare to 3-4 GeV for other harmonics. Calculation in Ref. [17] shows that the nucleon-nucleon correlation and e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects of bulk viscosity can reduce the v 2 values relative to v 3 .

## 4. Event-by-event flow fluctuations in A + A collisions

In heavy-ion collisions, the number of participating nucleons N part is finite and their positions fluctuate randomly in the transverse plane, leading to strong EbyE fluctuations of " n and participant plane angle GLYPH&lt;8&gt; GLYPH&lt;3&gt; n . Consequently, the matter created in each collision has it own set of flow harmonics, described by a joint probability distribution (pdf):

$$p ( v _ { n }, v _ { m }, \dots, \Phi _ { n }, \Phi _ { m }, \dots ) = \frac { 1 } { N _ { e v t s } } \, \frac { d N _ { e v t s } } { d v _ { n } d v _ { m } \dots d \Phi _ { n } d \Phi _ { m } \dots }.$$

Some projections of this pdf, such as p vn ( ), can be measured directly via unfolding method [18]. But they are more generally studied via m -particle correlations of the following form [19]:

$$\langle \cos ( n _ { 1 } \phi _ { 1 } + n _ { 2 } \phi _ { 2 } \dots + n _ { m } \phi _ { m } ) \rangle = \langle v _ { n _ { 1 } } v _ { n _ { 2 } } \dots v _ { n _ { m } } \cos ( n _ { 1 } \Phi _ { n _ { 1 } } + n _ { 2 } \Phi _ { n _ { 2 } } \dots + n _ { m } \Phi _ { n _ { m } } ) \rangle \,, \Sigma n _ { i } = 0.$$

For example (more can be found in Ref. [21]), the two-particle cumulant of p vn ( ) is obtained as h cos( n GLYPH&lt;30&gt; 1 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; n GLYPH&lt;30&gt; 2 ) i = D v 2 n cos( n GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n GLYPH&lt;0&gt; n GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n ) E = D v 2 n E ; the lowest-order cumulant for p vn ( ; vm ) requires a four-particle correlation of the form [20]:

$$\langle \cos ( n \phi _ { 1 } - n \phi _ { 2 } + m \phi _ { 3 } - m \phi _ { 4 } ) \rangle _ { c } = \langle \cos ( n \phi _ { 1 } - n \phi _ { 2 } + m \phi _ { 3 } - m \phi _ { 4 } ) \rangle - \langle \cos ( n \phi _ { 1 } - n \phi _ { 2 } ) \rangle \langle \cos ( m \phi _ { 3 } - m \phi _ { 4 } ) \rangle = \langle \varkappa _ { n } ^ { 2 } v _ { m } ^ { 2 } \rangle - \langle v _ { n } ^ { 2 } \rangle \langle v _ { m } ^ { 2 } \rangle \ ; \ \ ( 4 )$$

the event-plane correlations p ( GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n ; GLYPH&lt;8&gt; m ; ::: ) can be accessed via a GLYPH&lt;6&gt; ci -particle correlation of the form:

$$\langle \cos ( \Sigma _ { i _ { 1 } = 1 } ^ { c _ { 1 } } \phi _ { i _ { 1 } } + \Sigma _ { i _ { 2 } = 1 } ^ { c _ { 2 } } 2 \phi _ { i _ { 2 } } + \dots + \Sigma _ { i _ { 1 } = 1 } ^ { c _ { 1 } } l \phi _ { i _ { 1 } } \rangle ) = \left \langle v _ { 1 } ^ { c _ { 1 } } v _ { 2 } ^ { c _ { 2 } } \dots v _ { i } ^ { c _ { 1 } } \cos ( c _ { 1 } \Phi _ { 1 } + 2 c _ { 2 } \Phi _ { 2 } \dots + l c _ { 1 } \Phi _ { 1 } ) \right \rangle, \ \ \Sigma i c _ { i } = 0.$$

In the last few years, impressive progresses have been made in studying these flow observables [21]. We now understand that v 2 and v 3 are the dominant harmonics, driven mainly by the linear response to the ellipticity and triangularity of the initially produced fireball [22]: v e i 2 2 GLYPH&lt;8&gt; 2 / " 2 e i 2 GLYPH&lt;8&gt; GLYPH&lt;3&gt; 2 ; v e i 3 3 GLYPH&lt;8&gt; 3 / " 3 e i 3 GLYPH&lt;8&gt; GLYPH&lt;3&gt; 3 . In contrast, the higher-order harmonics v 4 ; v 5 and v 6 arise from both the initial geometry and non-linear mixing of lower-order harmonics [23, 24]:

$$v _ { 4 } e ^ { i 4 \phi _ { 4 } } & = a _ { 0 } \, \varepsilon _ { 4 } e ^ { i 4 \phi _ { 4 } ^ { \prime } } + a _ { 1 } \, \left ( \varepsilon _ { 2 } e ^ { j 2 \phi _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { 2 } + \dots = c _ { 0 } \, e ^ { i 4 \phi _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } } + c _ { 1 } v _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } e ^ { j 4 \phi _ { 2 } } + \dots \,, \\ v _ { 5 } e ^ { i 5 \phi _ { 9 } } & = a _ { 0 } \varepsilon _ { 5 } e ^ { i 5 \phi _ { 9 } ^ { \prime } } + a _ { 1 } \varepsilon _ { 2 } e ^ { j 2 \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } \varepsilon _ { 3 } e ^ { j 3 \phi _ { 9 } ^ { \prime } } + \dots = c _ { 0 } e ^ { j 5 \phi _ { 9 } ^ { \prime } } + c _ { 1 } v _ { 2 } v _ { 3 } e ^ { j ( 2 0 \varepsilon _ { 2 } + 3 0 _ { 3 } ) } + \dots \,, \\ v _ { 6 } e ^ { i 6 \phi _ { 6 } } & = a _ { 0 } \varepsilon _ { 6 } e ^ { i 6 \phi _ { 6 } ^ { \prime } } + a _ { 1 } \left ( \varepsilon _ { 2 } e ^ { j 2 \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { 3 } + a _ { 2 } \left ( \varepsilon _ { 3 } e ^ { j 3 \phi _ { 9 } ^ { \prime } } \right ) ^ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } \varepsilon _ { 2 } e ^ { j 2 \phi _ { 2 } ^ { \prime } } \varepsilon _ { 4 } e _ { 4 } e ^ { j 4 \phi _ { 4 } ^ { \prime } } + \dots = c _ { 0 } e ^ { j 6 \phi _ { 6 } ^ { \prime } } + c _ { 1 } v _ { 2 } ^ { 3 } e ^ { j ( 6 0 _ { 2 } } + c _ { 2 } v _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } e ^ { j 6 \phi _ { 3 } } + \dots \, ( 6 )$$

Furthermore, the measured p v ( 2 ) distributions show significant deviation in the tail from Bessel-Gaussian function[18], suggesting either the p ( " 2 ) is non-Gaussian [25] or the response of v 2 to " 2 is not strictly linear [26]. New ATLAS results show that the non-Gaussian behavior is captured by &lt; 1 GLYPH&lt;0&gt; 2% di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erence between v 2 f 4 g and v 2 f 6 , suggesting g that vn f 2 k g for k &gt; 1 are not very sensitive to flow fluctuations given their current systematic uncertainties [27, 21].

The EbyE flow fluctuations can also be studied using various event-shape selection methods [28, 29]. The performances of these methods have been validated in a AMPT model framework [29, 30] and applied in the ATLAS data analysis [31]. In this analysis, the azimuthal angle distribution of the transverse energy E T in the forward calorimeter over 3 3 : &lt; GLYPH&lt;17&gt; j j &lt; 4 9 is expanded into a Fourier series for each event: :

$$2 \pi \frac { d E _ { T } } { d \phi } = \Sigma E _ { T } \left ( 1 + 2 \Sigma _ { n = 1 } ^ { \infty } q _ { n } \cos n ( \phi - \Psi _ { n } ) \right )$$

where the reduced flow vector qn represents the E T-weighted raw flow coe GLYPH&lt;14&gt; cients v obs n , qn = GLYPH&lt;6&gt; GLYPH&lt;16&gt; E v n T obs GLYPH&lt;17&gt; = GLYPH&lt;6&gt; E T. Events are first divided according to GLYPH&lt;6&gt; E T into centrality classes, events in each class are further divided according to the q 2 . This classification separates events with similar multiplicity but with very di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent ellipticity. The values of vn are then calculated at mid-rapidity ( j GLYPH&lt;17&gt; j &lt; 2 5) using a 2PC method. :

The correlation of v 2 between two di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent p T ranges from ATLAS, presented in Figure 5(a), shows a boomeranglike centrality dependence due to a stronger viscous correction for v 2 at higher p T. In contrast, the correlation within a narrow centrality interval is found to be always linear, suggesting that viscous e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects are controlled by the system size not its overall shape. The v 3 -v 2 correlations, shown in Figure 5(b), reveal an anti-correlation that is similar in magnitude to the correlation between " 3 and " 2 (see Figure 6(a)), implying that this correlation reflects mostly initial geometry e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects. ATLAS also studied v 4 -v 2 (Figure 5(c)) and v 5 -v 2 correlations. The patterns in these correlations are found to be well described by two-parameter fits of the following form, motivated by interplay between the linear

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-6935326c-677d-48b2-9103-ea4ac1493eab.jpg)

Figure 5. The correlation of (panel a) v 2 in two di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent p T ranges, (panel b) v 3 and v 2 in the same p T range and (panel c) v 4 and v 2 in the same p T range. The data points in each centrality interval correspond to 14 di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent ellipticity classes selected via an event-shape engineering technique. These data are overlaid with the centrality dependence without event-shape selection (think grey lines). The thin solid straight lines in the left panel represent a linear fit of the data in each centrality. Results taken from Ref. [31].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-03f3d5c9-3359-4389-a99a-fb07667beaf3.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-e5c5eb54-ef30-44f0-9dcf-2d86e07b23c6.jpg)

Figure 6. The v 3v 2 (left), v 4v 2 (middle) and v 5v 2 (right) correlations measured in 0 5 : &lt; p T &lt; 2 GeV 10-15% centrality interval. The correlation data are fit to functions that include both linear and non-linear contributions. The correlation data are also compared with re-scaled " n -" 2 correlation from the MC Glauber and MC-KLN models. Results taken from Ref. [31].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-f4bd7f60-8010-4ea7-bede-982e7b099d70.jpg)

Figure 7. The centrality dependence of the v 4 (left) and v 5 (right) in 0.5-2 GeV and the associated linear and non-linear components extracted from the fit in Figure 6. They are compared with the linear and non-linear components estimated from the previous published event-plane correlations [24]. Results taken from Ref. [31].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-2b758f50-51e3-4345-9e9c-c69030c5fa33.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-fe3c57b5-98bf-417f-b3bf-cd8c687cc652.jpg)

and non-linear collective dynamics given by Eq. 6:

$$v _ { 4 } = \sqrt { c _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } + ( c _ { 1 } v _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 } } \, v _ { 5 } = \sqrt { c _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } + ( c _ { 1 } v _ { 2 } v _ { 3 } ) ^ { 2 } }$$

These fits allow ATLAS to decompose the v 4 and v 5 , centrality by centrality, into linear and non-linear terms as v L n = c 0 and v NL n = q v 2 n GLYPH&lt;0&gt; c 2 0 , respectively, as shown in Figure 7. The linear term associated with " n depends only weakly on centrality, and dominates the vn signal in central collisions. The excellent agreement with a similar decomposition based on the measured EP correlations [24] implies that the correlations between flow magnitudes arise mostly from the correlations between the flow angles.

## 5. Future prospects

The application of event-shape selection techinique is not only limited to flow observables. It should be straightforward to apply this technique to other observables, such as HBT correlation, R AA, dihadron correlation, chiral magnetic e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects and more. A study by PHENIX [32] shows that the measured 2 nd -order freezeout eccentricity " f 2 is strongly correlated with selection on the ellipticity. This is qualitatively expected, as events with large v 2 should on average have large " 2 , and hence they may have larger " f 2 .

One open issue is the response or back-reaction of the medium to the energy deposited by jets. CMS results suggest that the lost energy of very high p T jets are transported to very large angle and to low p T particles [33], but not much is know about the back-reaction of the mini-jets that have the energy of a few GeV to few ten's of GeV. These mini-jets are abundantly produced and dominate particle spectrum at intermediate p T. The back-reaction of mini-jets

was historically studied using 2PC analysis aided by flow background subtraction, which su GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ers large systematics due to dominance of collective flow in the correlation structure. We can improve the situation by performing the analysis in events selected to have small vn . But ultimately, 2PC method may not be the best approach to investigate the jetmedium interactions. Instead, we need methods that looks directly the localized GLYPH&lt;17&gt; GLYPH&lt;2&gt; GLYPH&lt;30&gt; structures in the EbyE particle multiplicity or E T distributions. To motivate this idea, Figure 8 shows the EbyE GLYPH&lt;17&gt; GLYPH&lt;2&gt; GLYPH&lt;30&gt; distribution of particle density from a 3 + 1D hydrodynamic calculation based on the AMPT initial condition [34]. The localized peaks and valleys in these events could be remnant of the mini-jets in the initial state. These localized structures, or 'hydro-jets', are much broader than typical highp T jets. They can be found, possibly as fake-jets, by running standard jet reconstruction algorithm. Obviously, the jet finding algorithm may need to be modified in order to maximize the finding e GLYPH&lt;14&gt; ciency and better adapt to the shape of these objects. One can then perform a detailed study of the spectrum and substructure of these hydro-jets.

Figure 8. The distributions of the particles in GLYPH&lt;17&gt; GLYPH&lt;2&gt; GLYPH&lt;30&gt; space for three typical Au + Au collisions at p s NN = 200 GeV in 0-10% centrality interval, obtained from 3 + 1D calculation based on ideal hydrodynamics [34].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-e959f760-0d5e-4782-af14-ba8380023b5b.jpg)

Most studies in A + Acollisions consider only fluctuations in the transverse plane, and dynamics in the longitudinal direction are often assumed to be boost invariant. However, a Glauber model calculation [30] shows that the number of participating nucleons and eccentricity vectors ~ " n GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( " ; n GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n GLYPH&lt;3&gt; ), defined separately for the two colliding nuclei, can di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; er strongly on EbyE basis due to fluctuations: N F part , N B part and ~ " F n , ~ " B . n Furthermore, the energy deposition for each participating nucleon is not symmetric: Particles in the forward (backward) rapidity are preferably produced by the participants in the forward-going (backward-going) nucleus [35]. Due to these two e GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ects, the eccentricity vector and the flow vector ~ vn GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ( vn ; GLYPH&lt;8&gt; n ) of the initially produced fireball should depend on GLYPH&lt;17&gt; (see Figure 9) [30]:

$$\vec { v } _ { n } ( \eta ) \in \vec { \varepsilon } _ { n } ^ { \text{ot} } ( \eta ) \approx \alpha ( \eta ) \vec { \varepsilon } _ { n } ^ { F } + ( 1 - \alpha ( \eta ) ) \vec { \varepsilon } _ { n } ^ { B } \equiv \varepsilon _ { n } ^ { \text{ot} } ( \eta ) e ^ { i n \Phi _ { n } ^ { \text{ot} } ( \eta ) }, \alpha ( \eta ) \approx \frac { f ( \eta ) } { f ( \eta ) + f ( - \eta ) } \, n = 2 \text{ or } 3$$

where GLYPH&lt;11&gt; ( GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ) is a GLYPH&lt;17&gt; -dependent weight factor for the forward-going participating nucleons, and f ( GLYPH&lt;17&gt; ) is the average emission profile per-nucleon [35]. This relation has been verified using the Glauber model and AMPT model. The asymmetry between ~ " F n and ~ " B n are very large and they are shown to be converted into similar asymmetry of ~ vn between forward and backward GLYPH&lt;17&gt; . This F B asymmetry is expected to be particularly large for / p + Pb collisions, and initial indication of such F B asymmetry has indeed been observed in / p + Pb collisions [37].

## 6. Summary

The Quark Matter 2014 conference has seen impressive progresses in the study of collective behavior in high energy nuclear collisions. Significant azimuthal harmonics have been measured for v 1 to v 5 in p + A collisions over broad range of p T and event multiplicity. The v 2 signal from multi-particle correlations are large, suggesting that the ridge in p + A collisions reflects the genuine collectivity of the produced medium. Remarkable agreement of the vn ( p T ; N ch ) between p + A and A + A collisions suggests that the observed collectivity is driven by similar dynamics in the two systems. Several new flow results in A + A collisions, such as vn for di GLYPH&lt;11&gt; erent particle species and collision systems and vn in ultra-central collisions, serve to refine the hydrodynamic models. Important progresses have also been made in measuring a large class of event-by-event flow observables, in particular a brand-new detailed study of the v 2 -v 2 and vn -v 2 correlations using the event-shape selection technique. A coherent picture of initial condition and

Figure 9. Schematic illustration of the forward-backward fluctuation of second-order eccentricity and participant plane in A + A collisions. The dashed-lines indicate the particle production profiles for forward-going and backward-going participants, respectively [30, 36].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0066v1-figure-bd464337-20fa-4b3c-bbc2-a3f6da4b367c.jpg)

collective flow based on linear and non-linear hydrodynamic responses is derived, which qualitatively describe most results on these observables. Several new types of fluctuation measurements should be pursued, which can further our understanding of the event-shape fluctuations and collective expansion dynamics.

This research is supported by NSF under grant number PHY-1305037 and by DOE through BNL under grant number DE-AC02-98CH10886.

## References

- [1] U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 , 123 (2013).
- [2] M. Luzum and H. Petersen, J. Phys. G 41 , 063102 (2014).
- [3] CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 718 , 795 (2013), Phys. Lett. B 724 , 213 (2013); ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 719 , 29 (2013),Phys. Lett. B 726 , 164 (2013); ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 182302 (2013), Phys. Lett. B 725 , 60 (2013); PHENIX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 212301 (2013).
- [4] S. Krishnnan, this proceedings.
- [5] Q. Wang, this proceedings.
- [6] A. Timmons, this proceedings.
- [7] G. Basar and D. Teaney, arXiv:1312.6770 [nucl-th].
- [8] D. Gangadharan, this proceedings; Dogra, this proceedings.
- [9] M. Sharma, this proceedings.
- [10] S. Huang, this proceedings.
- [11] ALICE Collaboration, arXiv:1405.4632 [nucl-ex].
- [12] H. Nakagomi, this proceedings; H. Wang, this proceedings.
- [13] F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum and J. -Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 87 , no. 3, 031901 (2013)
- [14] CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1402 , 088 (2014).
- [15] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C 86 , 014907 (2012).
- [16] Devetak, this proceedings; Y. Zhou, this proceedings.
- [17] G. Denicol, this proceedings.
- [18] ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1311 , 183 (2013); J. Jia and S. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. C 88 , 014907 (2013).
- [19] R. S. Bhalerao, M. Luzum and J. -Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 84 , 034910 (2011)
- [20] A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Hansen and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 89 , 064904 (2014)
- [21] J. Jia, arXiv:1407.6057 [nucl-ex].
- [22] Z. Qiu and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 84 , 024911 (2011);
- [23] F. G. Gardim, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 85 , 024908 (2012);D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C 86 , 044908 (2012).
- [24] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1403.0489 [hep-ex].
- [25] L. Yan, this proceedings.
- [26] H. Niemi, this proceedings.
- [27] D. Derendarz, this proceedings.
- [28] J. Schukraft, A. Timmins and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 719 , 394 (2013).
- [29] P. Huo, J. Jia and S. Mohapatra, arXiv:1311.7091 [nucl-ex].
- [30] J. Jia and P. Huo, arXiv:1402.6680 [nucl-th], arXiv:1403.6077 [nucl-th].
- [31] S. Mohapatra, this proceedings, ATLAS-CONF-2014-022, http: // cdsweb.cern.ch record 1702980 / /
- [32] S. Esumi, this proceedings.
- [33] CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C 84 , 024906 (2011)
- [34] X.N. Wang and L. Pang, poster and privite communications.
- [35] A. Bialas and K. Zalewski, Phys. Rev. C 82 , 034911 (2010) [Erratum-ibid. C 85 , 029903 (2012)] [arXiv:1008.4690 [hep-ph]].
- [36] P. Bozek, W. Broniowski and J. Moreira, Phys. Rev. C 83 , 034911 (2011).
- [37] L. Xu, this proceedings.
Jiangyong Jia
Collective phenomena in high-energy nuclear collisions
I review experimental studies of collective phenomena in $\pA$ and A+A
collisions presented in the Quark Matter 2014 conference.