1

Measurements of 1st, 2nd and 3rd
azimuthal anisotropy in √sNN=200GeV
Cu+Au collisions at RHIC-PHENIX
RHIC-PHENIX実験における√sNN=200GeV
銅・金衝突での1次、2次、3次方位角異方性の測定
中込宇宙
博士論文本審査 2016年12月19日

Outline✓Introduction- Quark Gluon Plasma(QGP)- Azimuthal anisotropy- CuAu collisions✓Experiment/Analysis- PHENIX- centrality, event plane- Simulation✓Results/Discussions- vn at mid, forward/backward rapidities- Initial model study✓Summary2

Introduction

Introduction3

Quark Gluon Plasma(QGP)

Introduction

QGP is a state of nuclear matter- extremely high temperature, density- consist of asymptotic free quarks and gluons- Almost perfect liquid
Predicted phase transition εc and Tc by Lattice QCD calculation
Tc ~ 170 MeV
εc ~ 1 [GeV/fm3]

4

Introduction

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider(RHIC)

5Species Energies
Au+Au

PHENIX
Cu+Cu
U+U
Cu+Au
3He+Au
d+Au
p+Au
p+Al
p+p

200, 130, 62.4GeV39, 27, 22.4GeV
19.6 14.6, 7.7GeV
200, 62.4, 22.4GeV
193GeV
200GeV
200GeV
200GeV
200GeV
200GeV
510, 500, 200GeV
62.4GeV✓ Wide range of species and energies
Relativistic heavy ion collision is
unique tool to form QGP
Au+Au 200GeV@RHIC- εBj ~ 5 [GeV/fm3] > εc

Introduction

Azimuthal anisotropy:Elliptic flow
Initial spatial anisotropy:ε2y6

Momentum anisotropy:v2

pyx
converted thoughhydrodynamic expansion✓Initial spatial anisotropy ε2 -> Final momentum anisotropy v2- Non-isotropic pressure gradient- Larger initial energy density makes larger v2✓Azimuthal anisotropy is strong probe!
- Clear origin -> initial spatial geometry- Influenced by hydrodynamic expansionpxIntroduction

Azimuthal anisotropy:Directed,Triangular flow
Directed flow v1

Elliptic flow v2

7

Triangular flow v3

Ψ3

Ψ2

Ψ1

✓Initial geometry is not smooth picture!
- Event by event, initial participant is fluctuated✓Coefficients in Fourier expansion of particle distribution

vn =< cos[n(

X
dN
/1+
2vn cos[n(dn=1n )] >n )]vn constrain initial condition & viscosity

Introduction

v2, v3 theory comparison
Au+Au 200GeVPRL 107. 252301✓v2, v3 are sensitive to initial condition and viscosity of QGP- Theoretically, initial condition and viscosity have uncertainty➡vn are good constraint of the initial geometry and viscosity8

Introduction

η dependence of v2
Initial geometry after the collisions
Rapidity η=-log(θ/2)η=0(θ=π/2)

η=-0.88(θ=3π/4)

η=0.88(θ=π/4)

Final momentum anisotropy

QGP+hadron fluid

Au+Au 200GeV
KLN + Hydroy9

QGP onlyzGlauber + Hydrox
Phys.Lett.B636:299-304✓At mid-η, v2 is largest and f/b-η, v2 becomes small- Larger dN/dη at mid-η and smaller dN/dη at f/b-η- Understand η dependence of initial geometry is important✓v2(η) depends on initial condition-Not strong η dependence of initial geometry-Mid-central:Glauber, Central:KLN

Rapidity dependence of initial condition

Introduction

PhysRevC.90.034915

Initial geometry ε2,B < ε2,F
Pb+Pb 2.76TeV✓Initial geometry has been considered to be rapidity independent✓Event by event, forward/backward vn might be asymmetric- initial participant geometries of the two nuclei would be different- εn,B < εn,F
vn,B < vn,F

➡ Initial geometry has strong rapidity dependence

10Motivation: Why Cu+Au is analyzed ?
Transverse direction

Introduction

11

Initial spatial anisotropy:ε2

ε2,Au
ε2,Cu

✓First asymmetric Cu+Au collisions were operated in 2012
✓Asymmetric initial condition provides-Different left/right pressure gradient -> v1-Different Forward/Backward density and geometry-> Rapidity asymmetric vn-> Measurements of vn in asymmetric system could be goodstudy of initial condition

12

My activity
M1~M2 (2011~2013)

D1(2013~2014)

Repair VTX @BNLJPS Spring & Fall (Talk)
QM2012 (poster)
ATHIC 2012 (Talk)
Au+Au flow analysis using VTX

Repair VTX @BNL
Shift taking & detector expert
for Run 13, Run14

D2(2014~2015)
D2(2014~2015)

D3(2015~2016)

Cu+Au flow analysis

QM2014(Talk)
JPS-DNP(Talk)
Shift taking & detector expert
for Run 14, Run15

QM2015(Poster)TGSW2015 (Talk)
WWND2016(Talk)

D4(2016~)
D4 (2016~)

Domestic conference
International conference
Hardware and shift
Analysis

Cu+Au flow paper is
accepted by PRC
PRC 94, 054910

Experiment/Analysis

Experiment
Analysis13

PHENIX detectors

Experiment/Analysis

Trigger, centrality, collision vertex
Event plane-Beam Beam counter(BBC)(3<|η|<4)
Event plane-Zero degree calorimeter-Shower max detector
Charged particle Tracking-Drift Chamber(DC) (|η|<0.35)- Momentum-Pad Chamber(PC) (|η|<0.35)- Hit position-Electro magnetic
calorimeter(EMC) (|η|<0.35)- Hit position

14

Experiment/Analysis

Npart & Centrality
Cu
Participant

Spectator

Bbc

Bbc

Spectator

15

Npart
✓Number of participants- e.g. Cu 4 , Au 6
✓Estimated by Glauber model- nucleon base

Au

Centrality✓Fraction of events in terms of total
geometrical cross section
10-20%-Overlap zone of two nuclei∝ Multiplicity

5-10%
0-5%

✓ Experimentally, overlap zone isclassified by multiplicity in Bbc- Multiplicity in Bbc ∝ Overlap zone

✓0%(central)

100%(peripheral)

Experiment/Analysis

Anisotropy measurement via Event Plane method

16

Event plane(EP) method- one of the flow measurement methods- produced particles are measured with respect to EP- EP is the azimuthal direction most particles are emitted to- observed vn is corrected by EP resolution< cos(n[vn =Res{

Elliptic moment

Directed momentyobsn ]) >
obs }
n

Ψ1
φi
x

Ψ2

y
φi

Triangular moment

Ψ3

y
φi

x

x

Event plane detectors and resolutions

-6.5

-4

-3

true
n ]) >-0.35 0.35

3

Smd η>6.5

Bbc 3<η<4

Bbc -4<η<-3

Cnt |η|<0.35

dN/dη

Smd η<-6.5

Event Plane resolution
obs
obs
Res{ n } =< cos(n[ n17PHENIX η acceptance

Event Plane detectors- 2nd, 3rd Event plane- Bbc, Cnt- 1st Event plane- Bbc, Smd

Experiment/Analysis

4 6.5

η

Experiment/Analysis

vn measurement at Bbc(3<|η|<4 )✓vn is measured using 64 Bbc pmts

18

pmt

- Bbc can not reconstruct tracks- Measured vn include back ground✓Full Geant simulation with PHENIX configuration- Measured vn -> True vn
mes
v
n
true
vn =
Rn

Sim
vn,output
Rn = Simvn,input✓Correction factor Rn- R2 : 0.74
- R3 : 0.66

Simvn,input

Input vn from particle simulationSimvn,output

Output vn from Geant simulation✓Systematic study-dN/dη
- pT spectra- vn (pt)- vn (eta)Comparison of v2 to PHOBOS’s results

Experiment/Analysis✓My results are consistent with PHOBOS’s results

19

dNch/dη measurements at Bbc

Experiment/Analysis

20

Like vn measurements, correction factors is estimated fromGeant simulationdNch= R ⇤ ADC obs
d⌘
2
1
R=
sim
3 ADCoutput

2/3:+-π/(+-π,π0)sim
ADCoutput

R ~0.5Comparison to PHOBOSMy results are consistent with PHOBOS’s results

Experiment/Analysis

Systematic sources✓vn at mid-η- East and West arm difference- CNT track cut- Event Plane difference- Event Plane resolution difference✓vn at F/B-η
- Event Plane difference- Geant simulation- dN/dη distribution- pT distribution- pT dependence of vn- η dependence of vn✓dN/dη at F/B-η- Geant simulation- dN/dη distribution- pT distribution

21

Results/Discussions

Results
Discussions-

v1,v2,v3 at mid-ηMultiplicity at F/B-η
v2,v3 at F/B-η

22

Results/Discussions

Charged hadron v1(pT) in Cu+Au collisions✓v1 at mid-rapidity is observed with respect to Au spectator for 10-50%- sigh of v1 is flipped toward Cu nucleus side
✓Negative v1 indicates high pT particle
are emitted to Au side
-Magnitude decreases from central tomore peripheral events-In peripheral events, Left/Right path
length becomes similar

high pT

23

low pT ?

Results/Discussions

Interpretation of negative v1(pT) at higher pT✓Density gradient is larger in Au nucleus side
✓Larger pressure gradient pushes particles to high pT-Density gradient induce pressure gradient- Many high pT particles are emitted toward Au side24

Results/Discussions

Charged hadron v2(pT) in Cu+Au collisions✓Similar pT and centrality dependence of v2 as seenin symmetric collisions- v2 is measured with respect to Bbc-Strong centrality dependence, magnitude increase from
central to peripheral-Cu+Au v2 is between symmetric Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions

25

Results/Discussions

Charged hadron v3(pT) in Cu+Au collisions✓Similar pT and centrality dependence of v3 as seenin symmetric collisions- v3 is measured with respect to Bbc- Weak centrality dependence, magnitude slightly increase from
central to peripheral- Cu+Au v3 shows larger values than Au+Au results

26System size dependence of vn(Npart)

Results/Discussions

1/ε3

1/ε2

✓Cu+Au v2/ε2 is consistent with Au+Au and Cu+Cu results✓Unlike v2, Cu+Au v3 is consistent with Au+Au v3✓Cu+A v3/ε3 is not consistent with Au+Au results- MC-Glauber might not reproduce ε3 correctly27

Results/Discussions

Results
Discussions-

v1,v2,v3 at mid-ηMultiplicity at F/B-η
v2,v3 at F/B-η28

Results/Discussions

η dependence of charged particle multiplicity
Au-going side

29

Cu-going side

✓Au-going side dN/dη > Cu-going side dN/dη- Number of participants in Au > Number of participants in Cu✓Larger collision system dN/dη > smaller collision system dN/dη- Au+Au > Cu+Au > Cu+Cu

Results/Discussions

30

Study of relative contribution from Npart,Au and Npart,Cu
2Npart,Cu

Npart,Au(Cu)-going

2Npart,Au

Au-going

Cu-going✓Weighted Npart scaling for CuAu dN/dη- Npart,Au and Npart,Cu are participants in Au and Cu, respectively- Npart,Au(Cu)-going = wNpart,Au+(2-w)Npart,Cu (2Npart,Cu <Npart,Au(Cu)-going < 2Npart,Au)✓Au-going side -> Npart,Au and Npart,Cu , Cu-going side -> Npart,Cu

Results/Discussions

31

χ2/NDF for the difference of dNch/dη between Cu+Au and Au+Au✓Au-going side is determined from Npart,Au and Npart,Cu- χ2/NDF become small around w = 1~1.5✓Cu-going side is determined from mainly Npart,Cu- χ2/NDF become small around w = 0

Results/Discussions

Results
Discussions-

v1,v2,v3 at mid-ηMultiplicity at F/B-η
v2,v3 at F/B-η

32

Results/Discussions

Rapidity dependence of vn in Cu+Au collisions

33✓In Cu+Au collisions, F/B asymmetry of vn is observed.
-vn is measured with respect Cnt-v2(Au-going) > v2(Cu-going)-v3(Au-going) > v3(Cu-going)->caused by different initial geometries in Au and Cu ?
✓Unlike v2 , Au-going v3 in Cu+Au show similar values of Au+Au v3

Results/Discussions

Multiplicity dependence of vn in Cu+Au collisions✓In Cu+Au collisions, F/B asymmetry of vn is observed.
- plotted as a measured dN/dη at F/B-rapidity-v2(Au-going) > v2(Cu-going)-v3(Au-going) > v3(Cu-going)->caused by different initial geometries in Au and Cu ?

34

Results/Discussions

Study of ε2 in Cu+Au collisions at F/B-rapidity
ε2,Au
ε2,Au-going
ε2,Cu
ε2,Cu
ε2,Cu-going
ε2,Au✓Weighted ε2 scaling of v2 (dN/dη) at (3<|η|<3.9)-ε2,Au and ε2,Cu are give by Au and Cu, respectively-ε2,Au(Cu)-going = wAu(Cu)-goingε2,Au+(1-wAu(Cu)-going)ε2,Cu(ε2,Cu < ε2,Au(Cu)-going < ε2,Au)➡common ε2,Au-going = ε2,Cu-going is favored35

Results/Discussions

Study of ε3 in Cu+Au collisions at F/B-rapidity
ε3,Au
ε3,Au-going
ε3,Cu
ε3,Cu
ε3,Cu-going
ε3,Au

36

Weighted ε3 scaling of v3 (dN/dη) at (3<|η|<3.9)-ε3,Au and ε3,Cu are give by Au and Cu, respectively->ε3,Au(Cu)-going = wAu(Cu)-goingε3,Au+(1-wAu(Cu)-going)ε3,Cu (ε3,Cu < ε3,Au(Cu)-going < ε3,Au)✓Like mid-rapidity v3, MC-Glauber can not describe
system size dependence?
✓common ε3,Au-going = ε3,Cu-going is favoredResults/Discussions 37

χ2/NDF for the difference of vn/εn between Au-going and Cu-going

2nd order harmonics

3rd order harmonics

lowest χ2/NDF✓ χ2/NDF for wAu-going vs wCu-going-εn,Au(Cu)-going = wAu(Cu)-goingεn,Au+(1-wAu(Cu)-going)εn,Cu✓Common εn,Au-going ~ εn,Cu-going is favored by v2 and v3-wAu-going ~ w,Cu-goingResults/Discussions

χ2/NDF for the difference of vn/εn between Cu+Au and Au+Au

38

2nd order harmonics✓ ε2,Au-going ~ ε2,Cu-going-ε2,Au and ε2,Cu aresimilar contribution-Both χ2/NDF become small
around w = 0.2 ~ 0.5

3rd order harmonics✓Glauber does notdescribe ε3-Compared to v2/ε2, χ2/
NDF is large-Both χ2/NDF become small
around w = 1

Summary 1 : Mid-rapidity✓First order flow harmonic- High pT particles are emitted to Au side
- Magnitude decrease from central to peripheral- Larger density gradient in Au nucleus side push particle to high pT✓Second order flow harmonics- Similar centrality and pT dependence as seen in symmetric collisions- Glauber model well described initial geometry✓Third order flow harmonics- Similar centrality and pT dependence as seen in symmetric collisions- Glauber model is not favored by the third oder initial geometry

39

Summary 2 : Forward/Backward rapidity✓Charged particle multiplicity- Au-going side is higher than Cu-going side
- Au-going side is determined by both of Npart,Au and Npart,Cu- Cu-going side is determined by mainly Npart,Cu✓Second order flow harmonics- Au-going side is higher than Cu-going side for mid central- Au-going side is close to Cu-going side for central and peripheral- Au-going and Cu-going side are scaled well by common
eccentricity✓Third order flow harmonics- Au-going side is higher than Cu-going side for central andmid central- Like v2 Au-going and Cu-going side are scaled well by common
eccentricity- Like mid-rapidity v3 , Glauber model does not describe initialgeometry in Au+Au and Cu+Au.

40

Conclusion
By studying azimuthal anisotropy and particle
multiplicity in Cu+Au collisions,✓Initial geometry- Left / Right asymmetry in transverse direction- Initial geometry at Forward/Backward is common✓Initial energy density- Au-going side is determined by both of Npart,Au and Npart,Cu- Cu-going side is determined by mainly Npart,Cu

41

Back Up

42

Results/Discussions 43

Interpretation of negative v1(pT) at higher pT!

✓Density gradient is larger in Au nucleus
sideIntroduction

Rapidity dependence of initial condition

44

PhysRevC.90.034915

Pb+Pb 2.76TeV

εn,B<εn,F✓initial geometry has been considered to be
rapidity independent✓Initial conditions on target and projectile nuclei
are not same event
εn (+η) > εn (-η)
vn (+η) > vn (-η)✓ Initial geometry has strong rapidity dependenceεn (η) = αεn (+η) + βεn(-η)

Results/Discussions 45

Results
Discussions-

v1,v2,v3 at mid-η
v2,v3 at F/B-η
Initial condition study
v1,v2,v3 theory comparison

Parton cascade and hydro vn(pT)Results/Discussions 46

20-30%- Hydro(Bozek):Glauber + hydro- Hydro(Hirano):Glauber + hydro+ hadron cascade- AMPT:Glauber + parton cascade + hadron cascade✓Hydrodynamic reproduce vn✓AMPT model well reproduce v2 and v3 , but shows
opposite sign of v1

Parton cascade and hydro vn(η)!
✓AMPT and Hydro predict the magnitude of v2 at F/B rapidity well
✓AMPT reproduce the magnitude of v3 at F/B rapidity well✓Hydro overestimate the magnitude of v3 at F/B rapidity-Hydro:Smooth longitudinal density+hydro-AMPT:Fluctuated longitudinal density+parton cascade

47

Results/Discussions 48

Results
Discussions-

v1,v2,v3 at mid-η
v2,v3 at large-ηInitial condition study
v1,v2,v3 theory comparison

Results/Discussions 49

System size dependence of vn(Npart) at F/B rapidity

ΨPP
ΨPP

?

✓F/B asymmetry of v2 is consistent that of ε2-εn,Au and εn,Cu are estimated from
Au and Cu participants separately

εn,Au > εn,Cu

vn,Au > vn,Cu ?

Results/Discussions 50

v2/ε2 scaling with Glauber and IPGlasma
Mid-η

nucleon basegluon base

F/B-η

✓At-mid η, the v2 scaled with nucleon base model areconsistent among three collision systems✓At-F/B η, the v2/ε2 with gluon base model in Cu+Au is
closer to that in Au+Au

v3/ε3 scaling with Glauber and IPGlasma
Mid-η

nucleon basegluon base

F/B-η

✓At-mid η, the v3 scaled with gluon base model in Cu+Au
is closer to that in Au+Au✓At-F/B η, the v3/ε3 with gluon base model in Cu+Au is
closer to that in Au+Au

51

Introduction 52

ηs dependence of εnarXiv:12004.5814v2

Glauber
Pb+Pb✓Longitudinal structure is less understood-Transverse direction can be described by Glauber, CGC…
✓Initial spatial geometry εn(η) are η symmetric- Smooth longitudinal density profile, streak-like structurevn measurement at Bbc(3<|η|<4 )✓vn is measured using 64 Bbc pmts

Experiment/Analysis 53

pmt- Bbc can’t reconstruct tracks- pmt based vn include back ground✓Full Giant simulation with PHENIX configuration- pmt based vn -> track based vn

Sim
v
track
pmt
n,inputvn= Rn ⇤ v n
Rn = Simvn,output✓Correction factor Rn- R2 : 0.73
- R3 : 0.65

✓Systematic study-dN/deta- pT spectra- vn(pt)- vn(eta)Simvn,input
Input vn from particle simulationSimvn,output
Output vn from Giant simulation

Initial spatial anisotropy
Glauber Monte Carlo simulation-Wood Saxon density profile p- collision is occurred, if d < ( nn /⇡)d:distance between nucleons
σnn:total cross section(pp collision)⌦ 2
r cos[n(
✏n =
hr2 i

n,P P )]

↵

⌦ 2
↵
1
1 r sin(n )
[tan
+ ⇡]
n,P P =
2n
hr cos(n )iCentrality dependence of εnε2:CuCu>CuAu~AuAu
ε3:CuAu>AuAu

Experiment/Analysis 54

Results/Discussions 55

System size dependence of v2(Npart) and ε2(Npart)✓v2(Npart) and ε2(Npart) are similar system size dependence- Npart:Number of participants from MC-Glauber- v2(AuAu)>v2(CuAu)>v2(CuCu) ~ ε2(AuAu)>ε2(CuAu)>ε2(CuCu)

Results/Discussions 56

System size dependence of v3(Npart) and ε3(Npart)✓Unlike v2(Npart), no significant system size dependence ofv3(Npart) and ε3(Npart)-The ordering of the magnitude of v3 is reversed with that of ε3- v3 in Cu+Au are almost same or slightly larger than those in
Au+Au-> intrinsic triangularity of asymmetric overlap zone?

Results/Discussions 57

System size dependence of v2 at F/B✓In Cu+Au collisions, F/B asymmetry of v2 is observed.$-central & peripheral collisions: v2(Au-going) ~ v2(Cu-going) $-mid-central collisions :v2(Au-going) > v2(Cu-going)$->caused by different initial geometries in Au and Cu ?

Results/Discussions 58

System size dependence of v3 at F/B✓Weak centrality dependence of v3 is seen for all collision systems- AuAu:same centrality dependence as seen mid η- CuAu: v3 decrease as centrality decrease$✓In CuAu collisions, v3(Au-going) > v3(Cu-going) for all centrality bins-> Like v2, the different initial geometry cause the different v3 ?

F/B asymmetry of dN/dη

Results/Discussions 59✓Like the vn, the dN/dη in Au-going side is higher✓In 50-60%, the dN/dη in Au-going side andCu-going side are almost same due to similar Npart.

Initial geometry model

Results/Discussions 60

Glauber nucleon

IPGlasmaSmooth structure

Fine structure✓Glauber Monte Carlo model:nucleon base✓Glauber Monte Carlo model:Constituent quark base
PRC 93 024901✓IPGlasma Model : gluon base(CGC), PRC 89, 064908->fineness: gluon base>quark base > nucleon baseModel dependence of 2nd and 3rd Eccentricity

61

v2/e2 at f/b rapidity vs dN/dy

v3/e3 at mid rapidity vs dN/dy

v3/e3 at f/b rapidity vs dN/dyvn vs Npartv2/ε2 scaling at mid-rapidity
Glauber nucleon

Glauber quark

Results/Discussions 66

IPGlasma✓v2 scaled with Glauber model(nucleon,quark) areconsistent among three collision systems✓The deviation is seen in central for IPGlasma model

67

v3/ε3 scaling at mid-rapidity
Glauber nucleon

Glauber quark

IPGlasma✓In Glauber model(nucleon,quark), the deviation isseen at central bin✓In IPGlasma model, AuAu v3/ε3 and CuAu v3/ε3 are close
to each other68v2/ε2 scaling at f/b-rapidity
Glauber nucleon

Glauber quark

IPGlasma✓In Glauber model(nucleon,quark), the deviations
between CuAu and AuAu are seen at central bin✓In IPGlasma model, AuAu v2/ε2 and CuAu v2/ε2 are close
to each other69

v3/ε3 scaling at f/b-rapidity
Glauber nucleon

Glauber quark

IPGlasma✓In Glauber model(nucleon,quark), the deviationis seen from central to mid-central✓In IPGlasma model, AuAu v3/ε3 and CuAu v3/ε3 are close
to each otherParton cascade and hydro v2(η)!
✓AMPT and Hydro predict magnitude ofv2 at F/B rapidity well-Hydro:Smooth longitudinal density+hydro-AMPT:Fluctuated longitudinal density+partoncascade✓Hydro reproduces the ratio of F/B v2- In peripheral collisions, the F/B ratio
becomes constant✓AMPT model over-estimate the ratio

70Parton cascade and hydro v3(η)✓AMPT show the F/B asymmetry of v3- v3 (Au-going) > v3(Cu-going)->Fluctuated longitudinal density show
larger F/B asymmetry of vn✓Hydrodynamics show weak F/Basymmetry of v3-v3(Au-going) ~ v3(Cu-going)->Smooth longitudinal density show
weaker F/B asymmetry of vn

71

72

Directed flow in comparison to STAR and ALICEPRL 111 232302

PRL 101 252301

Results/Discussions 73

MC-Glauber E-by-E hydro v2, v3 at mid-ηFor both centrality, both value of η/s agree with data

vn:AMPT and Hydrodynamics

74

75

pi, K, p flow

Introduction 76

arXiv:1412.1038

v2,v3 have similar particle dependence
v3 scaled with nq3/2

Introduction 77

Scaling property : quark number scaling

arXiv:1412.1038

v2,v3 have similar particle dependence
v3 scaled with nq3/2

Track identification at CNT(|η|<0.35)

Experiment/Analysis 78

TOF.E and TOF.W are used
-TOF.E : Scintillation counter 130ps-TOF.W : MRPC 95ps

Time of flight method
2

m =p

2

✓

ct
L

◆2

!

1

TOF.E positive particles

Charged pi,K,p-pi/K up to 3GeV
-K/p up to 4GeV

Mass square

m:particle mass, p:momentum, L:flight passc:light velocity, t:time of flight

protonKaon
pion
momentumResults/Discussions
79

Results&
Discussions-

System size dependence
PID vnRapidity dependence
Theory comparison

Identified particle v2 in Cu+Au

Results/Discussions 80

arxiv:1509.07784

Mass ordering at low pT for v2 for all centralities
Baryon and meson splitting at mid-pT is seen

Identified particle v1, v3 in Cu+Au

Results/Discussions 81

arxiv:1509.07784

Same particle dependence of v3 is seen as seen in v2
Mass ordering is also seen for v1- At 1<pT<2.5GeV, Mass ordering is seen
- At low and high pt region, baryon v1 ~ meson v1-Not same trend as seen in v2, v3

Quark Number Scaling of v2

Quark Number Scaling works v2 in CuAu
82

Quark Number Scaling for v3

Quark Number Scaling work v3 in CuAu
83

Comparison to AMPT v2
arxiv:1509.07784

AMPT with 3mb reproduce v2-In 0-30%, up to 2GeV-In 30-60%, up to 1GeVMarch 2nd 2016 WWND H.Nakagomi

84

Comparison to AMPT v3
arxiv:1509.07784

AMPT with 3mb reproduce v3-In 0-30%, up to 2GeV
March 2nd 2016 WWND H.Nakagomi

85

Flow in symmetric collisions system

PRL 107,252301 

H-31 Poster, Reynollds 86Experiment/Analysis 87

3sub method

PHENIX η acceptance

Event Plane detectors< cos(n[

obs
n,A

obs
obs
n,B ]) >=< cos(n[ n,Aobs=< cos(n[ n,A= Res{

3

true
true
obs
n + n
n,B ]) >true
truen ]) >< cos(n[ nn,A }Res{n,B }Smd η>6.5-Estimated from EP-6.5 -4-3-0.35 0.35
correlations(3sub method)s
obsobs ]) >< cos(n[ obs<cos(n[
n,A
n,B
n,A
obs
Res{ n,A } =obs ]) >< cos(n[ obsn,Bn,CBbc 3<η<4

Cnt |η|<0.35

Bbc -4<η<-3

Event Plane resolutiondN/dη
Smd η<-6.5- 2nd, 3rd Event plane- Bbc, Cnt- 1st Event plane- Bbc, Smd

4 6.5

η

obs ]) >n,C

obs
n,B ]) >Average vn at Mid-rapidity
How to integrate vn(pT)
Weighted average using pT spectra as weights-pT spectra: PHENIX AuAu
(ppg023)-vn: PHENIX AuAu,CuAu,CuCu(ppg124,132,183)
P< vn >=

dN
i dpT ,i vn (pT,i )P dN
i dpT ,i-vn(pT,i) and dN/dpT,i values are obtained from fitting functionsp0
f (pT ) = A()np 0 + pT

88

Determination of pT spectra in Cu+Cu and Cu+Au
Cu+Cu and Cu+Au spectra are assumed using Au+Au spectra-There no published Cu+Cu and Cu+Au spectra-dNch/dη and <pT> depends on Npart
Procedure

p0
n
f
(p
)
=
A(
)
1. Fit Au+Au spectra withT
p 0 + pT

p0 and n are free parameter
2. Obtain p0 and n as a function of Npart
3. Make pT spectra for Cu+Cu and Cu+Au
using p0(Npart) and n(Npart) for corresponding Npart bins
p0(Npart)n(Npart)p0 (Npart )f (pT , Npart ) = ()n(Npart )p0 (Npart ) + pT

89

Comparison to PHOBOS
|η|<1

|η|<1

My results are consistent with PHOBOS within the error-η range is different, PHOBOS’s results are obtained wider range

pT integration is successfully done90