Polarization of $\Lambda$ ($\bar{\Lambda}$) hyperons along the beam direction in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}$ = 200 GeV
STAR Collaboration: J. Adam, L. Adamczyk, J. R. Adams, J. K. Adkins,, G. Agakishiev, M. M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, I. Alekseev, D. M. Anderson, R., Aoyama, A. Aparin, D. Arkhipkin, E. C. Aschenauer, M. U. Ashraf, F. Atetalla,, A. Attri, G. S. Averichev, V. Bairathi, K. Barish

TL;DR
This study reports the first measurement of $\Lambda$ hyperon polarization along the beam direction in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV, revealing a sine modulation pattern linked to vorticity, with results challenging existing hydrodynamic models.
Contribution
It provides the first experimental measurement of hyperon polarization along the beam axis in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, highlighting discrepancies with theoretical predictions.
Findings
Polarization exhibits sine modulation with emission angle.
Polarization increases with collision centrality.
Measured polarization is significantly smaller than model predictions.
Abstract
The () hyperon polarization along the beam direction has been measured for the first time in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. The polarization dependence on the hyperons' emission angle relative to the second-order event plane exhibits a sine modulation, indicating a quadrupole pattern of the vorticity component along the beam direction. The polarization is found to increase in more peripheral collisions, and shows no strong transverse momentum () dependence at GeV/. The magnitude of the signal is about five times smaller than those predicted by hydrodynamic and multiphase transport models; the observed phase of the emission angle dependence is also opposite to these model predictions. In contrast, blast-wave model calculations reproduce the modulation phase measured in the data and capture the centrality and transverse momentum…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
STAR Collaboration
Polarization of () hyperons along the beam direction in
Au+Au collisions
at = 200 GeV
J. Adam
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
L. Adamczyk
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
J. R. Adams
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
J. K. Adkins
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0055
G. Agakishiev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
M. M. Aggarwal
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
Z. Ahammed
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
I. Alekseev
Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
D. M. Anderson
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
R. Aoyama
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan
A. Aparin
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
D. Arkhipkin
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
E. C. Aschenauer
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
M. U. Ashraf
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
F. Atetalla
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
A. Attri
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
G. S. Averichev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
V. Bairathi
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
K. Barish
University of California, Riverside, California 92521
A. J. Bassill
University of California, Riverside, California 92521
A. Behera
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
R. Bellwied
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
A. Bhasin
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
A. K. Bhati
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
J. Bielcik
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
J. Bielcikova
Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez 250 68, Czech Republic
L. C. Bland
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
I. G. Bordyuzhin
Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia
J. D. Brandenburg
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
A. V. Brandin
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
J. Bryslawskyj
University of California, Riverside, California 92521
I. Bunzarov
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
J. Butterworth
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
H. Caines
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
M. Calderón de la Barca Sánchez
University of California, Davis, California 95616
D. Cebra
University of California, Davis, California 95616
I. Chakaberia
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
P. Chaloupka
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
B. K. Chan
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
F-H. Chang
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101
Z. Chang
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
N. Chankova-Bunzarova
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
A. Chatterjee
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
S. Chattopadhyay
Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata 700064, India
J. H. Chen
Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433
X. Chen
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
J. Cheng
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
M. Cherney
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
W. Christie
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
H. J. Crawford
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
M. Csanád
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary H-1117
S. Das
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
T. G. Dedovich
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
I. M. Deppner
University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
A. A. Derevschikov
NRC ”Kurchatov Institute”, Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
L. Didenko
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
C. Dilks
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
X. Dong
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
J. L. Drachenberg
Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas 79699
J. C. Dunlop
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
T. Edmonds
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
N. Elsey
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
J. Engelage
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
G. Eppley
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
R. Esha
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
S. Esumi
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan
O. Evdokimov
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
J. Ewigleben
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
O. Eyser
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
R. Fatemi
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0055
S. Fazio
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
P. Federic
Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez 250 68, Czech Republic
J. Fedorisin
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
Y. Feng
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
P. Filip
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
E. Finch
Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut 06515
Y. Fisyak
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
L. Fulek
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
C. A. Gagliardi
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
T. Galatyuk
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt 64289, Germany
F. Geurts
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
A. Gibson
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
K. Gopal
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Tirupati 517507, India
D. Grosnick
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
A. Gupta
University of Jammu, Jammu 180001, India
W. Guryn
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
A. I. Hamad
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
A. Hamed
American Univerisity of Cairo, Cairo, Egypt
J. W. Harris
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
L. He
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
S. Heppelmann
University of California, Davis, California 95616
S. Heppelmann
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
N. Herrmann
University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg 69120, Germany
L. Holub
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
Y. Hong
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Horvat
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
B. Huang
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
H. Z. Huang
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
S. L. Huang
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
T. Huang
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101
X. Huang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
T. J. Humanic
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
P. Huo
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
G. Igo
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
W. W. Jacobs
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
C. Jena
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Tirupati 517507, India
A. Jentsch
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
Y. JI
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
J. Jia
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
K. Jiang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
S. Jowzaee
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
X. Ju
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
E. G. Judd
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Kabana
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
S. Kagamaster
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
D. Kalinkin
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
K. Kang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
D. Kapukchyan
University of California, Riverside, California 92521
K. Kauder
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
H. W. Ke
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
D. Keane
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
A. Kechechyan
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
M. Kelsey
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
Y. V. Khyzhniak
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
D. P. Kikoła
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
C. Kim
University of California, Riverside, California 92521
T. A. Kinghorn
University of California, Davis, California 95616
I. Kisel
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies FIAS, Frankfurt 60438, Germany
A. Kisiel
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
M. Kocan
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
L. Kochenda
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
L. K. Kosarzewski
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
L. Kramarik
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
P. Kravtsov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
K. Krueger
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
N. Kulathunga Mudiyanselage
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
L. Kumar
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
J. H. Kwasizur
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
R. Lacey
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
J. M. Landgraf
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
J. Lauret
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
A. Lebedev
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
R. Lednicky
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
J. H. Lee
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
C. Li
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
W. Li
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
W. Li
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
X. Li
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
Y. Li
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
Y. Liang
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
R. Licenik
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
T. Lin
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
A. Lipiec
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
M. A. Lisa
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
F. Liu
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
H. Liu
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
P. Liu
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
P. Liu
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
T. Liu
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
X. Liu
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
Y. Liu
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
Z. Liu
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
T. Ljubicic
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
W. J. Llope
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
M. Lomnitz
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
R. S. Longacre
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
S. Luo
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
X. Luo
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
G. L. Ma
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
L. Ma
Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433
R. Ma
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Y. G. Ma
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
N. Magdy
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
R. Majka
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
D. Mallick
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
S. Margetis
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
C. Markert
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
H. S. Matis
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
O. Matonoha
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
J. A. Mazer
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
K. Meehan
University of California, Davis, California 95616
J. C. Mei
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
N. G. Minaev
NRC ”Kurchatov Institute”, Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
S. Mioduszewski
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
D. Mishra
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
B. Mohanty
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, Jatni 752050, India
M. M. Mondal
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India
I. Mooney
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
Z. Moravcova
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
D. A. Morozov
NRC ”Kurchatov Institute”, Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
Md. Nasim
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
K. Nayak
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
J. M. Nelson
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
D. B. Nemes
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
M. Nie
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
G. Nigmatkulov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
T. Niida
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
L. V. Nogach
NRC ”Kurchatov Institute”, Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
T. Nonaka
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
G. Odyniec
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
A. Ogawa
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
K. Oh
Pusan National University, Pusan 46241, Korea
S. Oh
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
V. A. Okorokov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
B. S. Page
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
R. Pak
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Y. Panebratsev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
B. Pawlik
Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow 31-342, Poland
D. Pawlowska
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
H. Pei
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
C. Perkins
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
R. L. Pintér
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary H-1117
J. Pluta
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
J. Porter
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
M. Posik
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
N. K. Pruthi
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
M. Przybycien
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
J. Putschke
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
A. Quintero
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
S. K. Radhakrishnan
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Ramachandran
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0055
R. L. Ray
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
R. Reed
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
H. G. Ritter
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
J. B. Roberts
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
O. V. Rogachevskiy
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
J. L. Romero
University of California, Davis, California 95616
L. Ruan
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
J. Rusnak
Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez 250 68, Czech Republic
O. Rusnakova
Czech Technical University in Prague, FNSPE, Prague 115 19, Czech Republic
N. R. Sahoo
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
P. K. Sahu
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India
S. Salur
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
J. Sandweiss
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
J. Schambach
University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712
W. B. Schmidke
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
N. Schmitz
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Munich 80805, Germany
B. R. Schweid
State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794
F. Seck
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt 64289, Germany
J. Seger
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
M. Sergeeva
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
R. Seto
University of California, Riverside, California 92521
P. Seyboth
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, Munich 80805, Germany
N. Shah
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
E. Shahaliev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
P. V. Shanmuganathan
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
M. Shao
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
F. Shen
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
W. Q. Shen
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
S. S. Shi
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
Q. Y. Shou
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
E. P. Sichtermann
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. Siejka
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
R. Sikora
AGH University of Science and Technology, FPACS, Cracow 30-059, Poland
M. Simko
Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez 250 68, Czech Republic
J. Singh
Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
S. Singha
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
D. Smirnov
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
N. Smirnov
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
W. Solyst
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
P. Sorensen
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
H. M. Spinka
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
B. Srivastava
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
T. D. S. Stanislaus
Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana 46383
M. Stefaniak
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
D. J. Stewart
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
M. Strikhanov
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
B. Stringfellow
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
A. A. P. Suaide
Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 05314-970
T. Sugiura
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan
M. Sumbera
Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez 250 68, Czech Republic
B. Summa
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
X. M. Sun
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
Y. Sun
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
Y. Sun
Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000
B. Surrow
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122
D. N. Svirida
Alikhanov Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, Russia
P. Szymanski
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
A. H. Tang
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Z. Tang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
A. Taranenko
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow 115409, Russia
T. Tarnowsky
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
J. H. Thomas
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
A. R. Timmins
University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204
D. Tlusty
Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska 68178
T. Todoroki
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
M. Tokarev
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
C. A. Tomkiel
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
S. Trentalange
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
R. E. Tribble
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
P. Tribedy
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
S. K. Tripathy
Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar 751005, India
O. D. Tsai
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
B. Tu
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
Z. Tu
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
T. Ullrich
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
D. G. Underwood
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
I. Upsal
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
G. Van Buren
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
J. Vanek
Nuclear Physics Institute of the CAS, Rez 250 68, Czech Republic
A. N. Vasiliev
NRC ”Kurchatov Institute”, Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
I. Vassiliev
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies FIAS, Frankfurt 60438, Germany
F. Videbæk
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
S. Vokal
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141 980, Russia
S. A. Voloshin
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
F. Wang
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
G. Wang
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
P. Wang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
Y. Wang
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
Y. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
J. C. Webb
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
L. Wen
University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095
G. D. Westfall
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
H. Wieman
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
S. W. Wissink
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408
R. Witt
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland 21402
Y. Wu
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242
Z. G. Xiao
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
G. Xie
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
W. Xie
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
H. Xu
Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000
N. Xu
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
Q. H. Xu
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
Y. F. Xu
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
Z. Xu
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
C. Yang
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
Q. Yang
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
S. Yang
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
Y. Yang
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101
Z. Yang
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
Z. Ye
Rice University, Houston, Texas 77251
Z. Ye
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607
L. Yi
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
K. Yip
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973
I. -K. Yoo
Pusan National University, Pusan 46241, Korea
H. Zbroszczyk
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw 00-661, Poland
W. Zha
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
D. Zhang
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
L. Zhang
Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079
S. Zhang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
S. Zhang
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
X. P. Zhang
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
Y. Zhang
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026
Z. Zhang
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
J. Zhao
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
C. Zhong
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
C. Zhou
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800
X. Zhu
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084
Z. Zhu
Shandong University, Qingdao, Shandong 266237
M. Zurek
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
M. Zyzak
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies FIAS, Frankfurt 60438, Germany
Abstract
The () hyperon polarization along the beam direction has been measured for the first time in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. The polarization dependence on the hyperons’ emission angle relative to the second-order event plane exhibits a sine modulation, indicating a quadrupole pattern of the vorticity component along the beam direction. The polarization is found to increase in more peripheral collisions, and shows no strong transverse momentum () dependence at GeV/. The magnitude of the signal is about five times smaller than those predicted by hydrodynamic and multiphase transport models; the observed phase of the emission angle dependence is also opposite to these model predictions. In contrast, blast-wave model calculations reproduce the modulation phase measured in the data and capture the centrality and transverse momentum dependence of the signal once the model is required to reproduce the azimuthal dependence of the Gaussian source radii measured via the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss intensity interferometry technique.
pacs:
25.75.-q, 25.75.Ld
The properties of deconfined partonic matter, the quark-gluon plasma, have been explored in heavy-ion collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) J. Adams et al. (2005) (STAR Collaboration); K. Adcox et al. (2005) (PHENIX Collaboration); B. B. Back et al. (2005) (PHOBOS Collaboration); l. Arsene et al. (2005) (BRAHMS Collaboration) and the Large Hadron Collider K. Aamodt et al. (2011) (ALICE Collaboration); S. Chatrchyan et al. (2011) (CMS Collaboration); G. Aad et al. (2010) (ATLAS Collaboration). The matter created in non-central heavy-ion collisions should exhibit rotational motion in order to conserve the initial angular momentum carried by the two colliding nuclei. The direction of the angular momentum is perpendicular to the reaction plane, as defined by incoming beam and the impact parameter vector. It was predicted Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang (2005); Voloshin (2004) that such a spinning motion of the matter would lead to a net spin polarization of particles produced in the collisions due to spin-orbit coupling. Hyperons are natural candidates to explore this phenomenon since in the parity violating weak decays of the hyperons the momentum vector of the decay baryon is highly correlated with the hyperon spin. In such decays the angular distribution of the daughter baryons is given by:
[TABLE]
where is the hyperon decay parameter, is the hyperon polarization, and is the angle between the polarization vector and the direction of the daughter baryon momentum in the hyperon rest frame.
The Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR) Collaboration has observed positive polarizations of hyperons along the orbital angular momentum in Au+Au collisions for collision energies of = 7.7 – 200 GeV L. Adamczyk et al. (2017); J. Adam et al. (2018). This polarization is evidence for the creation of the most vortical fluid ever observed, with vorticities of the order of . These results open new opportunities for a better understanding of the dynamics and properties of the matter created in heavy-ion collisions.
The spin polarization of hyperons along the orbital angular momentum of the entire system is referred to as the global polarization, meaning a net spin alignment along a globally defined direction. However, the vorticity and, consequently, the particle polarization may vary for different regions of the fluid due to anisotropic flow, energy deposits from jet quenching, density fluctuations, etc. The detailed structure of the vorticity fields may be complicated and the resulting particle polarization can depend on the particle transverse momentum and the azimuthal angle relative to the reaction plane, or even exhibit toroidal structures Betz et al. (2007); Voloshin (2017); F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko (2018); Pang et al. (2016).
Anisotropic flow, characterized by the Fourier coefficients of the particle azimuthal distribution in the transverse plane, has been extensively studied in heavy-ion collisions and was found to be well described by hydrodynamic calculations Voloshin et al. (2010); Heinz and Snellings (2013). Nontrivial velocity fields describing transverse anisotropic flow should lead to a vorticity component along the beam direction dependent on the azimuthal angle relative to the reaction plane Voloshin (2017); F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko (2018). The observation of the large second-order coefficients, a.k.a. elliptic flow, in mid-central collisions indicates significantly stronger expansion in the reaction plane direction compared to that out-of-plane, which might lead to a quadrupole structure in the -component of vorticity as illustrated in Fig. 1. Experimental measurements of such a component are the main goal of this analysis.
The beam direction component of the polarization arising from vorticity due to elliptic flow is expected to be more sensitive to later times from flow development in the system evolution D. Teaney and L. Yan (2011), unlike the global polarization that originates mostly from the initial velocity fields. It might also have different sensitivity to the relaxation time needed for the conversion of the vorticity into particle polarization. Therefore, it is of great interest to study the polarization along the beam direction for further understanding of the role of the vorticity in heavy-ion collisions and possibly to answer these questions. In this Letter, we report the beam direction component of polarization for and hyperons in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. The results are presented as functions of the collision centrality and hyperons’ transverse momentum ().
The dataset for this analysis was collected in 2014 by the STAR detector during the period of Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. Charged-particle tracks were measured in the time projection chamber (TPC) M. Anderson et al. (2003), which covers the full azimuth and a pseudorapidity range of . The collision vertices were reconstructed using the measured charged-particle tracks. Events were selected to have the collision vertex position within 6 cm of the center of the TPC in the beam direction and within 2 cm in the radial direction with respect to the beam center. In addition, the difference between the vertex positions along the beam direction determined by the TPC and the vertex position detectors (VPD) W. J. Llope et al. (2014) located at forward and backward rapidities () was required to be less than 3 cm to suppress pileup events. These selection criteria yielded about one billion minimum bias events, where the minimum bias trigger required hits of both VPDs and the zero-degree calorimeters C. Adler, A. Denisov, E. Garcia, M. Murray, H. Strobele, and S. White (2001) located at .
The collision centrality was determined from the measured multiplicity of charged particles within and a Monte-Carlo Glauber simulation L. Adamczyk et al. (2012) (STAR Collaboration). The second-order event plane () as an experimental estimate of the reaction plane was determined by the charged-particle tracks within the transverse momentum range of 0.15<\mbox{p_{T}}<2 GeV/ and :
[TABLE]
where and are the azimuthal angle and of the particle in the event. The resolution of the measured plane defined as was estimated with the two-subevent method Poskanzer and Voloshin (1998), where the two subevents were taken from . In mid-central collisions the event plane resolution peaks at 0.76.
Charged-particle tracks reconstructed with the TPC were selected to have good quality by requiring the following conditions. The number of hit points used in the track reconstruction was required to be larger than 15. The ratio of the number of hit points used to the maximum possible number of TPC space points for that trajectory was required to be larger than 0.52. Tracks within 0.15<\mbox{p_{T}}<10 GeV/ and that passed through the track selections above were used to reconstruct hyperons. In order to reconstruct and , the decay channels of \mbox{\Lambda}\rightarrow p+\pi^{-} and \mbox{\bar{\Lambda}}\rightarrow\bar{p}+\pi^{+}, corresponding to (63.90.5)% of all decays C. Patrignani et al. (2016) (Particle Data Group), were utilized. The ionization energy loss in the TPC and the time of flight information of the particles from the time-of-flight detector W. J. Llope (2012) were used to select daughter pions and protons. Cuts on decay topology, such as a distance of the closest approach (DCA) between the trajectory of () candidates and the primary vertex, DCA between the two daughters, and decay length of () candidates were applied to reduce the combinatoric background. Additional details about the () reconstruction can be found in Ref. J. Adam et al. (2018).
The longitudinal component of the polarization can be measured by projecting the polarization onto the beam direction:
[TABLE]
where is the polar angle of the daughter proton in the () rest frame and represents an average over () candidates in an event and then an average over all events. The decay parameter is set to be C. Patrignani et al. (2016) (Particle Data Group); not . If the detector has perfect acceptance and efficiency, leads to . In this study was extracted from the data in order to account for pseudorapidity dependent detector acceptance effects. This term was found to be close to for all centralities but showed a systematic decrease for lower track . To extract the signal , two techniques were used: the event plane method and the invariant mass method as described in Ref. J. Adam et al. (2018). In the event plane method, was measured as a function of azimuthal angle of \mbox{\Lambda}(\mbox{\bar{\Lambda}}) relative to . The average polarization along the beam direction is expected to be zero due to symmetry. Effects due to detector acceptance and inefficiencies are removed by subtracting the azimuthal average of from each azimuthal bin of azimuthal angle: \mbox{\langle\cos\theta_{p}^{\ast}\rangle}^{\rm sub}_{i}=\mbox{\langle\cos\theta_{p}^{\ast}\rangle}_{i}-\sum_{i}^{\rm n_{bin}}\mbox{\langle\cos\theta_{p}^{\ast}\rangle}_{i}/{\rm n_{bin}}.
Figure 2 shows \mbox{\langle\cos\theta_{p}^{\ast}\rangle}^{\rm sub} of and as a function of azimuthal angle relative to for the 20%–60% centrality bin. The solid lines indicate the fit results to the function , where and are fit parameters. The data are consistent with a sine structure for both and as expected from the elliptic flow. In the invariant mass method, the second-order Fourier sine coefficient of , , was measured as a function of the invariant mass. Following the same procedure as described in Ref. J. Adam et al. (2018), the sine coefficient was directly extracted. The extracted coefficient in both methods was divided by Res() to account for the finite event plane resolution. The invariant mass method was used to calculate the sine coefficient of and the event plane method was used to cross-check and provide an estimate of the systematic uncertainty.
The systematic uncertainties were estimated by variation of the topological cuts (), comparing the results from two methods for signal extraction () as mentioned above, using different subevents ( and ) for determination (), and estimates of the possible background contribution to the signal (). The numbers are for mid-central collisions. Also the uncertainty from the decay parameter is accounted for (2% for and 9.6% for , see Ref. J. Adam et al. (2018) for the detail). We further studied the effect of a possible self-correlation between the particles used for the () reconstruction and the event plane by explicitly removing the daughter particles from the event plane calculation in Eq. (2). There was no significant difference between the results. The and reconstruction efficiencies were estimated using GEANT Brun et al. (1987) simulations of the STAR detector M. Anderson et al. (2003). The correction is found to lower mean values of the sine coefficient by 10% in peripheral collisions and increases up to 50% in central collisions, although the variations are within statistical uncertainties. No significant difference was observed between and as expected. Therefore, results from both samples were combined to reduce statistical uncertainties.
Figure 3 presents the centrality dependence of the second Fourier sine coefficient . The increase of the signal with decreasing centrality is likely due to increasing elliptic flow contributions in peripheral collisions. We note that, unlike elliptic flow, the polarization does disappear in the most central collisions, where the elliptic flow is still significant due to initial density fluctuations. Because of large uncertainties in peripheral collisions, it is not clear whether the signal continues to increase or levels off. The results are compared to a multiphase transport (AMPT) model Xia et al. (2018) as shown with the dotted line. The AMPT model predicts the opposite phase of the modulations and overestimates the magnitude. The blast-wave model study is discussed later.
Since the elliptic flow also depends on as well as on the centrality, the polarization may have dependence. Figure 4 shows the sine coefficients of as a function of the hyperon transverse momentum. No significant dependence is observed for \mbox{p_{T}}>1 GeV/, and the statistical precision of the single data point for \mbox{p_{T}}<1 GeV/ is not enough to allow for definitive conclusions about the low dependence. In the hydrodynamic model calculation F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko (2018), the sine coefficient of increases in magnitude with but shows the opposite sign to the data.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the hydrodynamic and AMPT models predict the opposite sign in the sine coefficient of the polarization and their magnitudes differ from the data roughly by a factor of 5. The reason of this sign difference is under discussion in the community. However, the sign change may be due to the relation between azimuthal anisotropy and spatial anisotropy at freeze-out Voloshin (2017). There could be contributions from the kinematic vorticity originating from the elliptic flow as well as from the temporal gradient of temperatures at the time of hadronization F. Becattini and Iu. Karpenko (2018). A recent calculation using the chiral kinetic approach predicts the same sign as the data Sun and Ko (2019). The model accounts for the transverse component of the vorticity, resulting in axial charge currents. Note that both the hydrodynamic and transport models calculate local vorticity at freeze-out and convert it to the polarization assuming local thermal equilibrium of the spin degrees of freedom, while the chiral kinetic approach takes into account nonequilibrium effects but does not consider a contribution from the temperature gradient which is a main source of in the hydrodynamic model.
These models indicate that the contribution from the kinematic vorticity to is negligible or opposite in the sign to the naive expectation from the elliptic flow. In order to estimate the contribution from the kinematic vorticity we employed the blast-wave model (BW) Schnedermann et al. (1993); Adler et al. (2001); Retiere and Lisa (2004). Following Ref. Retiere and Lisa (2004) we parameterize the system velocity field at freeze-out with temperature () and transverse flow rapidity () defined as . Here and are the maximal radial expansion rapidity and its azimuthal modulation, is the relative distance to the edge of the source, and defines the direction of the local velocity as indicated in Fig. 1. The source shape, assumed to be elliptical in the transverse plane, is parameterized by the and radii. Boost invariance is assumed. Two fits to the data are performed: in one only spectra and elliptic flow of , K, and p() are fit; the second fit Adams et al. (2005) also includes azimuthal-angle-dependence of the pion Gaussian source radii at freeze-out as measured via Hanbury-Brown and Twiss (HBT) intensity interferometry. The average longitudinal vorticity is calculated according to the following formula:
[TABLE]
where the integration is over the transverse cross-sectional area of the source, is a four-vector of the local flow velocity Retiere and Lisa (2004), is the azimuth of the production point (see Fig. 1 for the relation to ), , ; and are the modified Bessel functions. Assuming a local thermal equilibrium, the longitudinal component of the polarization is estimated as . The uncertainties shown for the BW model calculations corresponds to 1 variation in the model parameters. See Ref. Dobrin et al. for more details.
The BW calculations are compared to the data in Figs. 3 and 4. From central to mid-central collisions both BW calculations show positive sine coefficients which are compatible in both sign and magnitude to the measurement, although the BW model is based on a very simple picture of the freeze-out condition. It was shown in Ref. Voloshin (2017) that the vorticity in the BW model has the effects of the velocity field anisotropy () and the spacial source anisotropy () contributing with opposite signs, which can explain a strong sensitivity of the BW model predictions in the peripheral collisions to the inclusions of the HBT radii.
We have presented the first measurements of the longitudinal component of the polarization for and hyperons in Au+Au collisions at = 200 GeV. Finite signals of a quadrupole modulation of both and polarization along the beam direction are observed and found to be qualitatively consistent with the expectation from the vorticity component along the beam direction due to the elliptic flow. The results exhibit a strong centrality dependence with increasing magnitude as the collision centrality becomes more peripheral. No significant dependence is observed above \mbox{p_{T}}>1 GeV/. A drop-off of the signal is hinted at for \mbox{p_{T}}<1 GeV/. The data were compared to calculations from hydrodynamic and AMPT models, both of which show the opposite phase of the modulation and overpredict the magnitude of the polarization. This might indicate incomplete thermal equilibration of the spin degrees of freedom for the beam direction component of the vorticity/polarization, as it develops later in time compared to the global polarization. On the other hand, the blast-wave model calculations are much closer to the data, even more so when the azimuthally sensitive HBT results along with the spectra and are included in the model fit. The blast-wave model predicts the correct phase of modulation and a similar dependence; the version with HBT radii included in the fit also reasonably describes the centrality dependence. These results together with the results of the global polarization may provide information on the relaxation time needed to convert the vorticity to particle polarization. Further theoretical and experimental studies are needed for better understanding.
Acknowledgements.
We thank the RHIC Operations Group and RCF at BNL, the NERSC Center at LBNL, and the Open Science Grid consortium for providing resources and support. This work was supported in part by the Office of Nuclear Physics within the U.S. DOE Office of Science, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Chinese Academy of Science, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China and the Chinese Ministry of Education, the National Research Foundation of Korea, Czech Science Foundation and Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (FK-123824), New National Excellency Programme of the Hungarian Ministry of Human Capacities (UNKP-18-4), Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India, the National Science Centre of Poland, the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia, RosAtom of Russia and German Bundesministerium fur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung and Technologie (BMBF) and the Helmholtz Association.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1J. Adams et al. (2005) (STAR Collaboration) J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), “Experimental and Theoretical Challenges in the Search for the Quark Gluon Plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s Critical Assessment of the Evidence from RHIC Collisions,” Nucl. Phys. A 757 , 102 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 2K. Adcox et al. (2005) (PHENIX Collaboration) K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration,” Nucl. Phys. A 757 , 184 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 3B. B. Back et al. (2005) (PHOBOS Collaboration) B. B. Back et al. (PHOBOS Collaboration), “The PHOBOS Perspective on Discoveries at RHIC,” Nucl. Phys. A 757 , 28 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 4l. Arsene et al. (2005) (BRAHMS Collaboration) l. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS Collaboration), “Quark Gluon Plasma and Color Glass Condensate at RHIC? The perspective from the BRAHMS experiment,” Nucl. Phys. A 757 , 1 (2005) . · doi ↗
- 5K. Aamodt et al. (2011) (ALICE Collaboration) K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE Collaboration), “Suppression of charged particle production at large transverse momentum in central Pb-Pb collisions at s N N subscript 𝑠 𝑁 𝑁 \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76 Te V,” Phys. Lett. B 696 , 30–39 (2011) . · doi ↗
- 6S. Chatrchyan et al. (2011) (CMS Collaboration) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), “Observation and studies of jet quenching in Pb Pb collisions at s N N subscript 𝑠 𝑁 𝑁 \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76 Te V,” Phys. Rev. C 84 , 024906 (2011) . · doi ↗
- 7G. Aad et al. (2010) (ATLAS Collaboration) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), “Observation of a centrality-dependent dijet asymmetry in lead-lead collisions at s N N subscript 𝑠 𝑁 𝑁 \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76 Te V with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 , 252303 (2010) . · doi ↗
- 8Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang (2005) Z. T. Liang and X. N. Wang, “Globally Polarized Quark-Gluon Plasma in Noncentral A+A Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 , 102301 (2005) , [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 , 039901 (2006)]. · doi ↗
