Flow correlation as a measure of phase transition: results from a new hydrodynamic code

Ashutosh Dash1, ∗ and Victor Roy1, †

1
National Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNI, 752050 Odisha, India.
Finding the existence and the location of the QCD critical point on the temperature T and baryon chemical
potential µb plane is one of the main goals of the RHIC beam energy scan program. To make theoretical
predictions and corroborate with the experimental data requires modeling the space-time evolution of the matter
created in heavy-ion collisions by some dynamical models such as the relativistic hydrodynamics with a proper
Equation of State (EoS). In the present exploratory study, we use a newly developed ideal 2+1 dimensional
event-by-event (e-by-e) hydrodynamic code with two different Equation of State (EoS) (i) Lattice QCD + HRG
EoS with a crossover transition, (ii) EoS with a first order phase transition. Using the MC-Glauber model initial
condition we calculate the event-by-event distribution of flow coefficients vn and eccentricities n (n = 2 − 4)
√
for two different centrality Au+Au collisions at sN N = 200 GeV. We show that the Pearson correlation
coefficient c(v2 , v3 ) and c(v3 , v4 ) can be used as an EoS meter. We found ∼ 10% difference in c(v2 , v3 ) and
arXiv:1908.05292v1 [hep-ph] 14 Aug 2019

c(v3 , v4 ) for the two different EoSs for 20% − 30% collision centrality irrespective of the initial condition used
(initial energy density scaled with either wounded nucleons or binary collisions). The same observable was
shown to be quite insensitive to the initial state fluctuation and/or shear viscosity of the medium in a previous
study by Niemi et al [1]. This indicates that these observables can be used to gain information about the QCD
EoS from experimental data. In addition to that we also found ∼ 15% − 30% difference (depending on the
model parameters and centrality of the collisions) in c(n , vn ) for n = 2 − 4 for the two different EoSs. These
observations may be attributed to very different evolutionary dynamics of the system for the two different EoS.

I. INTRODUCTION perimental data of heavy-ion collisions using one of the avail-

It is well known that at low temperature and baryon chem-
ical potential the degrees of freedom of nuclear matter are
color-neutral hadrons and at high temperature or at large
baryon chemical potential matter is in the form of a quark-
gluon plasma (QGP) in which the fundamental degrees of
freedom are colored objects such as quarks and gluons. Nu-
clear matter at high baryon density and finite temperature is
believed to undergo a first order first order phase transitions,
from the hadronic phase to the QGP phase and the first order
phase transition line terminates at a critical point [2–4]. This
is because lattice QCD shows that the hadron to QGP transi-
tion is a crossover for vanishing baryon chemical potential at
temperature ∼ 170 MeV [3, 5–7]. For details on QCD phase
diagram and critical points see review [8, 9]
Present theoretical models widely disagree with each other
regarding the value of critical temperature and baryon chem-
ical potential corresponding to the QCD critical point on the
QCD phase diagram [10, 11]. Also the existence of the QCD
critical point is yet to be confirmed experimentally [12–17].
It is important that phenomenologically motivated studies of
the heavy-ion collision, such as relativistic hydrodynamics, be
capable of accounting for the potential influence of such a crit-
ical point on experimental observables. Recently it was shown
[18] that the aforesaid goal can be achieved by using relativis-
tic hydrodynamic model, experimental data and a state-of-the-
art deep-learning technique which uses a convolutional neural
network to train the system.
The present exploratory study aims to find a unique observ-
able which connects QCD Equation of State (EoS) and the ex-
∗ ashutosh.dash@niser.ac.in
† victor@niser.ac.in
able dynamical models. We believe this effort will be comple-
mentary to the finding of [18]. We use the relativistic hydro-
dynamic model which has been very successful in simulating
heavy-ion collisions and explaining experimental observables
[19–39]. We find the linear/Pearson correlation (defined later)
of initial geometric asymmetry to the corresponding flow co-
efficient (particularly the second-order flow coefficient v2 )
is a unique observable which can differentiate between EoS
with a first-order phase transition to that with a crossover tran-
sition irrespective of the initial condition used. It has been
known that the event averaged v2 , and the eccentricity of the
averaged initial state, 2 are approximately linearly correlated
[1, 40–42], and the correlation is quite insensitive to the shear
viscosity of the fluid and the initial condition used [1]. We use
this observed fact while investigating the influence of differ-
ent QCD EoS on the flow correlation. It is to be noted that for
the present exploratory study we disregard the effect of finite
baryon chemical potential/density on the observable, there are
ongoing efforts to construct EoS with a critical point [43, 44].
Due to the present uncertainty in the location of QCD critical
point, we refrain to use such EoS.
For the present study, we use a newly developed 2 + 1-
dimensional event-by-event ideal hydrodynamic code. The
conservation equations are solved numerically by using
the time-honored SHarp And Smooth Transport Algorithm
(SHASTA) [45]. In the next section, we shall discuss the de-
tails of various test performed to find the numerical accuracy
of the code. As we will show our code passes all the test
cases satisfactorily. The current version of the code can run
on any machine with Python 2.7 or higher version and Fortran
95 compiler preinstalled.
The paper is organized as follows: in the next section, we
discuss various aspects of the newly developed hydrodynamic
code. In section III we show the comparison of experimental
data of charged pion invariant yield and elliptic flow in Au+Au
 2

be using two kinds of EoS’s:

0.8 EOS-Lattice (i) A parameterized EoS [46] shown in Fig. 1 (solid black line)
EOS-1st order PT which has a cross-over transition between high temperature
QGP phase obtained from lattice QCD and a hadron resonance
0.6
P(GeV fm 3)
gas below the crossover temperature.
(ii) A parameterized EoS [19] with a first order phase tran-
sition shown in Fig. 1 (dashed red line). The EoS connects
0.4 a non-interacting massless QGP gas at high temperature to a
hadron resonance gas, of masses up to 2 GeV, at low temper-
atures through a first order phase transition. The bag constant
0.2 B is a parameter adjusted to B 1/4 = 230 MeV, to yield a crit-
ical temperature of Tc = 164 MeV. We note that the choice
of bag parameter used here is not unique, it may vary between
0.0 B 1/4 = 150 − 300 MeV [9]. Both of these EOSs are valid
0 1 2 3 4 only for zero baryon number density or chemical potential.
(GeV fm 3) The four-velocity of any fluid element uµ in Cartesian co-
ordinates xµ = (t, x, y, z) is defined as
FIG. 1. (Color online) Equation of state with a cross-over dxµ
transition (solid black line) and with first order phase transi- uµ = = γ(1, ~v⊥ , ~vz ), (5)
ds
tion (dashed red line), at vanishing net baryon density.
p
where ds = dt2 − dx2 − dy 2 − dz 2 , and spatial compo-
nents of the flow velocity are defined as√vi = ui /u0 (i =
200 GeV collisions to the simulation result for optical Glauber x, y, z). The time components is γ = 1/ 1 − v 2 . However,
initial condition to test the code. In the same section, we also in this work√we use Milne coordinates, X µ = (τ, x, y, ηs ),
discuss the correlation between different observable and the
where τ = t2 − z 2 is the longitudinal proper time and the
effect of EoS on them. Finally in section IV we conclude and
spatial rapidity η is defined as,
discuss some future possibilities. Throughout this article we
adopt the units h̄ = c = kB = 1. The signature of the metric t = τ cosh(η) (6)
tensor is always taken to be g µν = diag(+1, −1, −1, −1). z = τ sinh(η). (7)
Upper greek indices correspond to contravariant and lower
greek indices covariant. The three vectors are denoted with The metric tensor g µν = (1, −1, −1, −1/τ 2 ) is given by the
latin indices. invariant line element ds2 = gµν dxµ dxν = dτ 2 − dx2 −
dy 2 −τ 2 dηs2 . The velocity 4-vector in this coordinate is, Ũ µ =
γ̃(1,
pṽx , ṽy , 0), where ṽi = vi cosh η, (i = x, y) and γ̃ =
II. IDEAL (2+1)D HYDRODYNAMICS. 2 with ṽ 2 = ṽ 2 + ṽ 2 .
1/ 1 − ṽ⊥ ⊥ x y
We shall keep T τ τ , T τ x , T τ y and J η as independent vari-
A. Conservation equations ables in the conservation equation. The component T τ η de-
couples from the other components because of our choice of
Ideal hydrodynamics model of high-energy heavy-ion col- coordinate. The other equations can be written transparently
lisions assumes that matter created in high energy heavy-ion in the form Ref. [19, 47]:
collisions reaches a state of local thermal equilibrium at time
τ0 . The evolution of the thermalised nuclear matter is gov- ∂τ T τ τ + ∂x (ṽx T τ τ ) + ∂y (ṽy T τ τ ) = S τ (8)
erned by the conservation equation of energy-momentum t en- ∂τ T τ x + ∂x (ṽx T τ x ) + ∂y (ṽy T τ y ) = S x (9)
sor and net baryon current, ∂τ T τ y + ∂x (ṽx T τ y ) + ∂y (ṽy T τ y ) = S y (10)
∂µ T µν = 0, (1) ∂τ j τ + ∂x (ṽx j τ ) + ∂y (ṽy j τ ) = S j (11)
∂µ J µ = 0, (2) where the source terms are given as,
where in the ideal fluid approximation the energy-momentum
Sτ
  1 ττ
− τ (T + P ) − ∂x (P ṽx ) − ∂y (P ṽy )
 
tensor and the net baryon current can be expressed as x τ x
S   −∂x P − T /τ
S y  =  .

T µν = ( + P )uµ uν − P g µν , (3) −∂y P − T τ y /τ
j τ
J µ = nuµ . (4) S −j /τ
(12)
Where  is the local energy density, P is pressure, g µν is the
metric tensor , n is the net baryon density, and uµ is the time- With these equations, we can use the SHASTA algorithm,
like 4-velocity with uµ uµ = 1. The above, constitutes a sys- which is designed to solve partial differential equations of the
tem of 5 equations and 6 variables which is closed by the equa- form ∂t (A) + ∂x (vx A) + ∂y (vy A) = B(t, x, y) to be dis-
tion of state (EoS) P = P (, n). In the present work, we will cussed in the next subsection (Sec. II B). The local rest frame

charge and energy densities are given as
q 0.5 is the Courant number in the x-direction. Eq. (18)
n = j 0 1 − ṽ⊥ 2,
00 0x 0y
=T − (ṽx T + ṽy T ),
while the velocity components are calculated using an one-
dimensional root search algorithm, by iterating the following
transcendental equation
T τ⊥
ṽ⊥ = τ τ
, (15)
T + P ()
such that the components of velocity are given by
T τi
ṽi = ṽ⊥
T τ⊥
q i are computed at half time steps n + 1/2 (half-step
2 2
where T τ ⊥ = (T τ x ) + (T τ y ) . In this velocity finding
algorithm we keep the accuracy ∼ 10−22 .
B. The FCT-SHASTA
As discussed in the previous section Eqs. (8-11) are of the
form
∂t (A) + ∂x (vx A) + ∂y (vy A) = B(t, x, y).
Conservative equations of the form Eq. (17) can be solved
accurately using flux-corrected transport (FCT) algorithms
Refs. [48–50] without violating the positivity of mass and en-
ergy, particularly near shocks and other discontinuities. This
is achieved by adding to the equations a strong numerical dif-
fusion, which guarantees the positivity of the solution, fol-
lowed by a compensating anti-diffusion, which reduces the
numerical error. Extensions of FCT to multiple dimensions is
carried out using operator or time splitting method, where the
multi-dimensional problem reduces into a sequence of 1 + 1-
dimensional problems. However in the present work, we use
an improved method by Zalesak and DeVore Refs. [30, 51, 52]
which circumvents problems (for e.g. “clipping”) associated
with the naive time splitting method. We first calculate the
low-order transport solution separately in the x and y direc-
tions, by using the one-dimensional implementation of the
3
where xi = vix ∆t/∆x = vix λx and λx ≡ ∆t/∆x ≤
(13) results from a simple graphical picture Refs. [45, 53] of
mass transport over a fixed grid and therefore yields a
(14) conservative transport scheme. A similar formula can
also be constructed for y-direction with vx replaced by
vy and all cell difference taken in the y-direction. The
transported and diffused solution is then given as
Āi,j = Āxi,j + Āyi,j − Ani,j + ∆tBi,j . (20)
On account of the previous step, this method preserves
the symmetry between any two directions of the system
as compared to operator splitting method, where one
has to permute the direction when the grid is updated.
(16)
The source terms Bi,j and the velocities entering the
method) to ensure second order accuracy in time.
2. After transporting the quantity A one has to remove
the numerical diffusion inherent in the transport scheme
Eq. (18) by defining the anti-diffusion fluxes in x and y
direction, given as,
¯ x /8,
Axi,j = Axad ∆ i,j
y y ¯y (21)
Ai,j = Aad ∆i,j /8,
(17)
where Axad , Ayad are the anti-diffusion mask coeffi-
cients. The default value of mask coefficient is set to
Axad = Ayad = 1. A lower value of this coefficient re-
duces the amount of anti-diffusion. Furthermore, we
also define the following definitions to be used later,
¯ xi,j = Āi+1,j − Āi,j
∆
(22)
¯ y = Āi,j+1 − Āi,j
∆ i,j
3. The anti-diffusion fluxes in the previous step should not
create new maxima or minima. This is ensured by re-
placing the naive anti diffusion fluxes Eqs. (21) by the
flux corrected anti-diffusion fluxes in the x and y direc-
tions Refs. [45, 52] given as
x
Fi,j x
=σi,j max[0,
x ¯x
∆i+1,j , Axi,j  , σi,j ¯ i−1,j ]
  x x

original SHASTA, without the source term. For further pur- min σi,j ∆
y y (23)
pose i, j will denote the cell indices where as n will denote Fi,j =σi,j max[0,
the time index:
min σ y ∆ ¯y
 y  y y
¯


i,j+1 ,
A  , σ ∆
i,j i,j i,j i,j−1 ]
1. In SHASTA we first compute the so-called transported
y
and diffused quantities denoted by Āxi,j in the x- = sgn Ayi,j
x



where σi,j = sgn Axi,j and σi,j
direction
4. Establish the permitted extremal values of the solution
1 h x
2 x
2 i
An+1
Āxi,j = Q+ (Ai+1,j − Axi,j ) − Qx− (Axi,j − Axi−1,j ) i,j in each cell
2
+ Qx+ − Qx− Ani,j ,


Āmin


i,j = min Āi,j−1 , Āi−1,j , Āi,j , Āi+1,j , Āi,j+1 ,
(18)
(24)
Āmax
i,j = max Āi,j−1 , Āi−1,j , Āi,j , Āi+1,j , Āi,j+1 .
where
1/2 ∓ xj 5. We then calculate the total inward- and outward-going
Qx± (j) = (19)
1 ± (xj+1 − xj ) anti-diffusive fluxes for each cell,
 4

1.0 Initial, t=0 fm 1.0 Initial, t=0 fm

SHASTA, t=10 fm SHASTA, t=10 fm
0.8 Analytical 0.8 Analytical

0.6 0.6
0

0
Aad = 1.0 Aad = 0.5
/

/
0.4 0.4
0.2 (a) 0.2 (b)

0.0 0.0
10 5 0 5 10 10 5 0 5 10

FIG. 2. (Color online) The analytic (green dotted line), initial profile (blue solid line), numerical solution (red solid line) of the
relativistic Riemann problem in 1+1-dimension. (a) Scaled energy density as a function of similarity variable with anti-diffusion
mask coefficient Aad = 1. (b) Same as (a) but with Aad = 0.5.

1.0 Initial, t=0 fm 1.0 Initial, t=0 fm

2+1D SHASTA, 2+1D SHASTA,
t=10 fm t=10 fm
0.8 Analytical 0.8 Analytical

0.6 0.6
Aadx, y = 1.0 Aadx, y = 0.25
0

0
/

0.4 0.4
0.2 (a) 0.2 (b)

0.0 0.0
10 5 0 5 10 10 5 0 5 10
x (fm) x (fm)
FIG. 3. (Color online) The analytic (green dotted line), initial profile (blue solid line), numerical solution (red solid line) of the
relativistic Riemann problem in 2+1-dimension. (a) Scaled energy density as a function of spatial coordinate with anti-diffusion
mask coefficient Ax,y x,y
ad = 1. (b) Same as (a) but with Aad = 0.25.

or undershoots in the solution,

+
= min 1, Q+ +


Rij ij /Pij ,
+ x x (26)



Pi,j = max 0, Fi−1,j − min 0, Fi,j −
= min 1, Q− −


Rij ij /Pij
y
y

+ max 0, Fi,j−1 − min 0, Fi,j ,
− x

x

(25) where the maximum allowed fluxes into and out of the
Pi,j = max 0, Fi,j − min 0, Fi−1,j cell are given as
y
y

+ max 0, Fi,j − min 0, Fi,j−1 .
Q+ max
ij = Āi,j − Āi,j ,
(27)
Q− min
ij = Āi,j − Āi,j .

6. Next, we determine the maximum fractions of these 7. At each interface, we find the minimum fraction which
fluxes which can be applied without causing overshoots prevents both an overshoot in the cell downstream from
 5

1.0 Initial, t=0 fm 1.0 Initial, t=0 fm

SHASTA, t=10 fm 2+1D SHASTA,
t=10 fm
0.8 Analytical 0.8 Analytical

0.6 0.6
v

v
0.4 Aad = 0.5 0.4 Aadx, y = 0.5

0.2 (a) 0.2 (b)

0.0 0.0
10 5 0 5 10 10 5 0 5 10
x (fm) x (fm)
FIG. 4. (Color online) The analytic (green dotted line), initial profile (blue solid line), numerical solution (red solid line) of the
relativistic Riemann problem. (a) Velocity as a function of spatial coordinate with anti-diffusion mask coefficient Aad = 0.5 in
1+1-dimension. (b) Velocity as a function of spatial coordinate with anti-diffusion mask coefficient Ax,y
ad = 0.5 in 2+1-dimension.

the flux and an overshoot in the cell upstream. Thus, the The choice of v = c for x > 0 is purely conventional, but it
new anti-diffusive fluxes are given for x-coordinate as guarantees a continuous hydrodynamic solution at the bound-
+ −

ary to the vacuum, since in the massless limit, the velocity of
x

x min Ri+1,j , Ri,j , Fi,j ≥0 matter approaches to unity. In multi-dimensional application,
Ci,j = + −

(28)
min Ri,j , Ri+1,j , otherwise we will give finite velocity in any one of the directions while
y
the other direction will be given zero velocity.
and similarly Ci,j for the y-coordinate. The derivation of the analytic solution can be found in [53],
8. We then reduce the anti-diffusive flux at the interface by here we only quote the required expressions:
x,y
the fraction Ci,j in the previous step,
i 1+c2s

h
1−cs 1−x/t 2cs
(x, t) = 0 · −cs < x/t ≤ 1 (33)
F̄ijx = Ci,j
x
Fijx , 1+cs 1+x/t
(29) 1 −1 ≤ x/t ≤ −cs ,

F̄ijy = Ci,j
y
Fijy
where cs is the speed of sound in the medium. Here, we as-
9. Finally, we apply the corrected fluxes F̄ijx,y to the low- sume that the EoS is√that of a ultra-relativistic gas ( = 3p)
order solution to obtain a more accurate, but still mono- and thus set cs = 1/ 3. Also, the velocity profile as a func-
tonic, final solution tion of energy density can be expressed as
y y
An+1 x x
i,j = Āi,j − F̄i,j − F̄i,j + F̄i−1,j + F̄i,j−1 (30)
2c / 1+c2
1 − (/0 ) s ( s )
 
cs
v() = tanh − ln (/0 ) = 2c /(1+c2s )
.
1 + c2s 1 + (/0 ) s
C. Test results (34)
This solution has a similarity form, i.e., the profile does not
change with time when plotted as a function of the similarity
1. Riemann test: This test describes the expansion of
variable ζ = x/t. The first test compares the results of energy
baryon-free matter into vacuum Ref. [53, 54]. This means
density and fluid velocity from the 1+1-dimensional SHASTA
that Eq. (2) is not taken into account. Also, we use Carte-
algorithm with the analytic solution given in Eqs.(33,34). The
sian coordinates instead of Milne coordinates. The following
numerical calculations in Fig. 2 are made with cell size of
conditions at time t = 0 are employed:
∆x = 0.04 fm and ∆t = 0.016 fm and the final solution is

0 x ≤ 0 obtained after 3125 time-steps. The numerical solution thus
(x, 0) = (31) obtained, shows an excellent agreement with the analytical
0 x>0
result. We have also compared the above result with two dif-
 ferent reduced mask coefficients Aad = 1.0 Fig. 1 (a) and
0 x≤0 Aad = 0.5 Fig. 1 (b). We notice that although Aad = 1.0 re-
v(x, 0) = (32)
c x > 0. produces the analytical result better than lower values of this
 6

0.0200 0.75
0.0175 0.50
0.0150 (a) 0.25 (b)
0.0125
0.0100
vx 0.00
0.0075 0.25
0.0050 0.50
0.0025 0.75
4 3 2 3 4 10.07.55.0 5.07.510.0
10 1 2 2.50.0 0.0 2.5
1 0
Y 1 2 3 4 4 3
2 X Y 2.5 5.0 7.5
10.0 10.07.5
5.0 2.5 X

FIG. 5. (Color online) (a) Comparison of analytic Gubser solution (black mesh) of fluid energy density (in arbitrary unit) with
the simulated result (continuos surface) in the transverse plane at time τ = 1.6 for q = 1 and τ0 = 1.0. (b) same as fig.(a) but
for the fluid velocity along x.

coefficient, unphysical oscillations in the numerical solution
occur at the point of discontinuity. Lower value of this coef-
ficient leads to a more smoother but diffused profile. Since,
all numerical calculations only approximate the exact solu-
tion, there is always some residual numerical viscosity in the
solution.
The next test compares the numerical solution of Riemann
problem initialized in a two-dimensional grid with the 1+1-
dimensional analytical solution. We have initialized the dis-
continuity in several different ways as described in [30]: along
x-axis, y-axis and along the plane y = −x. All of these cases
give similar results and a comparison with 1+1-dimensional
solution is given in Fig. 3. The numerical calculations in Fig. 2
are made with cell size of ∆x = 0.04 fm and ∆t = 0.016 fm
and the final solution obtained is after 3125 time-steps. As in
1+1-dimensional implementation of SHASTA, a larger value
of mask coefficient reproduces the analytical solution better
than with an otherwise smaller value. However, larger coeffi-
cients generate ripples at the point of discontinuity.
2. Gubser test: Recently, Gubser [55] has derived another
analytic solution for a (1+1)-dimensional conformal fluid (i.e.
with P = /3). The solution assumes azimuthal symmetry
in xy (transverse) plane and longitudinal scaling flow. The
energy density at (τ, x, y) is given as
ε0 (2q)8/3 h
2 i4/3
1 + 2q 2 τ 2 + rT2 + q 4 τ 2 − rT2


ε= ,
τ 4/3
p (35)
where rT = x2 + y 2 is the radial coordinate and the com-
ponents of uµ are given as
uτ = cosh [k (τ, rT )] , uη = 0,
x y
ux = sinh [k (τ, rT )] , uy = sinh [k (τ, rT )] , (37)
rT rT
The parameter q has the dimension of an inverse length and
we set it to 1 (arbitrary units). To perform the test we work in
the Milne coordinates because of longitudinal scaling form of
the solution. We choose ε0 = 1 and we set the initial profiles
from the above solutions at τ0 = 1, then we record outputs for
the energy density and the transverse velocities vx = ux /uτ
and vy /uτ at an arbitrary later time τ = 1.6. Fig. 5(a,b) com-
pares the analytical solutions (black mesh) given in Eq. (35-
37), with that from the numerical code (continuous surface)
and shows an excellent agreement.
D. Freeze-Out
The invariant yield of the produced hadrons of a particu-
lar species i with degeneracy gi is given by the Cooper-Frye
formula [56]:
Z
dN dN
E 3 = = gi f (uµ pµ ) pµ d3 Σµ (39)
d p dypT dpT dφp Σ
with the distribution function given as,
1 1
f (uµ pµ ) = 3 µ
(40)
(2π) exp ((u pµ − µi ) /TF ) ± 1
where Σ is the hyper-surface, ± corresponds to fermion
and bosons respectively. Generally a hyper-surface in n di-
mensions is parameterized by n − 1 parameters. Here, we
parametrize the 4-dimensional hyper-surface in terms of the
(36) transverse coordinates (x, y) and the longitudinal rapidity η.
Assuming Bjorken boost invariance, the freeze-out hyper-
surface can be written as
Σ = Σ0 (x, y, η) , Σ1 (x, y, η) , Σ2 (x, y, η) , Σ3 (x, y, η)
 

2q 2 τ rT = [τf (x, y) cosh η, x, y, τf (x, y) sinh η] ,

k (τ, rT ) = arctanh . (38)
1 + q 2 τ 2 + q 2 x2T (41)

where τf (x, y) is the freeze-out time, determined by when the
energy density (or temperature) falls below a given freeze-out
energy density εF or the corresponding temperature TF . The
normal vectors on this surface are given by
∂Σv ∂Σλ ∂Σρ
d3 Σµ = −εµνλρ dxdydη, (42)
∂x ∂y ∂η
where εµνλρ is the 4-dimensional completely antisymmetric
tensor. Using Eq. (41) we find that
 
3 ∂τf (x, y) ∂τf (x, y)
d Σµ = cosh η, − ,− , − sinh η ×
∂x ∂y .
τf (x, y)dxdydη
(43)
Assuming longitudinal Bjorken flow vz = z/t =
tanh η, the fluid four velocity can be written as uµ =
γ(cosh η, v x , v y , sinh η). Analogously, the four-momentum
pµ = (E, px , py , pz ) can be written in terms of transverse
mass mT and the particle rapidity y using a similar coordinate
transformation,pi.e., pµ = (mT cosh y, px , py , mT sinh y).
Here, mT = E 2 − p2z and E is the energy of particle of
mass m. Thus, to evaluate the term uµ pµ Eq. (39), we can use
the following result
uµ pµ = γ (mT cosh(y − η) − v x px − v y py )
(44)
= γ (mT cosh(y − η) − ~vT · p~T ) .
Similarly, using Eq. (43) the term pµ d3 Σµ of Eq. (39) can be
written as
 
pµ d3 Σµ = mT cosh (y − η) − p~T · ∇ ~ T τf τf dxdydη,
(45)
~ T = (∂x , ∂y ).
where p~T = (px , py ), ~vT = (vx , vy ) and ∇
In practice, we need to determine d3 Σµ geometrically, i.e.
the problem in the language of computer graphics is that of
finding an isosurface of a discrete scalar field. One of the
popular algorithm in this regard is the Marching Cube algo-
rithm [57], a simplified version of which was subsequently
used in the AZHYDRO code [19]. However, as pointed in
[58] the original Marching Cube algorithm may leave holes in
the final surface, which may not be an issue for smooth initial
condition but can have substantial impact on observables cal-
culated with irregular initial conditions when one does event-
by-event simulation. In the numerical code we use the COR-
NELIUS subroutine described in [58]. The subroutine uses an
improved version of the original Marching Cube and extends
the different distinct possible topological configuration from
15 to 33 and thus creates a consistent surface with lesser holes
and no double counting.
III. RESULT
A. Testing for smooth Glauber
So far, we have shown various tests of the numericalcode,
now in this section, we shall discuss thecomparison of exper-
imental data to the results obtained from the hydrodynamics
7
code just described above. Before we show the result of event-
by-event hydrodynamics simulation we show here the results
from smooth optical Glauber model and compare it with the
√
Au+Au data for sN N = 200 GeV collisions measured by
PHENIX collaboration [59].
For the following calculations, the spatial extension of the
numerical grid is set to 36 × 36 fm2 . The spatial grid spacing
is set to ∆x = ∆y = 0.09 fm and the temporal spacing is
set to ∆t = 0.04 fm. The initial time is set to τ0 = 0.6 fm
and the freeze-out temperature is taken to be Tf = 137 MeV.
We use EoS-Lattice. The central energy density is fixed to
ε0 = 45 GeV fm−3 for 10% − 15% collision centrality which
explain the corresponding experimental data. The top panel
of Fig. 6 shows the comparison of invariant yield of π − for
10% − 15% and 40% − 50% centrality collisions. Experimen-
tal data are shown by different symbols and the corresponding
simulation results are shown by lines. We found reasonable
agreement with the experimental data except at low momen-
tum pT < 0.5 GeV, this is because we neglected the contribu-
tion of π − yield coming from various heavier resonance de-
cay. We plan to incorporate the resonance decay in a later
version of the code. The comparison of simulated elliptic
flow with the experimental data of STAR collaboration [60]
are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 6. We can see that the
simulated result nicely explain the observed asymmetry in the
final momentum spectra of π − . This complete the testing of
our newly developed code. In the next section, we shall study
the effect of phase transition on the various flow correlation
which is the main goal of this paper.
B. MC Glauber and event-by-event flow correlation
As discussed in a previous section we are using two dif-
ferent EoSs which might helpus locate the critical point. We
fix the initial energy density by reproducing similar π − multi-
plicity for the two different EoS. We consider here two initial
conditions, where the initial energy density ε(x, y) is obtained
at τ0 = 0.6 fm from the MC-Glauber model using Gaussian
smearing,
N BC, WN
X n h i
o
2 2
ε(x, y) = κ exp − (x − xi ) + (y − yi ) / 2σ 2 ,
i=1
(46)
where xi and yi are the spatial coordinates of either wounded
nucleons (initial condition εW N ) or binary collisions (initial
condition εBC ). κ is a normalization constant fixed to provide
the observed multiplicity and σ = 0.7 fm is the spatial scale
of a wounded nucleon or a binary collision. In MC-Glauber
model the position of nucleons inside each nucleus is sampled
from the nuclear Woods-Saxon distribution (ρA ) via Monte-
Carlo sampling [61]. In this technique we generate four set of
uniform random numbers (a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 ) in the interval ai ∈
[0, 1]. The azimuthal and polar angle coordinate of a nucleon
is obtained from he following relation
θ = arccos (1 − 2a1 ) , φ = 2πa2 . (47)
 8

10 − 15% a single collision event, where (r, φ) constitute the trans-

102 40 − 50%
verse position of the participating nucleons (r2 = x2 + y 2 ,
φ = arctan(y/x)). Usually when one defines the initial ec-
2π dypTdpT (GeV )
−2 101 centricities from the wounded/participant nucleons, the center
of mass is first determined in order to calculate these quan-
100
tities uniquely. Here we follow the method of re-centering
1 dN

when calculating the initial eccentricity from the energy den-

10−1
sity in the transverse plane.
10−2 Au-Au@200GeV As described before the azimuthal momentum anisotropy
is characterized in terms of the coefficients vn of the Fourier
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 expansion of the single particle azimuthal distribution. We
pT (GeV) use a different definition from [64] and calculate vn as per the
following formula for each events:
0.30 10 − 20%
40 − 50% ∞
dN
0.25
X
vnobs cos n φ − Ψobs


∝1+2 n
dφ n=1
0.20 ∞
X
obs obs


0.15 =1+2 vn,x cos nφ + vn,y sin nφ . (50)
v2

n=1
0.10 where Ψobs obs
n is the event plane angle, and vn is given as,
0.05 Au-Au@200GeV q
vnobs = obs 2 + v obs 2 ,



vn,x n,y (51)
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 obs
and the quantities vn,x = vnobs cos nΨobs
n = hcos nφi and
pT (GeV) obs obs obs
vn,y = vn sin nΨn = hsin nφi. The average are over all
particles in the event for the required η range.
As mentioned earlier, it has been known that the event av-
FIG. 6. (Color online) (a) Top panel : Comparison of experi- eraged v2 , and the eccentricity of the averaged initial state, 2
mentally measured invariant yield of π − to the result obtained are approximately linearly related [41, 42] but the same may
from ideal hydrodynamic simulation for Au+Au collisions at
√
not be true for higher-order flow coefficients e.g., 3 and v3
sN N = 200 GeV collisions. Experimental and simulation re- and 4 and v4 . It is also known that an approximately lin-
sult for 10%−15% collision centrality is shown by black circles ear relationship holds event-by-event between n and vn for
and black line respectively. The same for 40% − 50% collision n = 2, 3 [1].
centrality is shown by blue square and blue line respectively. Here we study how the event-by-event correlation between
(b) Bottom panel: same as top panel but for elliptic flow v2
n and vn is changed when the system undergoes either a first
of π − .
phase transition or a cross over. In order to quantify the linear
correlation we use Pearson’s correlation coefficient which is
The radial co-ordinate is obtained with the help of acceptance- defined as
rejection technique where we first generate radial coordinate
r = Ra3 , where R is the cutoff scale usually taken as ∼ 5R0 , 
(x − hxiev ) (y − hyiev )

R0 is the mean radius in Wood-Saxon distribution, the random c(x, y) = , (52)
σx σy
number r is accepted if a4 ≤ r2 ρA (r), otherwise rejected. ev
We shall study the difference in fluid dynamical response where σx and σy are the standard deviations of the quantities
of the system to the initial geometry (anisotropy) for two dif- x and y. The correlation coefficient ranges from −1 to 1. A
ferent EoS. In the literature this initial geometry/anisotropy value of 1(−1) implies that a linear (anti-linear) correlation
of the overlap zone of two colliding nucleus is quantified in between x and y. A value of 0 implies that there is no linear
terms of coefficients n [62, 63]: correlation between the variables. In a previous study, it was
shown that the Pearson correlator c(2 , v2 ) is almost insen-
dxdyrn einφ e(x, y)
R
inΦn
n e =− R . (48) sitive to the different initial condition and the value of shear
dxdyrn e(x, y) viscosity over entropy density of the fluid [1]. Further, assum-
The coefficients εn in Eq. (48) are correspondingly given as, ing an approximate linear relationship between the 2 and v2 ,
q we can write for event-by-event case
2 2
hrn cos nφi + hrn sin nφi v2 = m2 + δ, (53)
n = , (49)
hrn i
R R where m = hv2 iev / h2 iev , and the average error hδiev = 0.
where h. . .i = dxdy(. . .)ε(x, y) = rdrdφ(. . .)ε(r, φ), The values of m indicate how efficiently the initial deforma-
defines the average over the matter distribution ε(x, y) in tion is transformed into the final momentum anisotropy.
 9

0.06 WN
0.04 c( 2, v2) = 0.629343
c( 2, v2) = 0.805061
m = 0.05
WN
m = 0.16
0.05 0 5% 0 5%
EoS-Lattice 0.03 EoS-1st order PT
0.04
0.03 0.02
v2

v2
0.02
0.01
0.01 (a) (b)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3

2 2

√
FIG. 7. (Color online) (a) Event-by-event distribution of v2 vs 2 for 0% − 5% Au+Au collisions at sN N = 200 GeV. The
initial energy density and 2 is obtained from the wounded nucleons. The elliptic flow is obtained from the ideal hydrodynamic
simulation with EoS Lattice. (b) Same as left panel but for EoS with first order phase transition.

0.06 BC
0.04 c( 2, v2) = 0.528231
c( 2, v2) = 0.811482
m = 0.05
BC
m = 0.14
0.05 0 5% 0 5%
EoS-Lattice 0.03 EoS-1st order PT
0.04
0.03 0.02
v2

v2

0.02
0.01
0.01 (a) (b)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3

2 2

√
FIG. 8. (Color online) (a) Event-by-event distribution of v2 vs 2 for 0% − 5% Au+Au collisions at sN N = 200 GeV. The
initial energy density and 2 is obtained from the binary collisions. The elliptic flow is obtained from the ideal hydrodynamic
simulation with EoS Lattice. (b) Same as left panel but for EoS with first order phase transition.

is smaller for the case of first order phase transition. Above

In Fig.7(a) we show the event-by-event distribution of v2 vs
√ a ∼ 37% difference in the value of c(2 , v2 ). It is worthwhile
2 for 0% − 5% Au+Au collisions at sN N = 200 GeV. The
initial energy density and 2 are obtained from the wounded
nucleons. The result is obtained for EoS-Lattice. Fig.7(b)
shows the same but for EoS first order phase transition. Using
two different EoS we found ∼ 15% change in c(2 , v2 ), which
clearly indicates that c(2 , v2 ) can be treated as a good signal
of phase transition in the nuclear matter. We may also use the
same observable in the search of QCD critical point. Simi-
larly, other higher order correlations e.g., n - vn (n = 3 − 4)
results are not surprising since the speed of sound becomes
zero (hence the expansion) for a certain temperature range in
the first order phase transition. The difference becomes more
prominent for εBC , as shown in Fig.8 (a, b) where we notice
to mention that m can be changed when the fluid is viscous
as was shown in [1] but not the value of c(2 , v2 ) when other
condition remains unchanged.
So far, all the results are shown for central collisions (0% −
5%). In Fig. 9 (a, b) we show the result for 20% − 30%
collision centrality for εBC initial condition. We observe a
small increase in c(2 , v2 ) as well as in m compared to the
central collisions. This is expected because the flow signal
 10

0.12 c( 2, v2) = 0.936540

0.05
m = 0.17 WN c( 2, v2) = 0.846024 WN
0.10 20 30% m = 0.06
EoS-Lattice 0.04 20 30%
EoS-1 order PT
st
0.08
0.03
0.06
v2

v2
0.02
0.04
0.02 (a) 0.01 (b)

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6

2 2

√
FIG. 9. (Color online) (a) Event-by-event distribution of v2 vs 2 for 20% − 30% Au+Au collisions at sN N = 200 GeV. The
initial energy density and 2 is obtained from the wounded nucleons. The elliptic flow is obtained from the ideal hydrodynamic
simulation with EoS Lattice. (b) Same as left panel but for EoS with first order phase transition.

0.12 0.06 c( 2, v2) = 0.618850

c( 2, v2) = 0.815736 BC m = 0.05
BC
m = 0.14
0.10 20 30% 0.05 20 30%
EoS-Lattice EoS-1st order PT
0.08 0.04
0.06 0.03
v2
v2

0.04 0.02
0.02 (a) 0.01 (b)

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

2 2

√
FIG. 10. (Color online) (a) Event-by-event distribution of v2 vs 2 for 20% − 30% Au+Au collisions at sN N = 200 GeV. The
initial energy density and 2 is obtained from the εBC . The elliptic flow is obtained from the ideal hydrodynamic simulation
with EoS Lattice. (b) Same as left panel but for EoS with first order phase transition.

is observed to be largest in mid central collisions due to the
initial geometry. Here also we observe the c(2 , v2 ) differs by
∼ 15%. We checked the same is true for n = 3, 4. In Fig.
10 (a, b) we show the same thing but for εBC initialisation.
Similar to the central collision here also we observe a ∼ 37%
difference in the value of c(2 , v2 ) between EOSs with and
without phase transition.
However, the initial eccentricities n are not accessible in
real experiments (and are model dependent) the c(n , vm ) are
not as interesting as c(vn , vm ) which can be directly calcu-
lated from the available experimental data. For this reason we
tabulate the mean values of c(a, b) (where a, b = n , vm ) in
Table I, II for 20% − 30% collision centrality for εW N and
εBC initialisation respectively. In Table I, II we show all pos-
sible Pearson correlator of vn and n (for n = 2 − 4) for
√
Au+Au collisions at sN N ∼ 200 GeV for εW N and εBC ini-
tial condition respectively. The numbers in the upper triangle
corresponds to the case of crossover EoS whereas the lower
triangle (blue colour) corresponds to the EoS with a first order
phase transition. From the given table it is observed that the
Pearson correlation coefficients c(v2 , v3 ), and c(v3 , v4 ) (not
the c(v2 , v4 ) as it was shown [1] to be very sensitive to the
shear viscosity) distinguishes a first order phase transition sce-
nario and a cross over transition. The difference is ∼ 10% for
the two EoSs. This can be more clearly seen from Fig. 11(a),
where we show c(v2 , v3 ), c(v2 , v4 ), and c(v3 , v4 ) for EoS-
Lattice (solid red circles) and EoS first order phase transition
(open blue circles) with corresponding errors for 20% − 30%
 11

EoS-Lattice
EoS-1st order PT
0.295 EoS-Lattice
EoS-1st order PT
WN BC
0.05 0.245
0.195
0.00
0.145

0.05 (a) 0.095 (b)

c(v2,v3) c(v2,v4) c(v3,v4) c(v2,v3) c(v2,v4) c(v3,v4)

FIG. 11. (Color online) (a) Pearson correlation coefficient c(vn , vm ) for EoS-Lattice (solid red circles), and first order phase
transition (open blue circle) for 20% − 30% collision centrality. The initial energy density is obtained from wounded nucleons
(εW N ) (b) same as left panel but for εBC .

0.20
WN
0.15 BC

0.10
0.05
0.00
c( 2, 3) c( 2, 4) c( 3, 4)

FIG. 12. (Color online) Pearson correlation coefficient c(n , m ) for εBC (open blue circles) , and εW N (solid red circles) for
20% − 30% collision centrality.

collision centrality. We use εW N initialisation. Fig.11(b) IV. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

shows the same but for εBC initialisation. The errors are
calculated by using bootstrap method [65]. As can be seen
from the Fig. 11(a) and (b) that the c(v2 , v3 ), c(v2 , v4 ), and
c(v3 , v4 ) always distinguishes the two different EoSs. These
observations may be attributed to very different evolutionary
dynamics of the system for the two different EoS, as the speed
of sound becomes zero in first-order phase transition hence
the linear/non-linear coupling of n - vn and vn -vm is differ-
ent in the two scenario. We note here that the relative value of
c(v2 , v4 ) compared to the c(v2 , v3 ) and c(v3 , v4 ) for εBC and
εW N is quite different, this can be explained from the fact that
the corresponding initial state correlation c(2 , 3 ) also shows
a similar trend as seen from Fig. 12.
In this paper, we studied the correlation among vn and n
for n = 2 − 4 in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions using
event-by-event ideal fluid dynamics for two different EoSs.
Along with that we also report the details of a newly devel-
oped 2+1 dimensional event-by-event ideal hydrodynamics
code. The comparison of numerical results from the hydro
code to the corresponding analytic solution in 1+1D and in
2+1D shows very good agreement between them. Using op-
tical Glauber model as an initial condition, we confirm that
our code nicely explains experimentally measured charged
pion invariant yield and elliptic flow in Au+Au collision at
√
sN N = 200 GeV. Using two different EoS we showed that
the Pearson correlation coefficients c(v2 , v3 ), and c(v3 , v4 )
clearly distinguishes a first order phase transition scenario and
a cross over transition. Although the absolute values of the
 12

utilize c(v2 , v3 ), and c(v3 , v4 ) to probe the EoS of the system.

v2 2 v3 3 v4 4 For example we can calculate c(vn , vm ) from available ex-
√
v2 1. 0.937 -0.031 -0.058 -0.037 -0.011 perimental data for various sN N and pinpoint the energies
2 0.846 1. -0.044 -0.015 -0.043 -0.008 where c(vn , vm ) changes by ∼ 10%.
v3 0.061 -0.015 1. 0.412 -0.017 -0.025 The coefficients c(vn , vm ) can be directly calculated
3 -0.047 -0.015 0.319 1. -0.058 0.0386 from the available experimental data, whereas calculation
v4 0.041 -0.035 0.036 -0.042 1. 0.195
of c(n , vm ) requires input from an initial condition model
4 -0.006 -0.008 -0.009 0.039 0.167 1.
hence proves to be less attractive observable than c(vn , vm ).
However, we would like to point out that our study shows
TABLE I. Pearson correlation matrix of (vn , n ) for 20%−30% c(2 , v2 ) is a better observable for probing the EoS as it shows
centrality with initial conditions determined according to the ∼ 15% − 30% difference in the two scenarios. It was also
number of participating nucleons (εW N ). The upper triangle shown in Ref[niemi] that shear viscosity marginally changes
elements corresponds to lattice EOS (Top) and lower triangle the value of c(2 , v2 ).
elements corresponding to first order phase transition. It is worthwhile to discuss a few important points (i) in the
present study we use only MC Glauber initial condition. The
v2 2 v3 3 v4 4 effect of different initial condition is studied by assuming en-
v2 1. 0.816 0.093 0.039 0.172 0.167 ergy/entropy deposition from binary collision and wounded
2 0.619 1. -0.037 0.054 0.036 0.175 nucleons. In future one can use other available initial condi-
v3 0.233 -0.030 1. 0.345 0.117 -0.027
tions such as IP Glasma [66], Trento [67] etc. to explore all
3 0.060 0.055 0.224 1. -0.005 0.067
possible initial conditions. (ii) we assume vanishing baryon
v4 0.278 -0.023 0.237 -0.005 1. 0.095
4 0.135 0.175 0.008 0.067 0.050 1.
number density, which is an oversimplification of the actual
scenario for searching the actual QCD critical point. We plan
to incorporate the effect of finite baryon density by using an
TABLE II. Pearson correlation matrix of (vn , n ) for 20% − appropriate EoS (for example as described in [43, 44]) in a
30% centrality with initial conditions determined according future study. Last but not least, it is also desirable that one in-
to the number of binary colliding nucleons (εBC ). The upper clude finite bulk viscosity along with the shear viscosity while
triangle elements corresponds to lattice EOS (Top) and lower simulating the actual fluid dynamical expansion. But these
triangle elements corresponding to first order phase transi- things are beyond the scope of the present work and we leave
tion. it for a future study.

c(vn , vm ) varies for different initial condition (energy density

scales with binary collisions or wounded nucleons) the dif-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ference in them remains almost same for two different EoSs.
We found in the mid central collisions ∼ 10% higher values
of c(vn , vm ) for the EoS with first order phase transition irre- V.R. is supported by the DST-INSPIRE Faculty research
spective of the initial conditions. This indicates that we can grant, India.

[1] H. Niemi, G. S. Denicol, H. Holopainen, and P. Huovinen,
Phys. Rev. C87, 054901 (2013), arXiv:1212.1008 [nucl-th].
[2] S. Datta, R. V. Gavai, and S. Gupta, Proceedings, 23rd Inter-
national Conference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Col-
lisions : Quark Matter 2012 (QM 2012): Washington, DC,
USA, August 13-18, 2012, Nucl. Phys. A904-905, 883c (2013),
arXiv:1210.6784 [hep-lat].
[3] S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg,
C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal-Budapest), JHEP 09,
073 (2010), arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat].
[4] R. V. Gavai and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D71, 114014 (2005),
arXiv:hep-lat/0412035 [hep-lat].
[5] C. Bernard, T. Burch, E. B. Gregory, D. Toussaint, C. E. DeTar,
J. Osborn, S. Gottlieb, U. M. Heller, and R. Sugar (MILC),
Phys. Rev. D71, 034504 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0405029 [hep-
lat].
[6] T. Bhattacharya et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 082001 (2014),
arXiv:1402.5175 [hep-lat].
[7] A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D85, 054503 (2012),
arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat].
[8] K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001
(2011), arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph].
[9] G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song,
and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018),
arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE].
[10] B.-J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev.
D76, 074023 (2007), arXiv:0704.3234 [hep-ph].
[11] P. Kovacs and Z. Szep, Phys. Rev. D77, 065016 (2008),
arXiv:0710.1563 [hep-ph].
[12] M. M. Aggarwal et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 022302
(2010), arXiv:1004.4959 [nucl-ex].
[13] L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 032302
(2014), arXiv:1309.5681 [nucl-ex].
[14] L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 092301
(2014), arXiv:1402.1558 [nucl-ex].
[15] L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B785, 551 (2018),
arXiv:1709.00773 [nucl-ex].

[16] X. Luo (STAR), Proceedings, 9th International Workshop on
Critical Point and Onset of Deconfinement (CPOD 2014):
Bielefeld, Germany, November 17-21, 2014, PoS CPOD2014,
019 (2015), arXiv:1503.02558 [nucl-ex].
[17] B. Mohanty, Proceedings, 21st International Conference on
Ultra-Relativistic nucleus nucleus collisions (Quark matter
2009): Knoxville, USA, March 30-April 4, 2009, Nucl. Phys.
A830, 899C (2009), arXiv:0907.4476 [nucl-ex].
[18] L.-G. Pang, K. Zhou, N. Su, H. Petersen, H. Stcker, and X.-
N. Wang, Nature Commun. 9, 210 (2018), arXiv:1612.04262
[hep-ph].
[19] P. F. Kolb, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C62,
054909 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006129 [hep-ph].
[20] C. Nonaka, E. Honda, and S. Muroya, Eur. Phys. J. C17, 663
(2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007187 [hep-ph].
[21] T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C65, 011901 (2002), arXiv:nucl-
th/0108004 [nucl-th].
[22] C. E. Aguiar, T. Kodama, T. Osada, and Y. Hama, J. Phys. G27,
75 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0006239 [hep-ph].
[23] A. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. C74, 044904 (2006), arXiv:nucl-
th/0604014 [nucl-th].
[24] C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C75, 014902 (2007),
arXiv:nucl-th/0607018 [nucl-th].
[25] H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C77, 064901 (2008),
arXiv:0712.3715 [nucl-th].
[26] R. Baier and P. Romatschke, Eur. Phys. J. C51, 677 (2007),
arXiv:nucl-th/0610108 [nucl-th].
[27] A. Muronga, Phys. Rev. C76, 014909 (2007), arXiv:nucl-
th/0611090 [nucl-th].
[28] S. Pratt and J. Vredevoogd, Phys. Rev. C78, 054906 (2008),
[Erratum: Phys. Rev.C79,069901(2009)], arXiv:0809.0516
[nucl-th].
[29] H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher, and
H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. C78, 044901 (2008), arXiv:0806.1695
[nucl-th].
[30] E. Molnar, H. Niemi, and D. H. Rischke, Eur. Phys. J. C65,
615 (2010), arXiv:0907.2583 [nucl-th].
[31] B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C82, 014903
(2010), arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph].
[32] K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher,
and K. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. C82, 044904 (2010),
arXiv:1004.0805 [nucl-th].
[33] H. Holopainen, H. Niemi, and K. J. Eskola, Phys. Rev. C83,
034901 (2011), arXiv:1007.0368 [hep-ph].
[34] V. Roy and A. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. C85, 024909 (2012),
[Erratum: Phys. Rev.C85,049902(2012)], arXiv:1109.1630
[nucl-th].
[35] P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C85, 034901 (2012), arXiv:1110.6742
[nucl-th].
[36] L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C86, 024911
(2012), arXiv:1205.5019 [nucl-th].
[37] Y. Akamatsu, S.-i. Inutsuka, C. Nonaka, and M. Takamoto, J.
Comput. Phys. 256, 34 (2014), arXiv:1302.1665 [nucl-th].
[38] J. Noronha-Hostler, G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha, R. P. G.
Andrade, and F. Grassi, Phys. Rev. C88, 044916 (2013),
arXiv:1305.1981 [nucl-th].
[39] L. Del Zanna, V. Chandra, G. Inghirami, V. Rolando, A. Be-
raudo, A. De Pace, G. Pagliara, A. Drago, and F. Becattini,
Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2524 (2013), arXiv:1305.7052 [nucl-th].
13
[40] S. Plumari, G. L. Guardo, F. Scardina, and V. Greco, Phys. Rev.
C92, 054902 (2015), arXiv:1507.05540 [hep-ph].
[41] P. F. Kolb and U. W. Heinz, , 634 (2003), arXiv:nucl-
th/0305084 [nucl-th].
[42] H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C78, 024902 (2008),
arXiv:0805.1756 [nucl-th].
[43] C. J. Plumberg, T. Welle, and J. I. Kapusta, in 18th Hel-
lenic School and Workshops on Elementary Particle Physics
and Gravity (CORFU2018) Corfu, Corfu, Greece, August 31-
September 28, 2018 (2018) arXiv:1812.01684 [nucl-th].
[44] A. Monnai, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, (2019),
arXiv:1902.05095 [nucl-th].
[45] J. P. Boris and D. L. Book, J. Comput. Phys. 11, 38 (1973).
[46] P. Huovinen and P. Petreczky, Nucl. Phys. A837, 26 (2010),
arXiv:0912.2541 [hep-ph].
[47] U. W. Heinz, H. Song, and A. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. C73,
034904 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0510014 [nucl-th].
[48] J. P. Boris, A. Landsberg, E. S. Oran, and J. H. Gardner,
(1993).
[49] K. G. Powell, P. L. Roe, T. J. Linde, T. I. Gombosi, and D. L. D.
Zeeuw, Journal of Computational Physics 154, 284 (1999).
[50] J. M. Marti and E. Mueller, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 3 (1999),
arXiv:astro-ph/9906333 [astro-ph].
[51] S. T. Zalesak, Journal of Computational Physics 31, 335
(1979).
[52] Journal of Computational Physics 92, 142 (1991).
[53] D. H. Rischke, S. Bernard, and J. A. Maruhn, Nucl. Phys.
A595, 346 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9504018 [nucl-th].
[54] R. Courant and K. O. Friedrichs, Supersonic Flow and Shock
Waves (Springer, New York, 1976).
[55] S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D82, 085027 (2010), arXiv:1006.0006
[hep-th].
[56] F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D10, 186 (1974).
[57] W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, COMPUTER GRAPHICS 21,
163 (1987).
[58] P. Huovinen and H. Petersen, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 171 (2012),
arXiv:1206.3371 [nucl-th].
[59] S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C69, 034909 (2004),
arXiv:nucl-ex/0307022 [nucl-ex].
[60] J. Adams et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C72, 014904 (2005),
arXiv:nucl-ex/0409033 [nucl-ex].
[61] P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dy-
namics In and Out of Equilibrium, Cambridge Monographs
on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019)
arXiv:1712.05815 [nucl-th].
[62] B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C81, 054905 (2010), [Er-
ratum: Phys. Rev.C82,039903(2010)], arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-
th].
[63] B. H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault,
Phys. Rev. C82, 034913 (2010), arXiv:1007.5469 [nucl-th].
[64] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 11, 183 (2013), arXiv:1305.2942
[hep-ex].
[65] A. Pandav, D. Mallick, and B. Mohanty, (2018),
arXiv:1809.08892 [nucl-ex].
[66] B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett.
108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th].
[67] J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C92,
011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th].