Investigating the elliptic anisotropy of identified particles in p--Pb collisions with a multi-phase transport model
Extracted source text · arXiv 2303.06577
\documentclass[a4paper, amsfonts, amssymb, amsmath, reprint, showkeys, nofootinbib, superscriptaddress, twoside]{revtex4-1}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{CJK}
\usepackage[colorinlistoftodos, color=green!40, prependcaption]{todonotes}
\input{preamble}
\usepackage[pdftex, pdftitle={Article}, pdfauthor={Author}]{hyperref} % For hyperlinks in the PDF
%\setlength{\marginparwidth}{2.5cm}
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
\begin{document}
\begin{CJK}{UTF8}{gbsn}
\title{Investigating the elliptic anisotropy of identified particles in p--Pb collisions with a multi-phase transport model}
\author{Siyu Tang}
%\email[Correspondence email address: ]{tsy@wtu.edu.cn}% Your name
\affiliation{School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Wuhan Textile University, Wuhan 430200, China}
%\affiliation{Hubei Key Laboratory of Digital Textile Equipment, Wuhan Textile University, Wuhan 430200, China}
\author{Liang Zheng}
\email[Correspondence email address: ]{zhengliang@cug.edu.cn}% Your name
\affiliation{School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan), Wuhan 430074, China}
\author{Xiaoming Zhang}
\email[Correspondence email address: ]{xiaoming.zhang@ccnu.edu.cn}% Your name
\affiliation{Key Laboratory of Quark and Lepton Physics (MOE) and Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China}
\author{Renzhuo Wan}
\email[Correspondence email address: ]{wanrz@wtu.edu.cn}% Your name
\affiliation{Hubei Key Laboratory of Digital Textile Equipment, Wuhan Textile University, Wuhan 430200, China}
\affiliation{School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Wuhan Textile University, Wuhan 430200, China}
\date{\today} % Leave empty to omit a date
\begin{abstract}
The elliptic azimuthal anisotropy coefficient ($v_{2}$) of identified particles at midrapidity ($|\eta|<0.8$) is investigated in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=$ 5.02 TeV using the multi-phase transport model (AMPT). The calculations of differential $v_{2}$, based on the advanced flow extraction method, of light flavor hadrons (pions, kaons, protons and $\Lambda$) in small collision systems are extended to a wider transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$) range of up to 8 GeV/$c$ for the first time. The string melting version of the AMPT model provides a good description of the measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $v_{2}$ of mesons but exhibits a slight deviation from the baryon $v_{2}$. In addition, we observe the features of mass ordering at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and approximate number of constituent quark (NCQ) scaling at intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. Moreover, we demonstrate that hadronic rescattering does not have a significant impact on $v_{2}$ in p--Pb collisions for different centrality selections, while partonic scatterings dominate in generating the elliptic anisotropy of the final particles. This study provides further insight into understanding the origin of collective-like behaviors in small collision systems, and has referential value for future measurements of azimuthal anisotropy.
\end{abstract}
\keywords{Azimuthal anisotropy, Small collision systems, Transport model}
\maketitle
\section{Introduction}
The main goal of the heavy-ion collisions at ultra-relativistic energies is to explore the deconfined state of strongly-interacting matter created at high energy density and temperature, known as the quark-gluon plasma (QGP)\cite{Shuryak:1978ij,Shuryak:1980tp}. One of the important observables to investigate the transport properties of the QGP is the anisotropic flow\cite{Ollitrault:1992bk,Voloshin:2009fd}, which is quantified by the flow harmonic coefficients $v_{n}$ obtained from the Fourier expansion of the azimuthal distribution of produced particles\cite{Voloshin:1994mz,Poskanzer:1998yz}, as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dN}{d\varphi} \propto 1 + 2 \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}v_{n}\mathrm{cos}[n(\varphi-\Psi_{n})],
\label{eq: def}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi$ is the azimuthal angle of the final-state particle angle and $\Psi_{n}$ is the symmetry-plane angle in the collision for the $n$-th harmonic\cite{Alver:2010gr,Alver:2010dn}. The second order coefficient, $v_{2}$, referred to elliptic flow, is derived from the initial state spatial anisotropy of the almond-shaped collision overlap region being propagated to the final state momentum space. The magnitude of elliptic flow is sensitive to the fundamental transport properties of the fireball, such as the temperature dependent equation of state and the ratio of shear viscosity to entropy density ($\eta/s$)\cite{Qin:2010pf,Teaney:2010vd}.
In past decades, various measurements of elliptic flow in heavy-ion collisions performed at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)\cite{BRAHMS:2004adc,PHENIX:2004vcz,PHOBOS:2004zne,STAR:2005gfr} and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)\cite{ALICE:2011ab,ALICE:2018rtz,ATLAS:2012at,CMS:2013wjq} help to build a full paradigm of the strongly-coupled QGP. These studies indicate that the QGP behaves like a nearly perfect fluid according to the comparison between the extracted $\eta/s$ and hydrodynamic calculations. In addition, wide measurements of $p_{\rm T}$-differential elliptic flow for identified particles are performed in ALICE\cite{ALICE:2022zks,ALICE:2021ibz}. The observed mass-ordering effect (i.e. heavier particles have smaller elliptic flow than that of lighter particles at same $p_{\rm T}$) at low $p_{\rm T}$ is well described by hydrodynamic calculations, which attributes to the radial expansion of the QGP. At intermediate $p_{\rm T}$, the grouping of $v_{2}$ of mesons and baryons is observed, with mesons exhibiting less $v_{2}$ than baryons. These behaviours can be explained by the hypothesis that baryon and meson have different production mechanisms through quark coalescence, which was further investigated using the number of constituent quarks (NCQ) scaling\cite{Molnar:2003ff,Lin:2003jy}. Interestingly, such flow-like phenomena are also found in small collision systems, where no QGP is expected to be formed. The long-range double ridge structures were firstly observed for identified light and strange hadrons in high-multiplicity pp and p--Pb collisions by the ALICE, ATLAS and CMS collaborations, associated with the discovery of a significant positive $v_{2}$\cite{CMS:2012qk,ALICE:2012eyl,ATLAS:2012cix,ALICE:2013snk}. The observed particle-mass dependence of $v_{2}$ is similar to those measured in heavy-ion collisions\cite{ALICE:2013snk}, however the origin of such collective-like behavior is still not clear.
%suggesting a possible common collective origin of them. It is also worth noting that all current flow measurements in small collision systems face the challenges from the subtraction of the nonflow background, i.e. the correlations not related to collectivity rather due to jet correlations and resonance decay. Even many techniques were proposed to suppress the contribution from nonflow, their different influences on the extraction of flow signal also need to be carefully considered.
Several theoretical explanations relying on either initial-state or final-state effects were proposed to understand the origin of azimuthal anisotropies in small systems. The studies extending hydrodynamics from large to small systems based on the final-state effects can well describe the $v_{2}$ of soft hadrons\cite{Bozek:2011if,Bozek:2012gr,Nagle:2018nvi}, however they are based on a strong assumption that there are enough scatterings among constituents in small systems. The Color-Glass Condensate (CGC) based models and the IP-Glasma models considering the effect of momentum correlations in the initial state can quantitatively describe some features of collectivity in p--Pb collisions\cite{Dusling:2013oia,Dusling:2012cg}, but without clear conclusions, particularly regarding the dependence on collision systems and rapidity. In addition, an approach called parton escape shows that few scatterings can also create enough azimuthal anisotropies, which was investigated with the multi-phase transport (AMPT)\cite{Lin:2004en,He:2015hfa}. The $v_{2}$ of light hadrons measured in p--Pb collisions are well described in AMPT, where the contribution of anisotropic parton escape instead of hydrodynamics plays an important role\cite{He:2015hfa}.
In this study, we extend the AMPT calculations of the $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ for identified particles ($\pi^{\pm}$, $\mathrm{K}^{\pm}$, p($\bar{\mathrm{p}})$, $\Lambda(\bar{\Lambda})$) to higher $p_{\rm T}$ region in p--Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, in order to systematically test the mass-ordering effect and baryon-meson grouping at low- and intermediate-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$, respectively. We also investigate how the key mechanisms implemented in AMPT, such as the parton cascade and hadronic rescattering, work on the elliptic anisotropy in small collision systems. In addition, various nonflow subtraction methods with different sensitivities to jet-like correlations are studied in this work.
\section{Model and Methodology}
\subsection*{A multiphase transport model}
The string melting version of the AMPT model (v2.26t9b, available online)\cite{Lin:2004en,Lin:2021mdn} is employed in this study to calculate the $v_{2}$ of final-state particles in high-multiplicity p--Pb at 5.02 TeV. Four main processes are included in AMPT model: the initial conditions, the parton scatterings, the hadronization and the hadronic interactions. The initial conditions are generated from the heavy ion jet interaction generator (HIJING) model\cite{Wang:1991hta,Gyulassy:1994ew}, where the minijet partons and soft-excited string are produced, then they are converted to primordial hadrons based on the Lund fragmentation. Under the string melting mechanism, these primordial hadrons are melted into partons according to their flavor and spin structures. Elastic scatterings between the partons are simulated using the Zhang's parton cascade (ZPC) model\cite{Zhang:1997ej}, which includes two-body scatterings with the cross section described by the following simplified equation:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{gg}\approx\frac{9\pi\alpha_{s}^{2}}{2\mu^{2}}.
\end{equation}
In this paper, the strong coupling constant $\alpha_{s}$ is set to 0.33 and the Debye screening mass $\mu$ = 2.2814~$\mathrm{fm}^{-1}$, resulting the total parton scattering cross section is $\sigma=$ 3 mb. To isolate the effect of partonic scattering, the $\sigma=$ is also set to be close to 0 by increasing $\mu$ in this work (see set "w/o parton scat." in Tab.~\ref{tab:Para}). Once partonic interaction ceases, the hadronization with a quark coalescence model is implemented to combine nearest two (or three) quarks into mesons (or baryons)~\cite{Lin:2004en}. The formed hadrons enter the subsequent hadronic rescattering process using a relativistic transport (ART) model~\cite{Li:1995pra}, where both elastic and inelastic scatterings are considered for baryon-baryon, baryon-meson, and meson-meson interactions. The hadronic interactions time is set by default to $t_{max} = 30$ fm/c. Alternatively, $t_{max}$ is set to 0.4 fm/c to effectively turns off the hadron scattering process while still considering the resonance decay\cite{Zheng:2016iia}(see set "w/o hadron scat." in Tab.~\ref{tab:Para}). In addition, the random orientation of reaction plane is turn on and the shadowing effect is considered in this analysis.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\caption{Details of three configurations}
\label{tab:Para}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
\hline\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
Description&~~~~~~~~~~~~$\sigma$(mb)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~& $t_{\mathrm{max}}$(fm/c) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
w/ all & ~~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~& 30 \\
w/o parton scat. & ~~~~~~~~$\sim$0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~& 30 \\
w/o hadron scat. & ~~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~& 0.4\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Two-particle correlation and nonflow subtraction}
The two-particle correlation method (2PC) is widely used to extract the flow signal in small collision system since it has great power to suppress the nonflow contribution from the long-range jet correlations. Similar to Eq.~\ref{eq: def}, the azimuthal correlation between two emission particles can be represented by $N^{\mathrm{pairs}}$ pair of emitted particles (labeled as $C(\Delta \varphi)$) as a function of relative angle $\Delta \varphi=\varphi^{a}-\varphi^{b}$ between particle $a$ and particle $b$ and expanded in Fourier series as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
C(\Delta\varphi) = \frac{\mathrm{d}N^{\mathrm{pair}}}{d\Delta \varphi} \propto 1 + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}V_{n\Delta}(\it{p}_{\rm T}^{a},\it{p}_{\rm T}^{b})\mathrm{cos}[n(\Delta\varphi)],
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: Fourier 2PC}
\end{equation}
where $V_{n\Delta}$ refers to the two-particle $n$-th order harmonic. In a pure hydrodynamic picture, since the particle emission is independent, the $V_{n\Delta}(\it{p}_{\rm T}^{a},\it{p}_{\rm T}^{b})$ can be factorized into product of single particle flow $v_{n}^{a}$ and $v_{n}^{b}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
V_{n\Delta}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{a},p_{\mathrm{T}}^{b}) = v_{n}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{a})v_{n}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{b}).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: Factorization}
\end{equation}
Based on the factorization assumption, the $v_{n}$ of single particle $a$ can be obtained with so-called 3$\times$2PC method, which was recently proposed in PHENIX Collaboration\cite{PHENIX:2022nht}. It requires to form the two-particle correlations between three groups of particles (labeled as $a$, $b$ and $c$) and extract the flow coefficients for three combinations:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
v_{n}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{a}) = \sqrt{\frac{V_{n\Delta}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{a},p_{\mathrm{T}}^{b})V_{n\Delta}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{a},p_{\mathrm{T}}^{c})}{V_{n\Delta}(p_{\mathrm{T}}^{b},p_{\mathrm{T}}^{c})}}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: Fourier 3x2PC}
\end{equation}
In small collision systems, the main nonflow contribution to the flow signal originates from jet correlations. These correlations are typically classified into two categories: the near-side jet and the away-side jet (dijet). To subtract the former, a large rapidity gap between trigger and associated particles is often introduced during the construction of correlations. On the other hand, several methods have been developed to suppress the latter. One traditional approach is directly subtracting the correlation function distribution obtained from low-multiplicity events\cite{ALICE:2012eyl}, commonly referred to as "peripheral collisions," from that obtained from high-multiplicity events, or "central collisions." This method assumes that the yield and shape of dijets are identical in both types of collisions, as shown:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
C^{\mathrm{HM}}(\Delta\varphi) - C^{\mathrm{LM}}(\Delta\varphi) &\propto 1 + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}V_{n\Delta}\mathrm{cos}[n(\Delta\varphi)] \\
&= a_{0} + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_{n}\mathrm{cos}[n(\Delta\varphi)],
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: peripheral subtraction}
\end{equation}
where $C^{\mathrm{HM}}(\Delta\varphi)$ and $C^{\mathrm{HM}}(\Delta\varphi)$ represent the correlation function distribution obtained in low- and high-multiplicity events, respectively. This method relies on the "zero yield at minimum" (ZYAM) hypothesis\cite{ALICE:2012eyl} that a flat combinatoric component should be subtracted from the correlation function in low-multiplicity events. So the fit parameter $a_{2}$ is the absolute modulation in the subtracted correlation function distribution and characterizes a modulation relative to a baseline assuming that such a modulation is not present in the low-multiplicity class below the baseline. In this case, the flow coefficient $V_{n\Delta}$ is calculated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
V_{n\Delta} = a_{n}/(a_{0}+b),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: calculation of delta V2}
\end{equation}
where $b$ is the baseline estimated at the minimum of correlation function in low-multiplicity events. However the measurement of jet-like correlations in p--Pb collisions indicates that the dependence of dijet yield on particle multiplicity can not be ignored. In this case, a new template fit method is developed by the ATLAS collaboration\cite{PhysRevLett.116.172301}, where the correlation function distribution obtained in high-multiplicity events, is assumed to result from a superposition of the distribution obtained in low-multiplicity events scaled up by a multiplicative factor $F$, and a constant modulated by $\mathrm{cos}(n\Delta\varphi)$ for $n > 1$, as shown in:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
C(\Delta\varphi) = FC^{\mathrm{LM}}(\Delta\varphi) + G(1 + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{3}V_{n\Delta}\mathrm{cos}(n\Delta\varphi)),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: template fit}
\end{equation}
where $G$ is the normalization factor to keep the integral of $C(\Delta\varphi)$ is equal to $C^{\mathrm{HM}}(\Delta\varphi)$. %It is worth to noting that the ZYAM assumption is not considered in the default template fit method. In order to further characterize the influence of ZYAM assumption on the flow extraction, results obtained with an alternative version of the template fitting, so-called "template fit (ZYAM)", where a ZYAM procedure is performed by replacing $C^{\mathrm{LM}}(\Delta\varphi)$ with $C^{\mathrm{LM}}(\Delta\varphi)-C^{\mathrm{LM}}(0)$ in Eq.~\ref{eq: template fit}, are also presented in this paper.
Furthermore, an improved template fit method~\cite{ATLAS:2018ngv} developed in recent years is also tested in this work. It applies a correction procedure on the default template fit method by considering the multiplicity dependence of remaining ridge in low-multiplicity events, as shown in:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
V_{n\Delta} = V_{n\Delta}(\mathrm{tmp}) - \frac{FG^{\mathrm{LM}}}{G^{\mathrm{HM}}}(V_{n\Delta}^{2}(\mathrm{tmp}) - V_{n\Delta}^{2}(\mathrm{LM})),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: improve template fit}
\end{equation}
where the $V_{n\Delta}(\mathrm{tmp})$ and $V_{n\Delta}^{2}(\mathrm{LM})$ are obtained with default template method in high- and low-multiplicity events. All these nonflow subtraction methods are implemented in this work, and their different sensitivities on nonflow effect are also discussed in this paper.
\section{Analysis procedures}
In order to compare the AMPT calculations with the results from ALICE directly, we focus on the particles are selected at pseudorapidity range $|\eta| < 0.8$ which is same as the TPC acceptance in ALICE. In 3$\times$2PC method, the long-range correlations are constructed between the charged particles at midrapidity, forward rapidity ($2.5 < \eta < 4$) and backward rapidity ($-4 < \eta < -2.5$), i.e. the central-forward correlation ($-4.8 <\Delta\eta< -1.7$), central-backward correlation ($1.7 <\Delta\eta< 4.8$) and backward-forward correlations ($-8 <\Delta\eta< -5$). In addition, the centrality classes are defined counting charged particles in the acceptance of the V0A detector\cite{ALICE:2014sbx}, i.e. in $2.8<\eta<5.1$.
The correlation function distribution $C(\Delta\varphi)$ is obtained by correcting the number of particle-pairs in same events normalized to the number of trigger particles $N_{\mathrm{trig}}$ with event-mixing technique\cite{PhysRevLett.116.172301}, as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
C(\Delta\varphi, \Delta\eta) = \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{trig}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N_{\mathrm{pairs}}}{\mathrm{d}\Delta\eta \mathrm{d}\Delta\varphi} = \frac{S({\Delta \varphi, \Delta \eta})}{B({\Delta \varphi, \Delta \eta})},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq: per-trigger yield after Mixed 2PC}
\end{equation}
where $S({\Delta \varphi, \Delta \eta}) = \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{trig}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N_{\mathrm{same}}}{\mathrm{d}\Delta\eta \mathrm{d}\Delta\varphi}$ is the correlation function in same events and $B({\Delta \varphi, \Delta \eta}) = \alpha\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2}N_{\mathrm{mixed}}}{\mathrm{d}\Delta\eta \mathrm{d}\Delta\varphi}$ is the associated yield as a function of $\Delta \varphi$ and $\Delta \varphi$ in mixed events. The factor $\alpha$ is used to normalize the $B({\Delta \varphi, \Delta \eta})$ to unity in the $\Delta\eta$ region of maximal pair acceptance. The obtained 2-D correlation function $C(\Delta\varphi, \Delta\eta)$ is projected into $\Delta\varphi$ axis, then we follow the nonflow subtraction procedures and factorization as discussed in Eq.~\ref{eq: Fourier 3x2PC}--Eq.~\ref{eq: improve template fit}, the $v_{2}$ of charged particles at $|\eta| < 0.8$ can be calculated.
\section{Results and Discussions}
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/Spectrum}
\caption{The $p_{\rm T}$ distribution of pions, kaons and protons in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, obtained from AMPT model calculations, is compared to ALICE measurement. The results in AMPT without hadronic scattering and partonic scattering are also presented.}
\label{Fig: pT spectrum}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We firstly investigate the $p_{\rm T}$ spectrum of identified particles before performing the flow analysis. Figure~\ref{Fig: pT spectrum} illustrates the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution of proton, pion and kaon in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, which are obtained from AMPT with three different sets of configurations listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:Para}, and ALICE experimental data. The AMPT results with and without considering hadronic rescatterings are consistent with each other. This behavior is different from the previous findings in heavy-ion collisions where the hadronic interaction reduce the particle yield significantly~\cite{Lin:2000cx}. The spectrum obtained in AMPT without considering the parton cascade process is enhanced compared to that with partonic scattering, and such enhancement is more significant at high $p_{\rm T}$. This outcome is expected, as partons experience energy loss during the parton cascade, which reduces the production of final-state particles. In addition, the ratios of the $p_{\rm T}$ spectra obtained from AMPT calculations and data are also shown. The AMPT model calculation reproduces the low and intermediate $p_{\rm T}$ data well when both partonic and hadronic scattering are included, however it overestimates the high $p_{\rm T}$ data, as parton-parton inelastic collisions and subsequently hard parton fragmentation are absent in model~\cite{Lin:2021mdn}.
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/PID_v2_FB}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/PID_v2_FB_Nq}
\caption{Left: the $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, obtained from default AMPT model calculations with 3$\times$2PC method, is compared to ALICE and CMS measurement. Right: the $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ scaled by the number of constituent quark ($n_{q}$).}
\label{Fig: v2 with FB}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/PID_v2_FB_KET}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/PID_v2_FB_KET_Nq}
\caption{Left: the $v_{2}$ as a function of transverse kinetic energy (k$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}$) in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, obtained from default AMPT model calculations with 3$\times$2PC method, is compared to ALICE and CMS measurement. Right: the k$\mathrm{E}_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ scaled by the number of constituent quark ($n_{q}$).}
\label{Fig: KET v2 with FB}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{Fig: v2 with FB} (left) shows the $v_{2}$ of pions, kaons, protons and $\Lambda$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, obtained in AMPT calculations with 3$\times$2PC method. The comparison with the ALICE measurement for the $v_{2}$ of charged hadrons, pions, kaons and protons, and the CMS measurement for the $v_{2}$ of $K_{s}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$, is also presented. The AMPT calculations applied the template fit method to suppress the away-side jet contribution and considered the ZYAM assumption to enable a direct comparison with the observed data. A positive $v_{2}$ of charged hadrons, pions, kaons, protons and $\Lambda$ is observed in AMPT calculations, and the mass-ordering effect (i.e. the $v_{2}$ of baryons is lower than that of mesons) is also reproduced for $p_{\rm T} <2$ GeV/$c$.
%These features indicate that the particle production from a collective expanding source observed in data is generated also in AMPT model.
Thanks to the advanced flow extraction method, calculations of $v_{2}$ are extended to high $p_{\rm T}$ region, up to 8 GeV/$c$ in the AMPT model for the first time. The $v_{2}$ of protons and $\Lambda$ are consistent, and both of them are observed to have a higher value of $v_{2}$ compared to that of mesons for $2<p_{\rm T} <$ 7 GeV/$c$. This meson-baryon particle type grouping, observed in heavy-ion collisions flow measurement, is an indication of the collective behavior at the partonic level followed by the coalescence of quarks into hadrons. The number of constituent quarks (NCQ) scaling technique, described in~\cite{Molnar:2003ff}, can be used for further studies on this grouping. The $v_{2}$ and $p_{\rm T}$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig: v2 with FB} (left) are replaced by $v_{2}/n_{q}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}}/\mathrm{n}_{q}$, where the $n_{q}$ is the number of constituent quark in mesons ($n_{q} = 2$) and baryons ($n_{q} = 3$), as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig: v2 with FB} (right). The $v_{2}/n_{q}$ obtained from data shows approximate values at intermediate $p_{\rm T}$, but the results calculated in AMPT can not reproduce the scaling in $p_{\rm T}/\mathrm{n}_{q}>1$ GeV/$c$. In order to consider the observed mass hierarchy of $v_{2}$, we also plot the $v_{2}$ of identified particle as a function of the transverse kinetic energy k$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}$ (k$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}} = m_{\mathrm{T}} - m_{0} = \sqrt{p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}+m_{0}^{2}} - m_{0}$), and its NCQ scaling in Fig.~\ref{Fig: KET v2 with FB} (left) and Fig.~\ref{Fig: KET v2 with FB} (right). All article species show a set of similar $v_{2}$ values after the NCQ scaling in k$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}/n_{q} < 1$ GeV, confirming that the quark degree of freedom in the flowing matter can be also probed in transport model. However such NCQ scaling is violated for k$\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{T}}/n_{q} > 1$ GeV. It may be attributed to the hadronization mechanism implemented in current AMPT version, where the baryons are produced only after the formation of meson according simply combining three nearest partons regardless of the relative momentum among the coalescing partons~\cite{He:2017tla}. More studies on $v_{2}$ calculations in small collision systems with improved quark coalescence model in AMPT need to be performed in the future.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/v2VScen}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/v2ratioVScen}
\caption{Top: the integrated $v_{2}$ in 0.4$<\mathrm{kE}_{\mathrm{T}}<$1 GeV for pion, kaon and proton varying with the centrality. Bottom: ratio of integrated $v_{2}$ within 0.4$<\mathrm{kE}_{\mathrm{T}}<$1 GeV for proton over pion and kaon over pion varying with the centrality.}.
\label{Fig: v2 vs Cen}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We also examine the integrated $v_{2}$ in several centrality bins between 0--60\% for 0.4$<\mathrm{kE}_{\mathrm{T}}<$1 GeV where the NCQ scaling is satisfied, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig: v2 vs Cen} (top). The nonflow contribution is still estimated in 60--100\% centrality class and subtracted with template fit method. It is found that the $v_{2}$ values decrease from central to peripheral collisions, and show a clear mass splitting for baryon and meson. In addition, the ratio of $\mathrm{n}_{q}$ scaled integrated $v_{2}$ for proton over pion and kaon over pion as a function of centrality is shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig: v2 vs Cen} (bottom). There is a trend that these ratios approach unity in more peripheral collisions indicating a better NCQ scaling behavour.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/v2_comp_ART}
\caption{The $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ of pions, kaons and protons calculated in AMPT model with and without considering hadronic scattering. The ratio of two sets are also presented.}
\label{Fig: v2 with ART}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/v2_comp_ART_Cen}
\caption{The integrated $v_{2}$ in 0.4$<\mathrm{kE}_{\mathrm{T}}<$1 GeV for pions, kaons and protons calculated in AMPT model with and without considering hadronic scattering. The ratio of two sets are also presented.}
\label{Fig: integrated v2 with ART}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/v2_comp_ZPC}
\caption{The $p_{\rm T}$-differential $V_{2\Delta}$ for central-forward (CF) and central-backward (CB) correlations calculated in AMPT model with and without considering partonic scattering.}
\label{Fig: v2 with ZPC}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, the effects of partonic and hadronic scatterings on the elliptic anisotropy of final-state particles are examined in this work. Figure~\ref{Fig: v2 with ART} displays the calculated $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $v_{2}$ of pions, kaons and protons in AMPT with and without considering hadronic rescattering process in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions. The results show that the ratio between the $v_{2}$ values with and without hadronic rescattering is consistent with unity for all particle species, indicating that the hadronic rescattering mechanism has almost no effect on $v_{2}$ in high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions. We also investigate the centrality dependence of the hadronic rescattering effects by calculating the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-integrated $v_{2}$ in several centrality bins between 0--60\%, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{Fig: integrated v2 with ART}. The results demonstrate that the influence of hadronic rescattering is independent of the centrality selections and has almost no impact on NCQ scaling in the range of 0.4$<\mathrm{kE}_{\mathrm{T}}<$1 GeV.
On the other hand, when we set the parton scattering cross section $\sigma$ to zero, i.e., turning off the partonic scattering in AMPT, the $V_{2\Delta}$ of charged particles for central-forward (CF) and central-backward (CB) correlations is almost zero, as demonstrated in Fig~\ref{Fig: v2 with ZPC}. This indicates that the elliptic anisotropy in high-multiplicity small collision systems is mostly generated by parton scatterings. Our conclusion is consistent with previous studies in AMPT~\cite{He:2015hfa}, which suggested that few parton scatterings in small collision systems are sufficient to generate significant elliptic anisotropies through the parton escape mechanism.
\begin{figure}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/Nonflow_ChargedHadron}
\caption{The $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ of charged hadrons calculated in AMPT with different nonflow subtraction methods.}
\label{Fig: v2 with nonflow test}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\iffalse
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/v2_Mul}
\includegraphics[width=1.\columnwidth]{image/Test_ZYAM}
\caption{Left: the $v_{2}$ of charged particles in 0.2 $<p_{\rm T}<$ 3 GeV/$c$ as a function of centrality in p--Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV from AMPT calculations. Right: the $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ of charged particles in 60--70\% p--Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV from AMPT calculations. The template fit with and without ZYAM assumption, and the direct Fourier transform are all performed.}
\label{Fig: v2 with ZYAM test}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\fi
Finally, different nonflow subtraction methods are investigated in this paper. Figure~\ref{Fig: v2 with nonflow test} (left) shows the $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ of charged particles calculated with 3$\times$2PC method in 0--20\% high-multiplicity p--Pb collisions, and several nonflow subtraction methods are implemented. In order to demonstrate how the nonflow contribution is removed, the $v_{2}$ obtained with a direct Fourier transform of the $C(\Delta\varphi)$ correlation (as shown in Eq.~\ref{eq: Fourier 2PC}) is also presented. The results with all subtraction methods are suppressed significantly, especially at high-$p_{\rm T}$ where the jet correlations dominate. The results obtained with peripheral subtraction and template fit are consistent, indicating that the away-side jet contribution is automatically removed with the 3$\times$2PC method even the dependence of jet correlation on multiplicity is not considered in peripheral subtraction method. The $v_{2}$ calculated with improved template fit method is slightly lower than that from template fit, and it is similar to the features observed in ATLAS measurement~\cite{ATLAS:2018ngv}. Same conclusions are also obtained for the extraction of identified particle (pions, kaons, protons and $\Lambda$) $v_{2}$.
\iffalse
We further investigate the applicability of ZYAM assumption in nonflow subtraction in small collision systems. Figure~\ref{Fig: v2 with ZYAM test}(left) shows the $v_{2}$ of charged particles as a function of centrality, with the $p_{\rm T}$ selection 0.2 $<p_{\rm T}<$ 3 GeV/$c$. The template fit, ZYAM-based fit and the direct Fourier transform are performed to extract the $v_{2}$ signal. The $v_{2}$ obtained with template fit is nearly independent of centrality, implying that the long-range correlation is also present at very low multiplicity, as concluded in Ref~\cite{PhysRevLett.116.172301}. The comparison with the $v_{2}$ obtained with ZYAM-based fitting, which decrease with increasing centrality, illustrates the improvement brought about in the template fitting procedure. The $v_{2}$ obtained with both template fit and ZYAM-based fit methods are lower than that from direct Fourier transform. However, the default template fit method also has the limitation to estimate the magnitude of $v_{2}$. Figure~\ref{Fig: v2 with ZYAM test} (right) shows the $p_{\rm T}$-differential $v_{2}$ of charged particles in 60--70\% p--Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV from AMPT calculations. Compared to the results calculated without nonflow subtraction (i.e. the direct Fourier transform), the $v_{2}$ obtained with default template fit method is even higher below $p_{\rm T} <$ 2.5 GeV/$c$. These results indicate that default template fit method and ZYAM-based methods may correspond to the upper and lower limit of the nonflow subtraction in small collisions systems and both of them should be carefully considered in the future measurements.
\fi
\section{Summary}
This study investigates the elliptic anisotropy of identified particles (pions, kaons, protons and $\Lambda$) in p--Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV using the AMPT model. We extend the calculation of $v_{2}$ to higher $p_{\rm T}$ regions, up to 8 GeV/$c$, using advanced nonflow subtraction techniques for the first time. We also examine the mass-ordering effect and baryon-meson grouping at low and intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, respectively. We argue that the approximate NCQ scaling of baryon and meson $v_{2}$ can be well reproduced in $\mathrm{kE}_{\mathrm{T}}<$1 GeV for several centrality bins. Furthermore, we demonstrate that parton interactions can simultaneously decrease the yield of light hadrons and generate a significant $v_{2}$. On the other hand, hadronic rescatterings have little influence on the elliptic anisotropy of final-state particles. Thus, these findings indicate that the non-equilibrium anisotropic parton escape mechanism coupled with the quark coalescence model can also reproduce hydro-like behavior of identified particles observed in small collision systems. Overall, this study provides new insights for understanding the existence of partonic collectivity in small collision systems.
\section{Acknowledgement}
We thank G.L.~Ma for helpful discussions. This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Provincial Education Department under Grant (Q20131603) and Key Laboratory of Quark and Lepton Physics (MOE) in Central China Normal University under Grant (QLPL2022P01, QLPL202106).
%\input{sections/section01.tex} %I believe leaving the sections in separate files is more organized, change it if you desire
%\input{sections/section02.tex}
%\input{sections/section03.tex}
%\input{sections/acknowledgements.tex}
%\bibliographystyle{plain} % Remember we use title in the biblio
%\bibliographystyle{utphys} % Remember we use title in the biblio
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-2} % Remember we use title in the biblio
\bibliography{reference}
%\begin{thebibliography}{4}
%\bibitem{Griffiths}
%D. J. Griffiths,
%\textit{Introduction to Electrodynamics}
%(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017).
%\bibitem{Fleming}
%A. Bobrinha,
%Revista Brasileira de Lorem Ipsum \textbf{23},
%179 (2002).
%\bibitem{Feynman}
%R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands,
%\textit{Lições de Física de Feynman}
%(Editora Bookman, Porto Alegre, 2008).
%\bibitem{Jackson-CE}
%J. D. Jackson,
%\textit{Classical Electrodynamics}
%(John Wiley \& Sons, Danvers, 1999).
%\end{thebibliography}
%\appendix*
%\input{sections/appendix1.tex}
\end{CJK}
\end{document}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{physics}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[left=23mm,right=13mm,top=35mm,columnsep=15pt]{geometry}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{placeins}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage{csquotes}
%merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked
%Control: key (0)
%Control: author (72) initials jnrlst
%Control: editor formatted (1) identically to author
%Control: production of article title (-1) disabled
%Control: page (0) single
%Control: year (1) truncated
%Control: production of eprint (0) enabled
\begin{thebibliography}{45}%
\makeatletter
\providecommand \@ifxundefined [1]{%
\@ifx{#1\undefined}
}%
\providecommand \@ifnum [1]{%
\ifnum #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
\else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
\fi
}%
\providecommand \@ifx [1]{%
\ifx #1\expandafter \@firstoftwo
\else \expandafter \@secondoftwo
\fi
}%
\providecommand \natexlab [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \enquote [1]{``#1''}%
\providecommand \bibnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \bibfnamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \citenamefont [1]{#1}%
\providecommand \href@noop [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \href [0]{\begingroup \@sanitize@url \@href}%
\providecommand \@href[1]{\@@startlink{#1}\@@href}%
\providecommand \@@href[1]{\endgroup#1\@@endlink}%
\providecommand \@sanitize@url [0]{\catcode `\\12\catcode `\$12\catcode
`\&12\catcode `\#12\catcode `\^12\catcode `\_12\catcode `\%12\relax}%
\providecommand \@@startlink[1]{}%
\providecommand \@@endlink[0]{}%
\providecommand \url [0]{\begingroup\@sanitize@url \@url }%
\providecommand \@url [1]{\endgroup\@href {#1}{\urlprefix }}%
\providecommand \urlprefix [0]{URL }%
\providecommand \Eprint [0]{\href }%
\providecommand \doibase [0]{http://dx.doi.org/}%
\providecommand \selectlanguage [0]{\@gobble}%
\providecommand \bibinfo [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \bibfield [0]{\@secondoftwo}%
\providecommand \translation [1]{[#1]}%
\providecommand \BibitemOpen [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemStop [0]{}%
\providecommand \bibitemNoStop [0]{.\EOS\space}%
\providecommand \EOS [0]{\spacefactor3000\relax}%
\providecommand \BibitemShut [1]{\csname bibitem#1\endcsname}%
\let\auto@bib@innerbib\@empty
%</preamble>
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Shuryak}(1978)}]{Shuryak:1978ij}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.~V.}\ \bibnamefont
{Shuryak}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90370-2} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{78}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {150} (\bibinfo {year} {1978})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Shuryak}(1980)}]{Shuryak:1980tp}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {E.~V.}\ \bibnamefont
{Shuryak}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/0370-1573(80)90105-2} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rept.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{61}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {71} (\bibinfo {year} {1980})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Ollitrault}(1992)}]{Ollitrault:1992bk}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.-Y.}\ \bibnamefont
{Ollitrault}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.229} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{46}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {229} (\bibinfo {year} {1992})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Voloshin}(2009)}]{Voloshin:2009fd}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.~A.}\ \bibnamefont
{Voloshin}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.05.082} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Nucl. Phys. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{827}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {377C} (\bibinfo {year} {2009})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Voloshin}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Zhang}(1996)}]{Voloshin:1994mz}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Voloshin}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Y.}~\bibnamefont
{Zhang}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1007/s002880050141} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Z. Phys. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {70}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {665} (\bibinfo {year} {1996})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Poskanzer}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Voloshin}(1998)}]{Poskanzer:1998yz}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {A.~M.}\ \bibnamefont
{Poskanzer}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.~A.}\ \bibnamefont
{Voloshin}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{58}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {1671} (\bibinfo {year} {1998})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Alver}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Roland}(2010)}]{Alver:2010gr}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont
{Alver}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {G.}~\bibnamefont {Roland}},\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.039903} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {81}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {054905} (\bibinfo {year} {2010})},\ \bibinfo {note} {[Erratum:
Phys.Rev.C 82, 039903 (2010)]}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Alver}\ \emph {et~al.}(2010)\citenamefont {Alver},
\citenamefont {Gombeaud}, \citenamefont {Luzum},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Ollitrault}}]{Alver:2010dn}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.~H.}\ \bibnamefont
{Alver}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.}~\bibnamefont {Gombeaud}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont {Luzum}}, \ and\ \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {J.-Y.}\ \bibnamefont {Ollitrault}},\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.034913} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {82}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {034913} (\bibinfo {year} {2010})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Qin}\ \emph {et~al.}(2010)\citenamefont {Qin},
\citenamefont {Petersen}, \citenamefont {Bass},\ and\ \citenamefont
{Muller}}]{Qin:2010pf}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {G.-Y.}\ \bibnamefont
{Qin}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {Petersen}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.~A.}\ \bibnamefont {Bass}}, \ and\
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont {Muller}},\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.064903} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {82}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {064903} (\bibinfo {year} {2010})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Teaney}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Yan}(2011)}]{Teaney:2010vd}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont
{Teaney}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont {Yan}},\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.064904} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {83}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {064904} (\bibinfo {year} {2011})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Arsene}\ \emph {et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont {Arsene}
\emph {et~al.}}]{BRAHMS:2004adc}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {I.}~\bibnamefont
{Arsene}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {BRAHMS}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.130} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nucl. Phys. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {757}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {1} (\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Adcox}\ \emph {et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont {Adcox}
\emph {et~al.}}]{PHENIX:2004vcz}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont
{Adcox}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {PHENIX}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nucl. Phys. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {757}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {184} (\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Back}\ \emph {et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont {Back} \emph
{et~al.}}]{PHOBOS:2004zne}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.~B.}\ \bibnamefont
{Back}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {PHOBOS}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Nucl. Phys. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {757}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {28}
(\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Adams}\ \emph {et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont {Adams}
\emph {et~al.}}]{STAR:2005gfr}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.}~\bibnamefont
{Adams}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {STAR}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Nucl. Phys. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {757}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {102}
(\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aamodt}\ \emph {et~al.}(2011)\citenamefont {Aamodt}
\emph {et~al.}}]{ALICE:2011ab}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont
{Aamodt}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ALICE}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.032301} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {107}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {032301} (\bibinfo {year} {2011})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Acharya}\ \emph {et~al.}(2018)\citenamefont {Acharya}
\emph {et~al.}}]{ALICE:2018rtz}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Acharya}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ALICE}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)103} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{JHEP}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {07}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {103} (\bibinfo
{year} {2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aad}\ \emph {et~al.}(2012)\citenamefont {Aad} \emph
{et~al.}}]{ATLAS:2012at}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {G.}~\bibnamefont
{Aad}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ATLAS}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014907} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {86}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {014907}
(\bibinfo {year} {2012})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Chatrchyan}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014)\citenamefont
{Chatrchyan} \emph {et~al.}}]{CMS:2013wjq}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Chatrchyan}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {CMS}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044906} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {89}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {044906} (\bibinfo {year} {2014})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{ALI(2022)}]{ALICE:2022zks}%
\BibitemOpen
\href {\doibase 10.48550/arXiv.2206.04587} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {arXiv e-prints}\ } (\bibinfo {year} {2022}),\
10.48550/arXiv.2206.04587}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Acharya}\ \emph {et~al.}(2021)\citenamefont {Acharya}
\emph {et~al.}}]{ALICE:2021ibz}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Acharya}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ALICE}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1007/JHEP10(2021)152} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{JHEP}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {10}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {152} (\bibinfo
{year} {2021})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Molnar}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Voloshin}(2003)}]{Molnar:2003ff}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont
{Molnar}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.~A.}\ \bibnamefont
{Voloshin}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.092301} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {91}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {092301} (\bibinfo {year}
{2003})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lin}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Molnar}(2003)}]{Lin:2003jy}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.-w.}\ \bibnamefont
{Lin}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont {Molnar}},\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.68.044901} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {68}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {044901} (\bibinfo {year} {2003})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Chatrchyan}\ \emph {et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont
{Chatrchyan} \emph {et~al.}}]{CMS:2012qk}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont
{Chatrchyan}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {CMS}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.025} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {718}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {795} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Abelev}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2013{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont {Abelev} \emph
{et~al.}}]{ALICE:2012eyl}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont
{Abelev}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ALICE}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.012} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {719}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {29} (\bibinfo {year} {2013}{\natexlab{a}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aad}\ \emph {et~al.}(2013)\citenamefont {Aad} \emph
{et~al.}}]{ATLAS:2012cix}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {G.}~\bibnamefont
{Aad}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ATLAS}),\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.182302} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {110}},\ \bibinfo {pages}
{182302} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Abelev}\ \emph
{et~al.}(2013{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont {Abelev} \emph
{et~al.}}]{ALICE:2013snk}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.~B.}\ \bibnamefont
{Abelev}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ALICE}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.024} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {726}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {164} (\bibinfo {year} {2013}{\natexlab{b}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Bozek}(2012)}]{Bozek:2011if}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.}~\bibnamefont
{Bozek}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.014911} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {85}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {014911} (\bibinfo {year} {2012})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Bozek}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Broniowski}(2013)}]{Bozek:2012gr}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {P.}~\bibnamefont
{Bozek}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {W.}~\bibnamefont
{Broniowski}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.12.051} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{718}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {1557} (\bibinfo {year} {2013})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Nagle}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Zajc}(2018)}]{Nagle:2018nvi}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {J.~L.}\ \bibnamefont
{Nagle}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {W.~A.}\ \bibnamefont
{Zajc}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101916-123209} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.}\ }\textbf
{\bibinfo {volume} {68}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {211} (\bibinfo {year}
{2018})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Dusling}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Venugopalan}(2013{\natexlab{a}})}]{Dusling:2013oia}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont
{Dusling}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont
{Venugopalan}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.094034} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{87}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {094034} (\bibinfo {year}
{2013}{\natexlab{a}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Dusling}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Venugopalan}(2013{\natexlab{b}})}]{Dusling:2012cg}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {K.}~\bibnamefont
{Dusling}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {R.}~\bibnamefont
{Venugopalan}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.051502} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{87}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {051502} (\bibinfo {year}
{2013}{\natexlab{b}})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lin}\ \emph {et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont {Lin},
\citenamefont {Ko}, \citenamefont {Li}, \citenamefont {Zhang},\ and\
\citenamefont {Pal}}]{Lin:2004en}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.-W.}\ \bibnamefont
{Lin}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.~M.}\ \bibnamefont {Ko}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.-A.}\ \bibnamefont {Li}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont {Zhang}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont {Pal}},\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064901} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {72}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {064901}
(\bibinfo {year} {2005})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {He}\ \emph {et~al.}(2016)\citenamefont {He},
\citenamefont {Edmonds}, \citenamefont {Lin}, \citenamefont {Liu},
\citenamefont {Molnar},\ and\ \citenamefont {Wang}}]{He:2015hfa}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont
{He}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {T.}~\bibnamefont {Edmonds}},
\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.-W.}\ \bibnamefont {Lin}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {F.}~\bibnamefont {Liu}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {D.}~\bibnamefont {Molnar}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {F.}~\bibnamefont {Wang}},\ }\href {\doibase
10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.051} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal}
{Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {753}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {506}
(\bibinfo {year} {2016})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lin}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Zheng}(2021)}]{Lin:2021mdn}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.-W.}\ \bibnamefont
{Lin}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont {Zheng}},\
}\href {\doibase 10.1007/s41365-021-00944-5} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Nucl. Sci. Tech.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {32}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {113} (\bibinfo {year} {2021})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Wang}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Gyulassy}(1991)}]{Wang:1991hta}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {X.-N.}\ \bibnamefont
{Wang}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Gyulassy}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3501} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. D}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume}
{44}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {3501} (\bibinfo {year} {1991})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Gyulassy}\ and\ \citenamefont
{Wang}(1994)}]{Gyulassy:1994ew}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Gyulassy}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {X.-N.}\ \bibnamefont
{Wang}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/0010-4655(94)90057-4} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Comput. Phys. Commun.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {83}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {307} (\bibinfo {year} {1994})}\BibitemShut
{NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Zhang}(1998)}]{Zhang:1997ej}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont
{Zhang}},\ }\href {\doibase 10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00010-1} {\bibfield
{journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Comput. Phys. Commun.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo
{volume} {109}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {193} (\bibinfo {year}
{1998})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Li}\ and\ \citenamefont {Ko}(1995)}]{Li:1995pra}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.-A.}\ \bibnamefont
{Li}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {C.~M.}\ \bibnamefont {Ko}},\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.2037} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {52}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {2037} (\bibinfo {year} {1995})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Zheng}\ \emph {et~al.}(2017)\citenamefont {Zheng},
\citenamefont {Li}, \citenamefont {Qin}, \citenamefont {Shou},\ and\
\citenamefont {Yin}}]{Zheng:2016iia}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {L.}~\bibnamefont
{Zheng}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {Li}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {H.}~\bibnamefont {Qin}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {Q.-Y.}\ \bibnamefont {Shou}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {Z.-B.}\ \bibnamefont {Yin}},\ }\href {\doibase
10.1140/epja/i2017-12312-8} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Eur.
Phys. J. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {53}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {124}
(\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Abdulameer}\ \emph {et~al.}(2023)\citenamefont
{Abdulameer} \emph {et~al.}}]{PHENIX:2022nht}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {N.~J.}\ \bibnamefont
{Abdulameer}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {PHENIX}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.107.024907} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {107}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {024907} (\bibinfo {year} {2023})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aad}\ \emph {et~al.}(2016)\citenamefont {Aad} \emph
{et~al.}}]{PhysRevLett.116.172301}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {G.}~\bibnamefont
{Aad}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ATLAS Collaboration}),\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.172301} {\bibfield {journal}
{\bibinfo {journal} {Phys. Rev. Lett.}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {116}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {172301} (\bibinfo {year} {2016})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Aaboud}\ \emph {et~al.}(2019)\citenamefont {Aaboud}
\emph {et~al.}}]{ATLAS:2018ngv}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {M.}~\bibnamefont
{Aaboud}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ATLAS}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.065} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Lett. B}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {789}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {444} (\bibinfo {year} {2019})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Abelev}\ \emph {et~al.}(2014)\citenamefont {Abelev}
\emph {et~al.}}]{ALICE:2014sbx}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {B.~B.}\ \bibnamefont
{Abelev}} \emph {et~al.} (\bibinfo {collaboration} {ALICE}),\ }\href
{\doibase 10.1142/S0217751X14300440} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Int. J. Mod. Phys. A}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {29}},\
\bibinfo {pages} {1430044} (\bibinfo {year} {2014})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {Lin}\ \emph {et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont {Lin},
\citenamefont {Pal}, \citenamefont {Ko}, \citenamefont {Li},\ and\
\citenamefont {Zhang}}]{Lin:2000cx}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.-w.}\ \bibnamefont
{Lin}}, \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {S.}~\bibnamefont {Pal}}, \bibinfo
{author} {\bibfnamefont {C.~M.}\ \bibnamefont {Ko}}, \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {B.-A.}\ \bibnamefont {Li}}, \ and\ \bibinfo {author}
{\bibfnamefont {B.}~\bibnamefont {Zhang}},\ }\href {\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevC.64.011902} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo {journal} {Phys.
Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {64}},\ \bibinfo {pages} {011902}
(\bibinfo {year} {2001})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\bibitem [{\citenamefont {He}\ and\ \citenamefont {Lin}(2017)}]{He:2017tla}%
\BibitemOpen
\bibfield {author} {\bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Y.}~\bibnamefont
{He}}\ and\ \bibinfo {author} {\bibfnamefont {Z.-W.}\ \bibnamefont {Lin}},\
}\href {\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.014910} {\bibfield {journal} {\bibinfo
{journal} {Phys. Rev. C}\ }\textbf {\bibinfo {volume} {96}},\ \bibinfo
{pages} {014910} (\bibinfo {year} {2017})}\BibitemShut {NoStop}%
\end{thebibliography}%