Processing math: 100%

Z0 boson associated b-jet production in high-energy nuclear collisions

  • The production of vector boson tagged heavy quark jets potentially provides new tools to probe the jet quenching effect. In this paper, we present the first theoretical study on the angular correlations (ΔϕbZ), transverse momentum imbalance (xbZ), and nuclear modification factor (IAA) of Z0 boson tagged b-jets in heavy-ion collisions, which was performed using a Monte Carlo transport model. We find that the medium modification of the ΔϕbZ for Z0 + b-jet has a weaker dependence on ΔϕbZ than that for Z0 + jet, and the modification patterns are sensitive to the initial jet pT distribution. Additionally, with the high purity of the quark jet in Z0 + (b-) jet production, we calculate the momentum imbalance xbZ and the nuclear modification factor IAA of Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions. We observe a smaller ΔxjZ and larger IAA of Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions relative to those of Z0 + jet, which may be an indication of the mass effect of jet quenching and can be tested in future measurements.
  • The formation of quark-gluon plasma (QGP), which was produced in the early stages of the high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), offers a new possibility to test quantum chromodynamics (QCD) under an extremely hot and dense deconfined state of nuclear matter. The high-pT partons (quarks and gluons) produced in the initial hard scattering strongly interact with the QGP and dissipate their energy to the medium, which is referred to as the jet quenching effect [15]. Consequently, the "quenched jet" observables are used to quantify the properties [6] of the hot and dense QCD matter by investigating their medium modifications in heavy-ion collisions (HIC) relative to their p+p baselines.

    Recently, the associated production of a vector boson (photon γ or electroweak boson such as Z0 and W+/) and jets (V + jet) has been extensively studied both theoretically [711] and experimentally [1220] to test the fundamental properties of QCD and improve the constraints on the parton distribution function (PDF) of a proton. More importantly, because the vector boson would not involve the strong interaction with the medium and gauge the initial energy of the tagged jets, V+jet is recognized as the ideal probe of the properties of QGP [2138].

    In particular, new measurements of the associated production of the Z0 boson and b-jet (denoted as Z0 + b-jet) in p+p collisions at the LHC have been performed by ATLAS and CMS [3945], since the final state b-jet associated with the Z0 boson is the dominant background of the associated production of Higgs and Z0 bosons (Z0+HZ+bˉb) within the standard model (SM) [46] and can test many physics scenarios beyond the SM that predict new generation mechanisms of b quarks and Z0 bosons [41]. It is noted that in HIC, the Z0 boson tagged b-jet (as the initial energy of the b quark is well gauged by the vector boson and thus its energy loss can be directly obtained) is particularly suitable for exploring the quenching of the heavy flavor jet [47]. The "dead-cone" effect [48] of heavy quarks in QGP may lead to a smaller energy loss compared to light flavors, which is known as the mass effect of jet quenching and has attracted intensive investigations [4954]. At the particle level, the latest measurements indicate that the yield of the B meson appears to be less suppressed than that of the D meson in nucleus-nucleus collisions [5557]. However, no clear evidence was found at the full-jet level in the previous experimental measurements, such as the comparison of the RAA between the inclusive jet and b-jet [58, 59] and the comparison of the pT imbalance (xJ) between inclusive dijets and bˉb dijets [60], except for some preliminary indication in the recent measurement implemented by the ATLAS collaboration [61]. The possible reasons for this can be manifold; e.g., the large contribution of gluon-initiated b-parton processes may thwart the attempts at solving the problem. Previous studies [21, 47] have indicated that the dominant contribution of the Z0 tagged jet is a quark-initiated jet, and the study of Z0+ b-jet in HIC, especially its different medium modifications compared with that of Z0 + jet, will provide a very useful tool to directly address the mass effect between the light-quark jet and massive bottom jet. Nevertheless, thus far, studies on the associated production of the b-jet and Z0 boson in nucleus-nucleus collisions are lacking.

    With this in mind, in this work, we present a Monte Carlo transport simulation including elastic (collisional) [62] and inelastic (radiative) [6366] interactions of the energetic parton in the hot/dense QCD medium, while taking the next-to-leading order (NLO) plus parton shower (PS) generated initial hard parton spectrum [67] as input, to study the in-medium modification of the vector boson Z0 tagged b-jets. This framework was employed to describe the heavy-flavor jet production of high-energy nuclear collisions in our previous studies [6873]. We first present our numerical results for Z0 + jet and compare them with the available experimental data to test the applicability of our model. Then, we calculate the angular correlations of Z0 + b-jet in A+A collisions and demonstrate that the modifications of these correlations are sensitive to the initial b-jet pT distribution instead of the azimuthal angle. In contrast to the case of Z0 + jet, the requirement of b-tagging excludes the contribution from multiple jets, so that the azimuthal angular correlations of Z0 + b-jet show distinct pattern modifications. With the high purity of the light-quark jet in Z0 + jet events [21, 47], we expect to address the mass dependence of the jet quenching effects between Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet.

    The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the productions of Z0 + b-jet in p+p collisions calculated via the Monte Carlo event generator and comparisons with experimental data. In Sec. III, we discuss our treatments of the jet in-medium evolution in A+A collisions. In Sec. IV, we present the simulated results and discussions of the azimuthal angular correlation, transverse momentum imbalance, and nuclear modification factor of Z0 + b-jet in HIC. Finally, Sec. V summarizes the study.

    Before we move into the study on Z0 + b-jet production in HIC, we should address its production in p+p collisions. Figure 1 shows a few processes [39] contributing to the associated production of a Z0 boson and b-jet. In Figs. 1(a) and (b), an initial bottom quark from the parton distribution function (PDF) derived from the gluon distribution of one beam particle suffers the hard scattering and then turns into a b-jet and a Z0 boson in the final state. In the bottom two diagrams, the bˉb pairs originate from the hard scattering and then turn into two b-jets associated with an emitted Z0 boson in the final state.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Feynman diagrams contributing to the associated production of the b-jet with the Z0 boson.

    In this work, we use the MC@NLO event generator SHERPA [67] to obtain the initial Z0 + b-jet production in a p+p collision. The tree-level matrix elements are calculated using the internal modules Amegic [74] and Comix [75], and the one-loop virtual correction is calculated using the external program BlackHat [76]. The parton shower based on the Catani-Seymour [77] subtraction method is matched with NLO QCD matrix elements via the MC@NLO method [78]. The NLO PDF from NNPDF3.0 [79] with a 5-flavor scheme has been chosen in the calculations. FastJet [80] with an anti-kT algorithm is used in the final-state jet reconstruction.

    To compare our calculation results based on SHERPA with experimental data for p+p collisions, the same configurations implemented by the CMS collaboration [45] were used in our simulations. The Z0 boson is reconstructed according to its decay channels Z0e+e and Z0μ+μ. The transverse momentum of the electron and muon candidates is required to be larger than 20 GeV. To exclude the barrel-endcap transition region, the electrons are selected within the pseudorapidity region |η|<1.44 or 1.57<|η|<2.4, while muons are selected within |η|<2.4. According to the requirement of the experiment, the events are considered only when the invariant mass of the electron or muon pairs lies in the region 70<Mll<111 GeV. The jets associated with the Z0 boson are reconstructed by FastJet using the anti-kT algorithm with a cone size of R=0.5. To reduce the contribution from the underlying event, the reconstructed jets must be in the pseudorapidity region |ηjet|<2.4 and have pT,jet>30 GeV. The contribution from the underlying event is less than 5%, as estimated by CMS [45], because the production of softer jets is significantly suppressed by this requirement.

    For events with at least one b-jet, we show the differential cross sections calculated via SHERPA as a function of the leading b-jet pT and Z0 boson pT in Fig. 2. In the upper panel of Fig. 3, the azimuthal angular correlation between the leading b-jet and Z0 boson (ΔϕbZ=|ϕbϕZ|) is compared between the calculation and the CMS data. In the lower panel of Fig. 3, for events with two b-jets (hereinafter Z0+2 b-jets), we plot the differential cross sections as a function of the azimuthal angle between the two b-jets (Δϕbb=|ϕb1ϕb2|). To quantify the deviation of our calculations from the experimental data points, we estimate the χ2/d.o.f of these observables and present their values in the figures, where χ2=i[DiTi]2δ2i; Di and δi are the center value and uncertainties, respectively, of the i-th experimental data point; Ti represents the theoretical value; and d.o.f represents the number of compared data points. Our calculations based on SHERPA agree well with the experimental measurements.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Differential cross section of Z0 + b-jet simulated by SHERPA (blue line) in the p+p collision at s=8 TeV as a function of the transverse momentum of the highest-pT b-jet (upper panel) and transverse momentum of the Z0 boson (bottom panel) compared with the CMS data [45]; the χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data is also presented in the plots.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Differential cross section of Z0 + b-jet simulated by SHERPA (blue line) in the p+p collision at s=8 TeV as a function of the azimuthal angular difference ΔϕbZ=|ϕbϕZ| of the Z0 boson and b-jet (upper panel) and azimuthal angular difference Δϕbb=|ϕb1ϕb2| of the two b-jets (bottom panel) compared with the CMS data [45]; the χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data is also presented in the plots.

    In high-energy nuclear collisions, a droplet of an exotic state of nuclear matter, i.e., QGP, is expected to be formed. The high pT partons produced in the hard scattering propagating in the QGP suffer both collisional and radiative energy loss as a result of the in-medium interaction. Numerous theoretical approaches [8188] and Monte Claro models [8996] have been developed in the last two decades to describe the heavy flavor meson production in HIC at the RHIC and LHC. Among them, the Langevin transport equations have been employed effectively to describe the heavy quark evolution in the expanding QCD medium [62, 68, 69, 97100]. Because complete treatment of the heavy quark jets propagating in the QGP usually needs a simultaneous description of space-time evolution for both light and heavy partons [52, 87, 101, 102], we use the modified Langevin equations [62, 68, 69] to describe the propagation of heavy quarks in QGP and take into account the in-medium energy loss of light partons [6366, 103, 104]. Additionally, owing to the lack of a unified theoretical approach that covers the full phase space of in-medium jet evolution in HIC, there are usually two methods to combine the vacuum parton shower with the medium-induced radiation [105, 106]. The first one is to introduce medium modifications on the vacuum parton splitting at a higher virtuality scale tˆqτf (where ˆq is the jet transport parameter and τf is the formation length of the radiated gluon), as in the Q-PYTHIA [107], MATTER [108], and JEWEL [109] models. In this work, we employ the alternative treatment implemented in LBT [110] and MARTINI [111] to simulate the jet energy loss at low virtuality tˆqτf and high energy Eq (where q represents the momentum exchange between the hard parton and the hot medium). According to this strategy, we take the p+p events produced by SHERPA with a full vacuum parton shower as the input, sample their initial spatial positions using the MC-Glauber model [112], and then simulate the subsequent in-medium evolution.

    The movement of a heavy quark with large mass (MT) propagating in the hot/dense nuclear matter and suffering a large number of random kicks from the medium can be modeled as a Brownian motion [97]. Hence, a discrete Langevin equation can be utilized to describe the propagation of heavy quarks in the QCD medium [62, 68, 69, 90]:

    x(t+Δt)=x(t)+p(t)EΔt,

    (1)

    p(t+Δt)=p(t)Γ(p)pΔt+ξ(t)Δtpg,

    (2)

    where Δt represents the timestep in the Monte Carlo simulation, and Γ(p) is the drag coefficient representing the dissipation effect and controlling the strength of quasi-elastic scattering. ξ(t) is the stochastic term that obeys a Gaussian probability distribution, i.e.,

    W[ξ(t)]=Nexp[ξ(t)22κ/Δt],

    (3)

    and leads to

    ξi(t)=0,

    (4)

    ξi(t)ξj(t)=κδij(tt).

    (5)

    The diffusion coefficient κ is related to the drag coefficient Γ by the fluctuation-dissipation relation [113]:

    κ=2ΓET=2T2Ds,

    (6)

    where Ds is the spacial diffusion coefficient. The last term pg is the recoil momentum due to the medium-induced gluon radiation, which is discussed in the following section. At each timestep, we boost partons to the local rest frame of the expanding medium to update the four-momentum and then boost them back to the laboratory frame to update the spatial position. Note that the procedure is done for T>Tc, where Tc=165 MeV is the QCD transition temperature [114, 115]. The space-time evolution profile of the bulk medium in Pb+Pb collision is provided by the smoothed VISHNU [116] code. Even though the event-by-event fluctuation effects on the jet energy loss are small, the initial geometry fluctuation may be non-negligible for other observables such as particle collective flow (vn) [117119].

    Meanwhile, the calculation for leading logarithmic accuracy at Hard-Thermal-Loop approximation [103, 104] is employed in our framework to take into account the collisional energy loss of light quarks and gluons:

    dEdL=αsCsμ2D2lnETμD,

    (7)

    where L represents the transport path of the partons along the propagating direction, αs is the strong coupling constant, Cs is the quadratic Casimir in color representation, and μD represents the Debye screening mass in the QCD medium. Note that Eq. (7) is only employed for light partons to consider their collisional energy loss because they cannot be treated as massive particles to evolve in the medium with the Langevin equations. During each timestep, the amount of collisional energy loss of a light parton can be calculated by integrating Eq. (7). Because medium-induced gluon radiation is the dominant energy loss mechanism for light partons, this treatment can be regarded as an effective approximation.

    The inelastic scattering also plays an important role in the in-medium energy loss of energetic partons [120, 121]. In our work, the Higher-Twist (HT) radiated gluon spectra [6366] is implemented to simulate the medium-induced gluon radiation when a parton propagates in the dense and hot QCD matter:

    dNdxdk2dt=2αsCsP(x)ˆqπk4sin2(tti2τf)(k2k2+x2m2)4,

    (8)

    where x and k represent the energy fraction and the transverse momentum of the radiated gluon, respectively. αs is the strong coupling constant, which is fixed at αs=0.3 in our calculations, Cs is the quadratic Casimir in color representation, and P(x) is the splitting function [122] for the splitting processes qq+g and gg+g (gq+ˉq process is negligible owing to its low probability [100]).

    Pqqg(x)=(1x)(1+(1x)2)x,

    (9)

    Pggg(x)=2(1x+x2)3x(1x),

    (10)

    τf is the radiated gluon formation time defined as τf=2Ex(1x)/(k2+x2m2), and tti is the time interval between two instances of inelastic scattering. In the rigorous Higher-Twist calculations, the splitting function P(x) of heavy quarks should be mass dependent [65]. Nevertheless, as a simplified treatment in many transport models, such as LBT [93, 110], QLBT [123], and BAMPS [124, 125], it's convenient to uniformly write P(x) as a massless form for heavy and light quarks, while the dominant mass effect of the gluon radiation spectra of heavy quarks can be approximately presented as an overall factor (k2/(k2+x2m2))4. Additionally, ˆq is the jet transport coefficient [126]:

    ˆq(τ,r)=q0ρQGP(τ,r)ρQGP(τ0,0)pμuμp0,

    (11)

    where ˆq0 denotes the value of ˆq at the center of the bulk medium at the initial time τ0=0.6fm/c, and ρQGP(τ,r) is the parton number density where the parton is probed. To take into account the radial flow effect [127], the four-momentum of parton pμ and the four flow velocity of the medium in the collision frame uμ act as a modification for ˆq in an expanding nuclear medium. We still hold that ˆq/T3=const. in the current framework as an effective approximation. More studies focusing on the puzzle of the temperature dependence of ˆq/T3 can be found in the Refs. [6, 92, 128130]. The last term of Eq. (8) represents the dead-cone effect [51, 65] which suppresses the gluon radiation of heavy quarks at a small angle (θM/E) owing to their large mass. We also noticed the up-to-data development of the HT approach in Ref. [131] achieved by including both transverse and longitudinal momentum exchanges between hard partons and the QCD medium and will consider their results in our framework in the future.

    An imposed cut-off of the radiated gluon energy fraction xmin=μDE is taken to avoid the divergence near x0, where μ2D=4παs(1+nf6)T2 is the Debye screening mass induced by the QGP medium. Therefore, following the method introduced in [93], one can estimate the mean number of radiated gluonsN(t,Δt) during a timestep Δt by integrating the phase space of x, k, and t in Eq. (8):

    N(t,Δt)=t+Δttdt1xmindx(xE)20dk2dNdxdk2dt.

    (12)

    By assuming that the multiple gluon radiation is a Poisson process, we obtain the probability distribution of the radiation number P(n,t,Δt) during a timestep, as well as the total inelastic scattering probability Prad(t,Δt):

    P(n,t,Δt)=N(t,Δt)nn!eN(t,Δt),

    (13)

    Prad(t,Δt)=1eN(t,Δt).

    (14)

    In our Monte Carlo simulation, during every timestep, the Prad(t,Δt) is first evaluated to determine whether the radiation occurs. If accepted, the Possion distribution function P(n,t,Δt) is used for the sampling of the radiated gluon number. Finally, the four-momentum of the radiated gluon can be sampled according to the spectrum dN/dxdk2 expressed in Eq. (8). In Fig. 4, for a consistent comparison between our Monte Carlo simulation and the analytical calculation, we estimate the collisional and radiative energy losses of the gluons, light quarks, charm, and bottom in a static medium (T=400 MeV). Here we fix the parton energy (50 GeV) at each evolution timestep and also restore the initial time ti in Eq. (8) to be 0 (same as the treatment in Ref. [91]) because their variations during the Monte Carlo simulation are not automatically included in the analytical calculation. We find that the MC results agree well with the analytical calculations. For the collisional energy loss, the ΔEcoll of the gluon is 9/4 times that of the light quark owing to the large color factor, and in our framework, the ΔEcoll of the heavy quark is comparable to that of the light quark. For the radiative energy loss, a clear mass hierarchy for different parton species can be found: ΔEgrad>ΔEqrad>ΔEcrad> ΔEbrad. For a long propagation time t=4 fm, we find that the radiative energy loss dominates the total parton energy loss because of its quadratic dependence on the path length.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Collisional (a) and radiative (b) energy losses of gluons, light quarks, charm, and bottom with initial energy E0=50 GeV in a static medium with temperature T=400 MeV. The Monte Carlo simulations are compared with the semi-analytical calculations.

    In general, there are two parameters in our framework that need to be determined: the jet transport coefficient ˆq and the diffusion coefficient Ds. We treat ˆq and κ as two independent parameters to be constrained by experimental data. First, the value of ˆq is determined via global extraction of the single hadron production in Pb+Pb collisions [132], in which q0=1.2 GeV2/fm is obtained at the LHC energy. After ˆq is fixed, we extract the best value Ds(2πT)4 via χ2 fitting to the D meson RAA data [133, 134], which is consistent with the results of Ds(2πT)=3.77 reported by the Lattice QCD [135].

    In this section, to estimate the medium modification of jet observables in nucleus-nucleus collisions, we use the p+p events provided by SHERPA as the input of our simulation within the hydrodynamic background to study the in-medium jet evolution. Before proceeding to the Z0 tagged b-jet, we calculate the azimuthal angular correlation (ΔϕjZ=|ϕjetϕZ|) and transverse momentum imbalance (xjZ=pjetT/pZT) of Z0 + jet, as well as the nuclear modification factor RAA of the inclusive b-jet, and compare our theoretical results with the available experimental data. Then, we calculate the Z0 + b-jet observables, including the azimuthal angular correlation between the Z0 boson and b-jet (ΔϕbZ=|ϕbjetϕZ|), angle separation between the two Z-tagged b-jets (Δϕbb=|ϕb1ϕb2|), transverse momentum (xbZ=pbjetT/pZT), and nuclear modification factor IAA [21, 35] defined as

    IAA=1NbindNAAdpjetT|pminT<pZT<pmaxTdNppdpjetT|pminT<pZT<pmaxT.

    (15)

    Here, Nbin denotes the average number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions among A+A collisions calculated via the Glauber model [112].

    In Fig. 5, we show our calculated ΔϕjZ distributions for both p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV compared with the CMS experimental data [31]. Additionally, the χ2/d.o.f of our model fitting to the CMS data for both p+p and Pb+Pb are presented. The same configurations in the jet reconstruction used by the CMS are employed. All final-state jets are reconstructed by FastJet using the anti-kT algorithm with R=0.3 and require pjetT>30 GeV. The selected Z0 bosons are reconstructed by the electron or muon pairs based on their decay channels (Z0e+e and Z0μ+μ) and require pZT>60 GeV. Note that these distributions are normalized by the number of Z0events, and the transverse momentum imbalances are subjected to Gaussian smearing [31] to take into account the detector resolution effects. This reveals that the distribution of azimuthal angular correlation in Pb+Pb collisions suffers a suppression in a small ΔϕjZ region relative to the p+p baseline, which is consistent with the CMS measurement. However, in a large angle region (ΔϕjZπ, where the Z0 boson and jet are almost back-to-back), this suppression is not very apparent. The reason for this behavior has been discussed in detail [26, 34]; i.e., the small ΔϕjZ region is dominated by the multiple-jet processes and the large ΔϕjZ region is dominated by soft/collinear radiation. Usually, the jet energy of multiple-jet processes is relatively low and easier to be shifted below the jet selection threshold (30 GeV) because of parton energy loss [27]. We also notice two significant differences between the p+p and Pb+Pb CMS data near ΔϕjZ=π/2 and ΔϕjZ=7π/8, and our results cannot fit these points well. However, similar abnormal behaviors of the CMS data are not found in the measurements of the γ-jet [136]; hence, we guess that they may be caused by the statistical fluctuations in the experiment.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) Distributions of the azimuthal angle difference ΔϕjZ between the Z0 boson and the jet both in p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV compared with CMS data [31]. The distributions are scaled by the number of Z0 events N in p+p collisions. The values of χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data for both p+p and Pb+Pb are also presented in the plots.

    In Fig. 6, we compute xjZ distribution for Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV compared with the CMS data. The χ2/d.o.f are also presented in the figures, indicating that our calculations are consistent with the experimental data, but the p+p baseline needs to be improved. Note here that selected Z0 + jet pairs are required to be almost back-to-back (ΔϕjZ>7π/8). Relative to the p+p baseline, in Pb+Pb collisions, we find that the xjZ distribution is shifted toward smaller values, exhibiting an enhancement at 0<xjZ<0.7 and suppression at 0.7<xjZ<2. As xjZ represents the transverse momentum imbalance of Z0 and the jet, it can be understood that for each Z0 + jet pair, the values of xjZ decrease owing to the jet energy loss and thus are shifted to a smaller xjZ observed in the final state.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) Distributions of the transverse momentum balance xjZ of Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV compared with CMS data [31]. The distribution is normalized by the number of Z0 events and Z0 + jet pairs are required with ΔϕjZ>7π/8. The values of χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data for both p+p and Pb+Pb are also presented in the plots.

    In Fig. 7, we investigate the nuclear modification factor RAA of the inclusive b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeV in comparison with the CMS measurements [58] to test our model calculations. The values of χ2/d.o.f are shown in each panel of Fig. 7 to quantify the deviation of our calculations from the CMS data for different centrality bins. We find that our calculations are essentially consistent with the experimental data, but we may need to pay attention to some discrepancies. First, our theoretical results show weak pT dependence, but the experimental RAA appears to increase visibly with the jet pT in the 10%–30% and 30%–50% centrality bins. Second, some data points (pT=100 GeV at 0%−10% and 10%−30%, pT=210 GeV at 30%–50% and 50%–100%) cannot be well described by our calculations.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7.  (color online) Nuclear modification factor RAA of the b-jet. The p+p baseline is provided by SHERPA, and the theoretical calculations are compared with CMS data [58] at centralities of 0%−10%, 10%−30%, 30%−50%, and 50%−100%. The values of χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data are also presented in the plots.

    The good agreement between our model calculations and the data of the Z0 + jet and inclusive b-jet makes it possible to study the medium modification of the Z0 + b-jet in nuclear-nuclear collisions. In Fig. 8, we calculate the azimuthal angular correlation of the Z0 boson and b-jet in p+p and 0%–10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV. The b-jets associated with the Z0 boson are reconstructed by FastJet using the anti-kT algorithm with a cone size of ΔR=0.5, |ηjet|<2.4, and pjetT>30 GeV for both p+p and Pb+Pb collisions. These distributions are normalized by the initial Z0 + b-jet event number (in p+p collision) to address the medium modification. We observe an overall suppression in Pb+Pb collisions relative to the p+p baseline. We show their ratio PbPb/pp in the middle panel of Fig. 8 and find that the suppression for the Z0 + b-jet has a far weaker dependence on ΔϕbZ than that for the Z0 + jet, which exhibits stronger suppression in a small ΔϕjZ region where multiple jets dominate. All the selected jets must first be b quark tagged, and this requirement significantly reduces the contribution from multiple-jet processes when we consider the azimuthal angular (ΔϕbZ) distribution.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8.  (color online) Upper panel: distributions of the azimuthal angular correlation of the Z0 boson and b-jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV; the distributions are scaled by the number of Z0 + b-jet events N in p+p collisions. Middle panel: ratio of the azimuthal angle correlations in Pb+Pb to p+p. Bottom panel: averaged b-jet transverse momentum pT as a function of ΔϕbZ

    To address the key factor that leads to the flat suppression on ΔϕbZ distribution, we estimate the averaged b-jet transverse momentum pT as a function of ΔϕbZ, which can be calculated by:

    pT(Δϕ)=dσdpTdΔϕpTdpTdσdpTdΔϕdpT.

    (16)

    The decrease of the selected event number in A+A collisions results from the in-medium energy loss, which shifts lower pT jet below the kinematic selection cut. The initial pT distribution actually reflects the ΔϕbZ dependence of this shift. It turns out that the distribution of pT versus ΔϕbZ is nearly a constant value at 55 GeV as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 8, which leads to the rather flat suppression on ΔϕbZ distribution. Here the band of pT distribution represents the statistical standard errors in the simulations.

    As mentioned in Sec. II, the azimuthal angular separation Δϕbb of the two b-jets tagged by Z0 boson is also a useful observable to distinguish the contribution from subprocesses where Z0 boson is emitted from one of the final state b quark or gluon splitting (gbˉb) [41], as shown in diagrams (c) and (d) of Fig. 1. Note that these two categories of contributions corresponding to the cases that the two b-jets are almost back-to-back or collinear. What interests us is how the Δϕbb distribution of these two categories of Z0+2 b-jets would be modified in the QGP. As shown in the top panel of Fig. 9, we plot the Δϕbb distributions both in p+p and 0−10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV and also plot the ratio PbPb/pp in the middle panel. In the upper panel, we can find a kink at Δϕbbπ/5 and a peak at Δϕbbπ in Fig. 9, which present the two contributions of Z0+2 b-jet production: the two b-jets are almost back-to-back or collinear. The two-peaks distribution is similar to what we have observed in the angular correlations of bˉb dijets [68], and the peaks at smaller and larger Δϕbb regions corresponding to the gluon splitting (GSP) processes and flavor creation (FCR) processes. In the middle panel, we observe an upward trend of the ratio from 0.5 to 0.7 as Δϕbb increases. To figure out the Δϕbb dependence of the ratio PbPb/pp, we estimate the initial jet pT of the leading and sub-leading b-jet in p+p collisions, as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 9. We find that, for both the leading and subleading one, pT is increasing with Δϕbb, which shows a similar trend with that of the ratio PbPb/pp versus Δϕbb. It may indicate that the medium modification of Δϕbb in Pb+Pb has a close connection with the initial b-jet pT distribution versus Δϕbb in p+p collisions.

    Figure 9

    Figure 9.  (color online) Distributions of the azimuthal angular separation Δϕbb of the two b-jets tagged by Z0 boson both in p+p and 0−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, the distributions are scaled by the Z0+2 b-jets event number N in p+p collisions. Middle panel: ratio of the azimuthal angular separation in Pb+Pb to that in p+p. Bottom panel: averaged transverse momentum of the leading and the sub-leading b-jet as a function of Δϕbb.

    The associated production of Z0 + jet may shed new light on the mass dependence of the jet quenching effect in nuclear matter, owing to the high purity of light-quark-initiated jets. In Ref. [47], the contributions from light-quark-jets and gluon-jets in the Z0 + jet production are approximately 70% and 30%, respectively. To verify this point, in Fig. 10, we estimate the gluon-jet fraction in four categories of jets in p+p collisions at 5.02 TeV: inclusive jet, inclusive b-jet, Z0 tagged jet, and Z0 tagged b-jet. The gluon-jet in the events can be identified by requiring that the gluon is the leading parton in the jets, which can be easily implemented in the FastJet program. We find that at pjetT50 GeV, the gluon-jet fraction is approximately 50% for the inclusive jet and 30% for the Z0 tagged jet. The Z0-tagging requirement considerably decreases the gluon jet contribution (by 40%), especially at a low pT. More importantly, for the inclusive b-jet and Z0 tagged b-jet, the contributions from the gluon-jet are significantly suppressed owing to the requirement of b-quark tagging and show almost equal values.

    Figure 10

    Figure 10.  (color online) Gluon initiated jet fraction as a function of the transverse momentum of the inclusive jet (red dash), inclusive b-jet (blue dash), Z0 + jet (red solid), and Z0 + b-jet (blue solid).

    We plot the scaled xjZ distributions of Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%–10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV in Fig. 11(a) and, with the same configuration, the xbZ distributions of Z0 + b-jet in Fig. 11(b). All the selected jets (b-jets) must satisfy ΔϕjZ>7π/8 (ΔϕbZ>7π/8) to guarantee that they are almost back-to-back with the Z0 boson. We observe that the distributions of xJ shift toward smaller values for both Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions relative to their p+p baselines, owing to the energy loss of the tagged jets. To perform a more intuitive comparison between Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet, we show the difference of the xJ distribution in Pb+Pb from that in p+p (see the bottom panels of Figs. 11(a) and (b)), which have positive values at 0.2<xJ<0.8 and negative values at 0.8<xJ<1.6. Then, we find that the absolute value of the difference (PbPb-pp) of Z0 + jet is larger than that of Z0 + b-jet. Furthermore, we estimate the shifting of the mean value of momentum imbalance ΔxjZ=xjZppxjZPbPb for Z0 + jet, and ΔxbZ=xbZppxbZPbPb for Z0 + b-jet, as shown in Table 1.

    Figure 11

    Figure 11.  (color online) (a) xjZ distributions of Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, as well as their difference in Pb+Pb to p+p. The distributions are normalized by the Z0 + jet number in both p+p and Pb+Pb collisions. (b): xbZ distributions of Z0 + b-jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, as well as their difference in Pb+Pb to p+p. The distributions are normalized by the Z0 + b-jet number in both p+p and Pb+Pb collisions.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Mean value of momentum imbalance xJ of Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in both p+p and 0%–10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, as well as the shifting of the mean value of momentum imbalance ΔxJ=xJppxJPbPb. The standard errors of xJ in the simulations are also presented.
    Z0+ jet Z0 + b-jet
    xJpp 0.987±0.0047 0.941±0.0056
    xJPbPb 0.851±0.0061 0.849±0.0064
    ΔxJ 0.136±0.0108 0.092±0.012
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    xJ=1σdσdxJxJdxJ.

    (17)

    Here, J denotes different processes. Note that the standard errors of xJ in our simulations are also presented in Table 1. We find that within the statistical uncertainties, ΔxjZ (0.136±0.0108) for Z0 + jet is visibly larger than ΔxbZ (0.092±0.012) for Z0 + b-jet, indicating stronger modifications to the light-quark jet compared with the b-jet. Note that xjZ (xbZ) is defined by the ratio of jet (b-jet) pT to Z0 boson pT. The shifting of xjZ (xbZ) toward smaller values is directly related to the amount of jet (b-jet) energy loss; hence, ΔxjZ>ΔxbZ indicates that light quark jets lose more energy than b-jets.

    The nuclear modification factor IAA is practically another good observable to address the mass hierarchy and flavor dependence of the jet quenching effect. Comparisons of IAA between Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet would provide more reliable evidence of the mass effect of jet quenching. For this purpose, we present the calculations of IAA of Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV as a function of jet pT within three pZT windows in Fig. 12. First, we find different shapes of IAA in these three panels. In the left panel (40<pZT<60 GeV), the two curves of IAA for Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet are flat, but in the right panel (80<pZT<120 GeV), the curves show enhancement at pjetT<80 GeV. This is because if we constrain 80<pZT<120 GeV in the event selection, the cross section at pjetT<80 GeV is steeper, falling with jet pT. Then, the jets shifting from a higher pT to a lower pT because of the in-medium energy loss naturally lead to the relatively large IAA values in the lower pjetT region, even larger than one. Additionally, we observe smaller values of IAA for Z + jet relative to those for Z + b-jet in the three panels of Fig. 12, which indicates that the yield of Z0 tagged light-quark jets suffers stronger suppression after traversing the QCD matter than that of Z0 tagged b-jets. Note that IAA is directly related to the pT shifting of the tagged jets due to in-medium energy loss. The smaller value of IAA for Z0 + jet indicates a larger jet pT shift compared with that of Z0 + b-jet, suggesting that the energy loss of Z0 tagged b-jets is smaller than that of Z0 tagged light-quark jets. Our conclusions are consistent with the recent ATLAS measurements [61], which indicate that the RAA of the b-jet is higher than that of the inclusive jet. We hope that our complementary predictions can be tested via future measurements at the LHC, which may be helpful for solving the puzzle of the mass hierarchy of jet quenching.

    Figure 12

    Figure 12.  (color online) Nuclear modification factor as a function of the transverse momentum of Z0 + jet (blue line) and Z0 + b-jet (red line) within three pZT ranges, i.e., 40−60 GeV, 60−80 GeV, and 80−120 GeV, in 0%−10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV.

    Vector boson-tagged heavy quark jets are promising new tools for studying the jet quenching effect. In this work, we present a Monte Carlo transport simulation, which takes into account the elastic and inelastic jet interactions within a hydrodynamic background, to study the in-medium modification of Z0 tagged b-jets. The NLO+PS event generator SHERPA was used to provide the p+p baseline of Z0 + b-jet production, which agreed well with the CMS measurements. This framework has been proven to give good descriptions of medium modifications of the ΔϕjZ and xjZ of Z0 + jet, as well as the RAA of the inclusive b-jet, measured in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC.

    The angular correlation between the vector boson and heavy quark-tagged jets may be a new promising observable for studying the in-medium jet interaction. We present the first calculation of the azimuthal angular correlation ΔϕbZ of Z0 + b-jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV. We observe a flat suppression factor versus ΔϕbZ, in contrast to the case of Z0 + jet, because the requirement of b-tagging excludes the contribution from multiple-jet processes. Additionally, we calculate the medium modification of the azimuthal angular correlation Δϕbb in central Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV and observe stronger suppression in a smaller Δϕbb region of the distribution relative to that at Δϕbbπ. By analyzing the pT distribution of the tagged b-jets, we find that the medium modification pattern on ΔϕbZ (Δϕbb) in Pb+Pb has a close connection with the initial pT distribution versus ΔϕbZ (Δϕbb) in p+p collisions. These investigations may help us to understand the experimental measurements of jet angular correlations at the LHC in recent years, e.g., for the γ + jet and Z0 + jet.

    Finally, we predict that the mass effect of jet quenching can be addressed by comparing the medium modifications of Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet. With the high purity of the quark jet in Z0 + (b-) jet events, we estimate the medium modification of the transverse momentum imbalance xjZ (xbZ) and the nuclear modification factor IAA for both Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions. We find a larger shift of xjZ and stronger suppression of IAA for Z0 + jet than for Z0 + b-jet, indicating that b-jets lose less energy than light quark jets. These predictions can be tested via future measurements at the LHC and may provide a key to solving the puzzle of the mass hierarchy of jet quenching.

    [1] X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1480 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1480
    [2] M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X. N. Wang et al., Quark gluon plasma 3, 123 (2004) doi: 10.1142/9789812795533_0003
    [3] G. Y. Qin and X. N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530014 (2015) doi: 10.1142/S0218301315300143
    [4] I. Vitev, S. Wicks and B. W. Zhang, JHEP 2008, 093 (2008) doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/11/093
    [5] I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 132001 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132001
    [6] K. M. Burke et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 014909 (2014), arXiv:1312.5003[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014909
    [7] S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet et al., JHEP 2002, 028 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204023 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/028
    [8] R. Boughezal, J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 152001 (2016), arXiv:1512.01291[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.152001
    [9] A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 022001 (2016), arXiv:1507.02850[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.022001
    [10] R. Boughezal, C. Focke, X. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 062002 (2015), arXiv:1504.02131[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.062002
    [11] R. F. Peierls, T. L. Trueman and L. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1397 (1977) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1397
    [12] G. Aad et al., JHEP 2013, 032 (2013), arXiv:1304.7098[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2013)032
    [13] G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 052004 (2014), arXiv:1311.1440[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.052004
    [14] M. Aaboud et al., Nucl. Phys. B 918, 257 (2017), arXiv:1611.06586[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.03.006
    [15] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 2014, 009 (2014), arXiv:1311.6141[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)009
    [16] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 112009 (2013), arXiv:1310.3082[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.112009
    [17] V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 052008 (2015), arXiv:1408.3104[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052008
    [18] V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 2014, 173 (2014), arXiv:1405.1994[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2014)173
    [19] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 092005 (2018), arXiv:1712.02345[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005
    [20] G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 092002 (2012), arXiv:1201.1276[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.092002
    [21] R. B. Neufeld, I. Vitev and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034902 (2011), arXiv:1006.2389[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.034902
    [22] X. N. Wang, Z. Huang and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 231 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605213 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.231
    [23] X. N. Wang and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062301 (2013), arXiv:1302.5874[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.062301
    [24] W. Dai, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 142001 (2013), arXiv:1207.5177[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.142001
    [25] G. Y. Qin, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2959 (2014), arXiv:1210.6610[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2959-3
    [26] T. Luo, S. Cao, Y. He et al., Phys. Lett. B 782, 707 (2018), arXiv:1803.06785[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.025
    [27] S. L. Zhang, T. Luo, X. N. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 021901 (2018), arXiv:1804.11041[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.021901
    [28] N. B. Chang, Y. Tachibana and G. Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135181 (2020), arXiv:1906.09562[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135181
    [29] W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo et al., Phys. Lett. B 777, 86 (2018), arXiv:1704.03648[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.015
    [30] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 718, 773 (2013), arXiv:1205.0206[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.003
    [31] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 082301 (2017), arXiv:1702.01060[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.082301
    [32] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 152001 (2019), arXiv:1809.08602[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.152001
    [33] M. Aaboud et al., Phys. Lett. B 789, 167 (2019), arXiv:1809.07280[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.023
    [34] L. Chen, G. Y. Qin, L. Wang et al., Nucl. Phys. B 933, 306 (2018), arXiv:1803.10533[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.06.013
    [35] Z. B. Kang, I. Vitev and H. Xing, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014912 (2017), arXiv:1702.07276[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.014912
    [36] J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano et al., JHEP 1603, 053 (2016), arXiv:1508.00815[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2016)053
    [37] R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 695 (2016), arXiv:1608.03099[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4534-6
    [38] J. Yan, S. Y. Chen, W. Dai et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 024102 (2021), arXiv:2005.01093[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abca2b
    [39] G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B 706, 295 (2012), arXiv:1109.1403[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.11.059
    [40] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 2012, 126 (2012), arXiv:1204.1643[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2012)126
    [41] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 2013, 039 (2013), arXiv:1310.1349[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2013)039
    [42] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 2014, 012003 (2014), arXiv:1310.3687[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.012003
    [43] G. Aad et al., JHEP 2014, 141 (2014), arXiv:1407.3643[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)141
    [44] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 1406, 120 (2014), arXiv:1402.1521[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)120
    [45] V. Khachatryan et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 751 (2017), arXiv:1611.06507[hep-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5140-y
    [46] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 710, 284 (2012), arXiv:1202.4195[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.085
    [47] V. Kartvelishvili, R. Kvatadze and R. Shanidze, Phys. Lett. B 356, 589 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505418 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00865-I
    [48] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nature605, 440 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 607, E22 (2022)], arXiv: 2106.05713
    [49] Y. L. Dokshitzer and D. Kharzeev, Phys. Lett. B 519, 199 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106202[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01130-3
    [50] B. W. Zhang, E. Wang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0309040[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.072301
    [51] N. Armesto, C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 69, 114003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312106[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.114003
    [52] R. Sharma, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054902 (2009), arXiv:0904.0032[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.054902
    [53] W. J. Xing, S. Cao, G. Y. Qin et al., Phys. Lett. B 805, 135424 (2020), arXiv:1906.00413[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135424
    [54] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 90, 034910 (2014), arXiv:1407.3670[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.034910
    [55] V. Khachatryan et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 252 (2017), arXiv:1610.00613[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4781-1
    [56] U. A. Acharya et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), arXiv: 2203.17058
    [57] STAR Collaboration, arXiv: 2111.14615
    [58] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 132301 (2014), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 029903 (2014)], arXiv: 1312.4198
    [59] V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. C 96, 015202 (2017), arXiv:1609.05383[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.015202
    [60] A. M. Sirunyan et al., JHEP 2018, 181 (2018), arXiv:1802.00707[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2018)181
    [61] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv: 2204.13530
    [62] S. Cao, G. Y. Qin and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044907 (2013), arXiv:1308.0617[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044907
    [63] X. f. Guo and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3591 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005044 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3591
    [64] B. W. Zhang and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A 720, 429 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301195[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(03)01003-0
    [65] B. W. Zhang, E. k. Wang and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 493 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412060 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.04.022
    [66] A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014023 (2012), arXiv:0912.2987[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.014023
    [67] T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss et al., JHEP 2009, 007 (2009), arXiv:0811.4622[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007
    [68] W. Dai, S. Wang, S. L. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 104105 (2020), arXiv:1806.06332[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abab8f
    [69] S. Wang, W. Dai, B. W. Zhang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 789 (2019), arXiv:1906.01499[nucl-th doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7312-4
    [70] S. Wang, W. Dai, J. Yan et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121787 (2021), arXiv:2001.11660[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121787
    [71] S. Wang, W. Dai, B. W. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 064105 (2021), arXiv:2012.13935[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abf4f5
    [72] S. Wang, J. W. Kang, W. Dai et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 135 (2022), arXiv:2107.12000[nucl-th doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00785-9
    [73] Y. Li, S. Wang and B. W. Zhang, arXiv: 2209.00548
    [74] F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and G. Soff, JHEP 0202, 044 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109036 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/044
    [75] T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, JHEP 0812, 039 (2008), arXiv:0808.3674[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039
    [76] C. F. Berger, Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 183, 313 (2008), arXiv:0807.3705[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.09.123
    [77] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, JHEP 0803, 038 (2008), arXiv:0709.1027[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038
    [78] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0206, 029 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204244 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029
    [79] R. D. Ball et al., JHEP 1504, 040 (2015), arXiv:1410.8849[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040
    [80] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2
    [81] H. van Hees, M. Mannarelli, V. Greco et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 192301 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.192301
    [82] S. Caron-Huot and G. D. Moore, JHEP 0802, 081 (2008), arXiv:0801.2173[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/081
    [83] H. van Hees, V. Greco and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034913 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0508055 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.034913
    [84] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024918 (2015), arXiv:1505.04316[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.024918
    [85] M. He, R. J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 735, 445 (2014), arXiv:1401.3817[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.050
    [86] Y. T. Chien, A. Emerman, Z. B. Kang et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 074030 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074030
    [87] Z. B. Kang, F. Ringer and I. Vitev, JHEP 1703, 146 (2017), arXiv:1610.02043[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2017)146
    [88] W. M. Alberico, A. Beraudo, A. De Pace et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2481 (2013), arXiv:1305.7421[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2481-z
    [89] S. Cao and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064902 (2011), arXiv:1108.5101[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.064902
    [90] G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064904 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412346 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.064904
    [91] S. Cao, T. Luo, G. Y. Qin et al., Phys. Lett. B 777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.023
    [92] J. Xu, J. Liao and M. Gyulassy, JHEP 1602, 169 (2016), arXiv:1508.00552[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)169
    [93] S. Cao, T. Luo, G. Y. Qin et al., Phys. Rev. C 94, 014909 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.014909
    [94] S. K. Das, S. Plumari, S. Chatterjee et al., Phys. Lett. B 768, 260 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.046
    [95] W. Ke, Y. Xu and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 98, 064901 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.064901
    [96] S. Cao, G. Y. Qin and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024907 (2015), arXiv:1505.01413[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.024907
    [97] B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 37, 2484 (1988) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.2484
    [98] M. Nahrgang, J. Aichelin, P. B. Gossiaux et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 024907 (2014), arXiv:1305.3823[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024907
    [99] F. Scardina, S. K. Das, V. Minissale et al., Phys. Rev. C 96, 044905 (2017), arXiv:1707.05452[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044905
    [100] M. He, R. J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044911 (2012), arXiv:1112.5894[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044911
    [101] R. Rapp et al., Nucl. Phys. A 979, 21 (2018), arXiv:1803.03824[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.09.002
    [102] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Lett. B 734, 286 (2014), arXiv:1307.4098[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.053
    [103] R. B. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D 83, 065012 (2011), arXiv:1011.4979[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.065012
    [104] J. Huang, Z. B. Kang and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 726, 251 (2013), arXiv:1306.0909[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.009
    [105] N. Armesto, B. Cole, C. Gale et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 064904 (2012), arXiv:1106.1106[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.064904
    [106] S. Cao and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024903 (2020), arXiv:1712.10055[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.024903
    [107] N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 679 (2009), arXiv:0907.1014[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1133-9
    [108] A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014909 (2013), arXiv:1301.5323[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.014909
    [109] K. C. Zapp, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2762 (2014), arXiv:1311.0048[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2762-1
    [110] Y. He, T. Luo, X. N. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 91, 054908 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C Phys. Rev. C (2018)], arXiv: 1503.03313
    [111] B. Schenke, C. Gale and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054913 (2009), arXiv:0909.2037[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.054913
    [112] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025 doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020
    [113] R. Kubo, Rep. Pro. Phys. 29, 255 (1966) doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/29/1/306
    [114] Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz et al., Phys. Lett. B 643, 46 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0609068 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.10.021
    [115] M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 054507 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0608013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.054507
    [116] C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.08.039
    [117] T. Renk, H. Holopainen, J. Auvinen et al., Phys. Rev. C 85, 044915 (2012), arXiv:1105.2647[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044915
    [118] B. Betz, M. Gyulassy and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024913 (2011), arXiv:1102.5416[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024913
    [119] J. Noronha-Hostler, B. Betz, J. Noronha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 252301 (2016), arXiv:1602.03788[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.252301
    [120] B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 86, 444 (2007), arXiv:0708.0816[hep-ph doi: 10.1134/S0021364007190034
    [121] G. Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 072301 (2008), arXiv:0710.0605[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.072301
    [122] W. t. Deng and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024902 (2010), arXiv:0910.3403[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024902
    [123] F. L. Liu, W. J. Xing, X. Y. Wu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 350 (2022), arXiv:2107.11713[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10308-x
    [124] J. Uphoff, O. Fochler, Z. Xu et al., J. Phys. G 42, 115106 (2015), arXiv:1408.2964[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/42/11/115106
    [125] J. Uphoff, F. Senzel, O. Fochler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 112301 (2015), arXiv:1401.1364[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.112301
    [126] X. F. Chen, C. Greiner, E. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 064908 (2010), arXiv:1002.1165[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064908
    [127] R. Baier, A. H. Mueller and D. Schiff, Phys. Lett. B 649, 147 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0612068 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.048
    [128] A. Kumar, A. Majumder and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 101, 034908 (2020), arXiv:1909.03178[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.034908
    [129] C. AndrȦs, N. Armesto, M. Luzum et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 475 (2016), arXiv:1606.04837[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4320-5
    [130] M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang et al, arXiv: 2208.14419
    [131] L. Zhang, D. F. Hou and G. Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034913 (2018), arXiv:1804.00470[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034913
    [132] G. Y. Ma, W. Dai, B. W. Zhang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 518 (2019), arXiv:1812.02033[nucl-th doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7005-z
    [133] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 782, 474 (2018), arXiv:1708.04962[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.074
    [134] S. Acharya et al., JHEP 10, 174 (2018), arXiv:1804.09083[nucl-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)174
    [135] D. Banerjee, S. Datta, R. Gavai et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 014510 (2012), arXiv:1109.5738[hep-lat doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.014510
    [136] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 785, 14 (2018), arXiv:1711.09738[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.061
  • [1] X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1480 (1992) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1480
    [2] M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X. N. Wang et al., Quark gluon plasma 3, 123 (2004) doi: 10.1142/9789812795533_0003
    [3] G. Y. Qin and X. N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530014 (2015) doi: 10.1142/S0218301315300143
    [4] I. Vitev, S. Wicks and B. W. Zhang, JHEP 2008, 093 (2008) doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/11/093
    [5] I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 132001 (2010) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132001
    [6] K. M. Burke et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 014909 (2014), arXiv:1312.5003[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014909
    [7] S. Catani, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet et al., JHEP 2002, 028 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204023 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/028
    [8] R. Boughezal, J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 152001 (2016), arXiv:1512.01291[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.152001
    [9] A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 022001 (2016), arXiv:1507.02850[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.022001
    [10] R. Boughezal, C. Focke, X. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 062002 (2015), arXiv:1504.02131[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.062002
    [11] R. F. Peierls, T. L. Trueman and L. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1397 (1977) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1397
    [12] G. Aad et al., JHEP 2013, 032 (2013), arXiv:1304.7098[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2013)032
    [13] G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D 89, 052004 (2014), arXiv:1311.1440[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.052004
    [14] M. Aaboud et al., Nucl. Phys. B 918, 257 (2017), arXiv:1611.06586[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.03.006
    [15] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 2014, 009 (2014), arXiv:1311.6141[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)009
    [16] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 88, 112009 (2013), arXiv:1310.3082[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.112009
    [17] V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 052008 (2015), arXiv:1408.3104[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052008
    [18] V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 2014, 173 (2014), arXiv:1405.1994[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2014)173
    [19] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 092005 (2018), arXiv:1712.02345[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005
    [20] G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 092002 (2012), arXiv:1201.1276[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.092002
    [21] R. B. Neufeld, I. Vitev and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034902 (2011), arXiv:1006.2389[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.034902
    [22] X. N. Wang, Z. Huang and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 231 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605213 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.231
    [23] X. N. Wang and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062301 (2013), arXiv:1302.5874[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.062301
    [24] W. Dai, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 142001 (2013), arXiv:1207.5177[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.142001
    [25] G. Y. Qin, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2959 (2014), arXiv:1210.6610[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2959-3
    [26] T. Luo, S. Cao, Y. He et al., Phys. Lett. B 782, 707 (2018), arXiv:1803.06785[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.06.025
    [27] S. L. Zhang, T. Luo, X. N. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 021901 (2018), arXiv:1804.11041[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.021901
    [28] N. B. Chang, Y. Tachibana and G. Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135181 (2020), arXiv:1906.09562[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.135181
    [29] W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo et al., Phys. Lett. B 777, 86 (2018), arXiv:1704.03648[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.015
    [30] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 718, 773 (2013), arXiv:1205.0206[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.003
    [31] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 082301 (2017), arXiv:1702.01060[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.082301
    [32] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 152001 (2019), arXiv:1809.08602[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.152001
    [33] M. Aaboud et al., Phys. Lett. B 789, 167 (2019), arXiv:1809.07280[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.023
    [34] L. Chen, G. Y. Qin, L. Wang et al., Nucl. Phys. B 933, 306 (2018), arXiv:1803.10533[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.06.013
    [35] Z. B. Kang, I. Vitev and H. Xing, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014912 (2017), arXiv:1702.07276[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.014912
    [36] J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano et al., JHEP 1603, 053 (2016), arXiv:1508.00815[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2016)053
    [37] R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 695 (2016), arXiv:1608.03099[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4534-6
    [38] J. Yan, S. Y. Chen, W. Dai et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 024102 (2021), arXiv:2005.01093[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abca2b
    [39] G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B 706, 295 (2012), arXiv:1109.1403[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2011.11.059
    [40] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 2012, 126 (2012), arXiv:1204.1643[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2012)126
    [41] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 2013, 039 (2013), arXiv:1310.1349[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2013)039
    [42] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 2014, 012003 (2014), arXiv:1310.3687[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.012003
    [43] G. Aad et al., JHEP 2014, 141 (2014), arXiv:1407.3643[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2014)141
    [44] S. Chatrchyan et al., JHEP 1406, 120 (2014), arXiv:1402.1521[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2014)120
    [45] V. Khachatryan et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 751 (2017), arXiv:1611.06507[hep-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5140-y
    [46] S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 710, 284 (2012), arXiv:1202.4195[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.02.085
    [47] V. Kartvelishvili, R. Kvatadze and R. Shanidze, Phys. Lett. B 356, 589 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505418 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)00865-I
    [48] S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Nature605, 440 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 607, E22 (2022)], arXiv: 2106.05713
    [49] Y. L. Dokshitzer and D. Kharzeev, Phys. Lett. B 519, 199 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106202[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01130-3
    [50] B. W. Zhang, E. Wang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0309040[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.072301
    [51] N. Armesto, C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 69, 114003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312106[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.114003
    [52] R. Sharma, I. Vitev and B. W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054902 (2009), arXiv:0904.0032[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.054902
    [53] W. J. Xing, S. Cao, G. Y. Qin et al., Phys. Lett. B 805, 135424 (2020), arXiv:1906.00413[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135424
    [54] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 90, 034910 (2014), arXiv:1407.3670[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.034910
    [55] V. Khachatryan et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 252 (2017), arXiv:1610.00613[nucl-ex doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4781-1
    [56] U. A. Acharya et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), arXiv: 2203.17058
    [57] STAR Collaboration, arXiv: 2111.14615
    [58] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 132301 (2014), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 029903 (2014)], arXiv: 1312.4198
    [59] V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. C 96, 015202 (2017), arXiv:1609.05383[nucl-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.015202
    [60] A. M. Sirunyan et al., JHEP 2018, 181 (2018), arXiv:1802.00707[hep-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2018)181
    [61] ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv: 2204.13530
    [62] S. Cao, G. Y. Qin and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044907 (2013), arXiv:1308.0617[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044907
    [63] X. f. Guo and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3591 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005044 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3591
    [64] B. W. Zhang and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A 720, 429 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301195[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(03)01003-0
    [65] B. W. Zhang, E. k. Wang and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 493 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412060 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.04.022
    [66] A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014023 (2012), arXiv:0912.2987[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.014023
    [67] T. Gleisberg, S. Hoeche, F. Krauss et al., JHEP 2009, 007 (2009), arXiv:0811.4622[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007
    [68] W. Dai, S. Wang, S. L. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 44, 104105 (2020), arXiv:1806.06332[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abab8f
    [69] S. Wang, W. Dai, B. W. Zhang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 789 (2019), arXiv:1906.01499[nucl-th doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7312-4
    [70] S. Wang, W. Dai, J. Yan et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121787 (2021), arXiv:2001.11660[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2020.121787
    [71] S. Wang, W. Dai, B. W. Zhang et al., Chin. Phys. C 45, 064105 (2021), arXiv:2012.13935[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abf4f5
    [72] S. Wang, J. W. Kang, W. Dai et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 135 (2022), arXiv:2107.12000[nucl-th doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00785-9
    [73] Y. Li, S. Wang and B. W. Zhang, arXiv: 2209.00548
    [74] F. Krauss, R. Kuhn and G. Soff, JHEP 0202, 044 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109036 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/02/044
    [75] T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, JHEP 0812, 039 (2008), arXiv:0808.3674[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039
    [76] C. F. Berger, Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 183, 313 (2008), arXiv:0807.3705[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2008.09.123
    [77] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, JHEP 0803, 038 (2008), arXiv:0709.1027[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/03/038
    [78] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0206, 029 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204244 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029
    [79] R. D. Ball et al., JHEP 1504, 040 (2015), arXiv:1410.8849[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040
    [80] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2
    [81] H. van Hees, M. Mannarelli, V. Greco et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 192301 (2008) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.192301
    [82] S. Caron-Huot and G. D. Moore, JHEP 0802, 081 (2008), arXiv:0801.2173[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/02/081
    [83] H. van Hees, V. Greco and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034913 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0508055 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.034913
    [84] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024918 (2015), arXiv:1505.04316[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.024918
    [85] M. He, R. J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 735, 445 (2014), arXiv:1401.3817[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.050
    [86] Y. T. Chien, A. Emerman, Z. B. Kang et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 074030 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074030
    [87] Z. B. Kang, F. Ringer and I. Vitev, JHEP 1703, 146 (2017), arXiv:1610.02043[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2017)146
    [88] W. M. Alberico, A. Beraudo, A. De Pace et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2481 (2013), arXiv:1305.7421[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2481-z
    [89] S. Cao and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 84, 064902 (2011), arXiv:1108.5101[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.064902
    [90] G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064904 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412346 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.064904
    [91] S. Cao, T. Luo, G. Y. Qin et al., Phys. Lett. B 777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.023
    [92] J. Xu, J. Liao and M. Gyulassy, JHEP 1602, 169 (2016), arXiv:1508.00552[hep-ph doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2016)169
    [93] S. Cao, T. Luo, G. Y. Qin et al., Phys. Rev. C 94, 014909 (2016) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.014909
    [94] S. K. Das, S. Plumari, S. Chatterjee et al., Phys. Lett. B 768, 260 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.046
    [95] W. Ke, Y. Xu and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 98, 064901 (2018) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.064901
    [96] S. Cao, G. Y. Qin and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024907 (2015), arXiv:1505.01413[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.024907
    [97] B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 37, 2484 (1988) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.2484
    [98] M. Nahrgang, J. Aichelin, P. B. Gossiaux et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 024907 (2014), arXiv:1305.3823[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024907
    [99] F. Scardina, S. K. Das, V. Minissale et al., Phys. Rev. C 96, 044905 (2017), arXiv:1707.05452[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044905
    [100] M. He, R. J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044911 (2012), arXiv:1112.5894[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044911
    [101] R. Rapp et al., Nucl. Phys. A 979, 21 (2018), arXiv:1803.03824[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.09.002
    [102] M. Djordjevic and M. Djordjevic, Phys. Lett. B 734, 286 (2014), arXiv:1307.4098[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.053
    [103] R. B. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. D 83, 065012 (2011), arXiv:1011.4979[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.065012
    [104] J. Huang, Z. B. Kang and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 726, 251 (2013), arXiv:1306.0909[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.009
    [105] N. Armesto, B. Cole, C. Gale et al., Phys. Rev. C 86, 064904 (2012), arXiv:1106.1106[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.064904
    [106] S. Cao and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024903 (2020), arXiv:1712.10055[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.024903
    [107] N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 679 (2009), arXiv:0907.1014[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1133-9
    [108] A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014909 (2013), arXiv:1301.5323[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.014909
    [109] K. C. Zapp, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2762 (2014), arXiv:1311.0048[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2762-1
    [110] Y. He, T. Luo, X. N. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 91, 054908 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C Phys. Rev. C (2018)], arXiv: 1503.03313
    [111] B. Schenke, C. Gale and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054913 (2009), arXiv:0909.2037[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.054913
    [112] M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders et al., Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025 doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020
    [113] R. Kubo, Rep. Pro. Phys. 29, 255 (1966) doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/29/1/306
    [114] Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz et al., Phys. Lett. B 643, 46 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0609068 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.10.021
    [115] M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 74, 054507 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0608013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.054507
    [116] C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164[nucl-th doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.08.039
    [117] T. Renk, H. Holopainen, J. Auvinen et al., Phys. Rev. C 85, 044915 (2012), arXiv:1105.2647[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044915
    [118] B. Betz, M. Gyulassy and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024913 (2011), arXiv:1102.5416[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024913
    [119] J. Noronha-Hostler, B. Betz, J. Noronha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 252301 (2016), arXiv:1602.03788[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.252301
    [120] B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 86, 444 (2007), arXiv:0708.0816[hep-ph doi: 10.1134/S0021364007190034
    [121] G. Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 072301 (2008), arXiv:0710.0605[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.072301
    [122] W. t. Deng and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024902 (2010), arXiv:0910.3403[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024902
    [123] F. L. Liu, W. J. Xing, X. Y. Wu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 350 (2022), arXiv:2107.11713[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10308-x
    [124] J. Uphoff, O. Fochler, Z. Xu et al., J. Phys. G 42, 115106 (2015), arXiv:1408.2964[hep-ph doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/42/11/115106
    [125] J. Uphoff, F. Senzel, O. Fochler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 112301 (2015), arXiv:1401.1364[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.112301
    [126] X. F. Chen, C. Greiner, E. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. C 81, 064908 (2010), arXiv:1002.1165[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.064908
    [127] R. Baier, A. H. Mueller and D. Schiff, Phys. Lett. B 649, 147 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0612068 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.03.048
    [128] A. Kumar, A. Majumder and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 101, 034908 (2020), arXiv:1909.03178[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.034908
    [129] C. AndrȦs, N. Armesto, M. Luzum et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 475 (2016), arXiv:1606.04837[hep-ph doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4320-5
    [130] M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang et al, arXiv: 2208.14419
    [131] L. Zhang, D. F. Hou and G. Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034913 (2018), arXiv:1804.00470[nucl-th doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034913
    [132] G. Y. Ma, W. Dai, B. W. Zhang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 518 (2019), arXiv:1812.02033[nucl-th doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7005-z
    [133] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 782, 474 (2018), arXiv:1708.04962[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.074
    [134] S. Acharya et al., JHEP 10, 174 (2018), arXiv:1804.09083[nucl-ex doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)174
    [135] D. Banerjee, S. Datta, R. Gavai et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 014510 (2012), arXiv:1109.5738[hep-lat doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.014510
    [136] A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 785, 14 (2018), arXiv:1711.09738[nucl-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.061
  • 加载中

Figures(12) / Tables(1)

Get Citation
Sa Wang, Wei Dai, Ben-Wei Zhang and Enke Wang. Z0 boson associated b-jet production in high-energy nuclear collisions[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acc1ca
Sa Wang, Wei Dai, Ben-Wei Zhang and Enke Wang. Z0 boson associated b-jet production in high-energy nuclear collisions[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/acc1ca shu
Milestone
Received: 2022-10-29
Article Metric

Article Views(1896)
PDF Downloads(30)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Z0 boson associated b-jet production in high-energy nuclear collisions

    Corresponding author: Ben-Wei Zhang, bwzhang@mail.ccnu.edu.cn
  • 1. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Institute of Quantum Matter, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • 2. Guangdong-Hong Kong Joint Laboratory of Quantum Matter, Southern Nuclear Science Computing Center, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Quark & Lepton Physics (MOE) and Institute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
  • 4. School of Mathematics and Physics, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China

Abstract: The production of vector boson tagged heavy quark jets potentially provides new tools to probe the jet quenching effect. In this paper, we present the first theoretical study on the angular correlations (ΔϕbZ), transverse momentum imbalance (xbZ), and nuclear modification factor (IAA) of Z0 boson tagged b-jets in heavy-ion collisions, which was performed using a Monte Carlo transport model. We find that the medium modification of the ΔϕbZ for Z0 + b-jet has a weaker dependence on ΔϕbZ than that for Z0 + jet, and the modification patterns are sensitive to the initial jet pT distribution. Additionally, with the high purity of the quark jet in Z0 + (b-) jet production, we calculate the momentum imbalance xbZ and the nuclear modification factor IAA of Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions. We observe a smaller ΔxjZ and larger IAA of Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions relative to those of Z0 + jet, which may be an indication of the mass effect of jet quenching and can be tested in future measurements.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • The formation of quark-gluon plasma (QGP), which was produced in the early stages of the high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), offers a new possibility to test quantum chromodynamics (QCD) under an extremely hot and dense deconfined state of nuclear matter. The high-pT partons (quarks and gluons) produced in the initial hard scattering strongly interact with the QGP and dissipate their energy to the medium, which is referred to as the jet quenching effect [15]. Consequently, the "quenched jet" observables are used to quantify the properties [6] of the hot and dense QCD matter by investigating their medium modifications in heavy-ion collisions (HIC) relative to their p+p baselines.

      Recently, the associated production of a vector boson (photon γ or electroweak boson such as Z0 and W+/) and jets (V + jet) has been extensively studied both theoretically [711] and experimentally [1220] to test the fundamental properties of QCD and improve the constraints on the parton distribution function (PDF) of a proton. More importantly, because the vector boson would not involve the strong interaction with the medium and gauge the initial energy of the tagged jets, V+jet is recognized as the ideal probe of the properties of QGP [2138].

      In particular, new measurements of the associated production of the Z0 boson and b-jet (denoted as Z0 + b-jet) in p+p collisions at the LHC have been performed by ATLAS and CMS [3945], since the final state b-jet associated with the Z0 boson is the dominant background of the associated production of Higgs and Z0 bosons (Z0+HZ+bˉb) within the standard model (SM) [46] and can test many physics scenarios beyond the SM that predict new generation mechanisms of b quarks and Z0 bosons [41]. It is noted that in HIC, the Z0 boson tagged b-jet (as the initial energy of the b quark is well gauged by the vector boson and thus its energy loss can be directly obtained) is particularly suitable for exploring the quenching of the heavy flavor jet [47]. The "dead-cone" effect [48] of heavy quarks in QGP may lead to a smaller energy loss compared to light flavors, which is known as the mass effect of jet quenching and has attracted intensive investigations [4954]. At the particle level, the latest measurements indicate that the yield of the B meson appears to be less suppressed than that of the D meson in nucleus-nucleus collisions [5557]. However, no clear evidence was found at the full-jet level in the previous experimental measurements, such as the comparison of the RAA between the inclusive jet and b-jet [58, 59] and the comparison of the pT imbalance (xJ) between inclusive dijets and bˉb dijets [60], except for some preliminary indication in the recent measurement implemented by the ATLAS collaboration [61]. The possible reasons for this can be manifold; e.g., the large contribution of gluon-initiated b-parton processes may thwart the attempts at solving the problem. Previous studies [21, 47] have indicated that the dominant contribution of the Z0 tagged jet is a quark-initiated jet, and the study of Z0+ b-jet in HIC, especially its different medium modifications compared with that of Z0 + jet, will provide a very useful tool to directly address the mass effect between the light-quark jet and massive bottom jet. Nevertheless, thus far, studies on the associated production of the b-jet and Z0 boson in nucleus-nucleus collisions are lacking.

      With this in mind, in this work, we present a Monte Carlo transport simulation including elastic (collisional) [62] and inelastic (radiative) [6366] interactions of the energetic parton in the hot/dense QCD medium, while taking the next-to-leading order (NLO) plus parton shower (PS) generated initial hard parton spectrum [67] as input, to study the in-medium modification of the vector boson Z0 tagged b-jets. This framework was employed to describe the heavy-flavor jet production of high-energy nuclear collisions in our previous studies [6873]. We first present our numerical results for Z0 + jet and compare them with the available experimental data to test the applicability of our model. Then, we calculate the angular correlations of Z0 + b-jet in A+A collisions and demonstrate that the modifications of these correlations are sensitive to the initial b-jet pT distribution instead of the azimuthal angle. In contrast to the case of Z0 + jet, the requirement of b-tagging excludes the contribution from multiple jets, so that the azimuthal angular correlations of Z0 + b-jet show distinct pattern modifications. With the high purity of the light-quark jet in Z0 + jet events [21, 47], we expect to address the mass dependence of the jet quenching effects between Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet.

      The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the productions of Z0 + b-jet in p+p collisions calculated via the Monte Carlo event generator and comparisons with experimental data. In Sec. III, we discuss our treatments of the jet in-medium evolution in A+A collisions. In Sec. IV, we present the simulated results and discussions of the azimuthal angular correlation, transverse momentum imbalance, and nuclear modification factor of Z0 + b-jet in HIC. Finally, Sec. V summarizes the study.

    II.   ASSOCIATED PRODUCTION OF Z0 BOSON AND B-JET IN p+p COLLISIONS
    • Before we move into the study on Z0 + b-jet production in HIC, we should address its production in p+p collisions. Figure 1 shows a few processes [39] contributing to the associated production of a Z0 boson and b-jet. In Figs. 1(a) and (b), an initial bottom quark from the parton distribution function (PDF) derived from the gluon distribution of one beam particle suffers the hard scattering and then turns into a b-jet and a Z0 boson in the final state. In the bottom two diagrams, the bˉb pairs originate from the hard scattering and then turn into two b-jets associated with an emitted Z0 boson in the final state.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Feynman diagrams contributing to the associated production of the b-jet with the Z0 boson.

      In this work, we use the MC@NLO event generator SHERPA [67] to obtain the initial Z0 + b-jet production in a p+p collision. The tree-level matrix elements are calculated using the internal modules Amegic [74] and Comix [75], and the one-loop virtual correction is calculated using the external program BlackHat [76]. The parton shower based on the Catani-Seymour [77] subtraction method is matched with NLO QCD matrix elements via the MC@NLO method [78]. The NLO PDF from NNPDF3.0 [79] with a 5-flavor scheme has been chosen in the calculations. FastJet [80] with an anti-kT algorithm is used in the final-state jet reconstruction.

      To compare our calculation results based on SHERPA with experimental data for p+p collisions, the same configurations implemented by the CMS collaboration [45] were used in our simulations. The Z0 boson is reconstructed according to its decay channels Z0e+e and Z0μ+μ. The transverse momentum of the electron and muon candidates is required to be larger than 20 GeV. To exclude the barrel-endcap transition region, the electrons are selected within the pseudorapidity region |η|<1.44 or 1.57<|η|<2.4, while muons are selected within |η|<2.4. According to the requirement of the experiment, the events are considered only when the invariant mass of the electron or muon pairs lies in the region 70<Mll<111 GeV. The jets associated with the Z0 boson are reconstructed by FastJet using the anti-kT algorithm with a cone size of R=0.5. To reduce the contribution from the underlying event, the reconstructed jets must be in the pseudorapidity region |ηjet|<2.4 and have pT,jet>30 GeV. The contribution from the underlying event is less than 5%, as estimated by CMS [45], because the production of softer jets is significantly suppressed by this requirement.

      For events with at least one b-jet, we show the differential cross sections calculated via SHERPA as a function of the leading b-jet pT and Z0 boson pT in Fig. 2. In the upper panel of Fig. 3, the azimuthal angular correlation between the leading b-jet and Z0 boson (ΔϕbZ=|ϕbϕZ|) is compared between the calculation and the CMS data. In the lower panel of Fig. 3, for events with two b-jets (hereinafter Z0+2 b-jets), we plot the differential cross sections as a function of the azimuthal angle between the two b-jets (Δϕbb=|ϕb1ϕb2|). To quantify the deviation of our calculations from the experimental data points, we estimate the χ2/d.o.f of these observables and present their values in the figures, where χ2=i[DiTi]2δ2i; Di and δi are the center value and uncertainties, respectively, of the i-th experimental data point; Ti represents the theoretical value; and d.o.f represents the number of compared data points. Our calculations based on SHERPA agree well with the experimental measurements.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Differential cross section of Z0 + b-jet simulated by SHERPA (blue line) in the p+p collision at s=8 TeV as a function of the transverse momentum of the highest-pT b-jet (upper panel) and transverse momentum of the Z0 boson (bottom panel) compared with the CMS data [45]; the χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data is also presented in the plots.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Differential cross section of Z0 + b-jet simulated by SHERPA (blue line) in the p+p collision at s=8 TeV as a function of the azimuthal angular difference ΔϕbZ=|ϕbϕZ| of the Z0 boson and b-jet (upper panel) and azimuthal angular difference Δϕbb=|ϕb1ϕb2| of the two b-jets (bottom panel) compared with the CMS data [45]; the χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data is also presented in the plots.

    III.   IN-MEDIUM JET EVOLUTION
    • In high-energy nuclear collisions, a droplet of an exotic state of nuclear matter, i.e., QGP, is expected to be formed. The high pT partons produced in the hard scattering propagating in the QGP suffer both collisional and radiative energy loss as a result of the in-medium interaction. Numerous theoretical approaches [8188] and Monte Claro models [8996] have been developed in the last two decades to describe the heavy flavor meson production in HIC at the RHIC and LHC. Among them, the Langevin transport equations have been employed effectively to describe the heavy quark evolution in the expanding QCD medium [62, 68, 69, 97100]. Because complete treatment of the heavy quark jets propagating in the QGP usually needs a simultaneous description of space-time evolution for both light and heavy partons [52, 87, 101, 102], we use the modified Langevin equations [62, 68, 69] to describe the propagation of heavy quarks in QGP and take into account the in-medium energy loss of light partons [6366, 103, 104]. Additionally, owing to the lack of a unified theoretical approach that covers the full phase space of in-medium jet evolution in HIC, there are usually two methods to combine the vacuum parton shower with the medium-induced radiation [105, 106]. The first one is to introduce medium modifications on the vacuum parton splitting at a higher virtuality scale tˆqτf (where ˆq is the jet transport parameter and τf is the formation length of the radiated gluon), as in the Q-PYTHIA [107], MATTER [108], and JEWEL [109] models. In this work, we employ the alternative treatment implemented in LBT [110] and MARTINI [111] to simulate the jet energy loss at low virtuality tˆqτf and high energy Eq (where q represents the momentum exchange between the hard parton and the hot medium). According to this strategy, we take the p+p events produced by SHERPA with a full vacuum parton shower as the input, sample their initial spatial positions using the MC-Glauber model [112], and then simulate the subsequent in-medium evolution.

    • A.   Collisional energy loss

    • The movement of a heavy quark with large mass (MT) propagating in the hot/dense nuclear matter and suffering a large number of random kicks from the medium can be modeled as a Brownian motion [97]. Hence, a discrete Langevin equation can be utilized to describe the propagation of heavy quarks in the QCD medium [62, 68, 69, 90]:

      x(t+Δt)=x(t)+p(t)EΔt,

      (1)

      p(t+Δt)=p(t)Γ(p)pΔt+ξ(t)Δtpg,

      (2)

      where Δt represents the timestep in the Monte Carlo simulation, and Γ(p) is the drag coefficient representing the dissipation effect and controlling the strength of quasi-elastic scattering. ξ(t) is the stochastic term that obeys a Gaussian probability distribution, i.e.,

      W[ξ(t)]=Nexp[ξ(t)22κ/Δt],

      (3)

      and leads to

      ξi(t)=0,

      (4)

      ξi(t)ξj(t)=κδij(tt).

      (5)

      The diffusion coefficient κ is related to the drag coefficient Γ by the fluctuation-dissipation relation [113]:

      κ=2ΓET=2T2Ds,

      (6)

      where Ds is the spacial diffusion coefficient. The last term pg is the recoil momentum due to the medium-induced gluon radiation, which is discussed in the following section. At each timestep, we boost partons to the local rest frame of the expanding medium to update the four-momentum and then boost them back to the laboratory frame to update the spatial position. Note that the procedure is done for T>Tc, where Tc=165 MeV is the QCD transition temperature [114, 115]. The space-time evolution profile of the bulk medium in Pb+Pb collision is provided by the smoothed VISHNU [116] code. Even though the event-by-event fluctuation effects on the jet energy loss are small, the initial geometry fluctuation may be non-negligible for other observables such as particle collective flow (vn) [117119].

      Meanwhile, the calculation for leading logarithmic accuracy at Hard-Thermal-Loop approximation [103, 104] is employed in our framework to take into account the collisional energy loss of light quarks and gluons:

      dEdL=αsCsμ2D2lnETμD,

      (7)

      where L represents the transport path of the partons along the propagating direction, αs is the strong coupling constant, Cs is the quadratic Casimir in color representation, and μD represents the Debye screening mass in the QCD medium. Note that Eq. (7) is only employed for light partons to consider their collisional energy loss because they cannot be treated as massive particles to evolve in the medium with the Langevin equations. During each timestep, the amount of collisional energy loss of a light parton can be calculated by integrating Eq. (7). Because medium-induced gluon radiation is the dominant energy loss mechanism for light partons, this treatment can be regarded as an effective approximation.

    • B.   Medium induced gluon radiation

    • The inelastic scattering also plays an important role in the in-medium energy loss of energetic partons [120, 121]. In our work, the Higher-Twist (HT) radiated gluon spectra [6366] is implemented to simulate the medium-induced gluon radiation when a parton propagates in the dense and hot QCD matter:

      dNdxdk2dt=2αsCsP(x)ˆqπk4sin2(tti2τf)(k2k2+x2m2)4,

      (8)

      where x and k represent the energy fraction and the transverse momentum of the radiated gluon, respectively. αs is the strong coupling constant, which is fixed at αs=0.3 in our calculations, Cs is the quadratic Casimir in color representation, and P(x) is the splitting function [122] for the splitting processes qq+g and gg+g (gq+ˉq process is negligible owing to its low probability [100]).

      Pqqg(x)=(1x)(1+(1x)2)x,

      (9)

      Pggg(x)=2(1x+x2)3x(1x),

      (10)

      τf is the radiated gluon formation time defined as τf=2Ex(1x)/(k2+x2m2), and tti is the time interval between two instances of inelastic scattering. In the rigorous Higher-Twist calculations, the splitting function P(x) of heavy quarks should be mass dependent [65]. Nevertheless, as a simplified treatment in many transport models, such as LBT [93, 110], QLBT [123], and BAMPS [124, 125], it's convenient to uniformly write P(x) as a massless form for heavy and light quarks, while the dominant mass effect of the gluon radiation spectra of heavy quarks can be approximately presented as an overall factor (k2/(k2+x2m2))4. Additionally, ˆq is the jet transport coefficient [126]:

      ˆq(τ,r)=q0ρQGP(τ,r)ρQGP(τ0,0)pμuμp0,

      (11)

      where ˆq0 denotes the value of ˆq at the center of the bulk medium at the initial time τ0=0.6fm/c, and ρQGP(τ,r) is the parton number density where the parton is probed. To take into account the radial flow effect [127], the four-momentum of parton pμ and the four flow velocity of the medium in the collision frame uμ act as a modification for ˆq in an expanding nuclear medium. We still hold that ˆq/T3=const. in the current framework as an effective approximation. More studies focusing on the puzzle of the temperature dependence of ˆq/T3 can be found in the Refs. [6, 92, 128130]. The last term of Eq. (8) represents the dead-cone effect [51, 65] which suppresses the gluon radiation of heavy quarks at a small angle (θM/E) owing to their large mass. We also noticed the up-to-data development of the HT approach in Ref. [131] achieved by including both transverse and longitudinal momentum exchanges between hard partons and the QCD medium and will consider their results in our framework in the future.

      An imposed cut-off of the radiated gluon energy fraction xmin=μDE is taken to avoid the divergence near x0, where μ2D=4παs(1+nf6)T2 is the Debye screening mass induced by the QGP medium. Therefore, following the method introduced in [93], one can estimate the mean number of radiated gluonsN(t,Δt) during a timestep Δt by integrating the phase space of x, k, and t in Eq. (8):

      N(t,Δt)=t+Δttdt1xmindx(xE)20dk2dNdxdk2dt.

      (12)

      By assuming that the multiple gluon radiation is a Poisson process, we obtain the probability distribution of the radiation number P(n,t,Δt) during a timestep, as well as the total inelastic scattering probability Prad(t,Δt):

      P(n,t,Δt)=N(t,Δt)nn!eN(t,Δt),

      (13)

      Prad(t,Δt)=1eN(t,Δt).

      (14)

      In our Monte Carlo simulation, during every timestep, the Prad(t,Δt) is first evaluated to determine whether the radiation occurs. If accepted, the Possion distribution function P(n,t,Δt) is used for the sampling of the radiated gluon number. Finally, the four-momentum of the radiated gluon can be sampled according to the spectrum dN/dxdk2 expressed in Eq. (8). In Fig. 4, for a consistent comparison between our Monte Carlo simulation and the analytical calculation, we estimate the collisional and radiative energy losses of the gluons, light quarks, charm, and bottom in a static medium (T=400 MeV). Here we fix the parton energy (50 GeV) at each evolution timestep and also restore the initial time ti in Eq. (8) to be 0 (same as the treatment in Ref. [91]) because their variations during the Monte Carlo simulation are not automatically included in the analytical calculation. We find that the MC results agree well with the analytical calculations. For the collisional energy loss, the ΔEcoll of the gluon is 9/4 times that of the light quark owing to the large color factor, and in our framework, the ΔEcoll of the heavy quark is comparable to that of the light quark. For the radiative energy loss, a clear mass hierarchy for different parton species can be found: ΔEgrad>ΔEqrad>ΔEcrad> ΔEbrad. For a long propagation time t=4 fm, we find that the radiative energy loss dominates the total parton energy loss because of its quadratic dependence on the path length.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Collisional (a) and radiative (b) energy losses of gluons, light quarks, charm, and bottom with initial energy E0=50 GeV in a static medium with temperature T=400 MeV. The Monte Carlo simulations are compared with the semi-analytical calculations.

      In general, there are two parameters in our framework that need to be determined: the jet transport coefficient ˆq and the diffusion coefficient Ds. We treat ˆq and κ as two independent parameters to be constrained by experimental data. First, the value of ˆq is determined via global extraction of the single hadron production in Pb+Pb collisions [132], in which q0=1.2 GeV2/fm is obtained at the LHC energy. After ˆq is fixed, we extract the best value Ds(2πT)4 via χ2 fitting to the D meson RAA data [133, 134], which is consistent with the results of Ds(2πT)=3.77 reported by the Lattice QCD [135].

    IV.   NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
    • In this section, to estimate the medium modification of jet observables in nucleus-nucleus collisions, we use the p+p events provided by SHERPA as the input of our simulation within the hydrodynamic background to study the in-medium jet evolution. Before proceeding to the Z0 tagged b-jet, we calculate the azimuthal angular correlation (ΔϕjZ=|ϕjetϕZ|) and transverse momentum imbalance (xjZ=pjetT/pZT) of Z0 + jet, as well as the nuclear modification factor RAA of the inclusive b-jet, and compare our theoretical results with the available experimental data. Then, we calculate the Z0 + b-jet observables, including the azimuthal angular correlation between the Z0 boson and b-jet (ΔϕbZ=|ϕbjetϕZ|), angle separation between the two Z-tagged b-jets (Δϕbb=|ϕb1ϕb2|), transverse momentum (xbZ=pbjetT/pZT), and nuclear modification factor IAA [21, 35] defined as

      IAA=1NbindNAAdpjetT|pminT<pZT<pmaxTdNppdpjetT|pminT<pZT<pmaxT.

      (15)

      Here, Nbin denotes the average number of binary nucleon-nucleon collisions among A+A collisions calculated via the Glauber model [112].

      In Fig. 5, we show our calculated ΔϕjZ distributions for both p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV compared with the CMS experimental data [31]. Additionally, the χ2/d.o.f of our model fitting to the CMS data for both p+p and Pb+Pb are presented. The same configurations in the jet reconstruction used by the CMS are employed. All final-state jets are reconstructed by FastJet using the anti-kT algorithm with R=0.3 and require pjetT>30 GeV. The selected Z0 bosons are reconstructed by the electron or muon pairs based on their decay channels (Z0e+e and Z0μ+μ) and require pZT>60 GeV. Note that these distributions are normalized by the number of Z0events, and the transverse momentum imbalances are subjected to Gaussian smearing [31] to take into account the detector resolution effects. This reveals that the distribution of azimuthal angular correlation in Pb+Pb collisions suffers a suppression in a small ΔϕjZ region relative to the p+p baseline, which is consistent with the CMS measurement. However, in a large angle region (ΔϕjZπ, where the Z0 boson and jet are almost back-to-back), this suppression is not very apparent. The reason for this behavior has been discussed in detail [26, 34]; i.e., the small ΔϕjZ region is dominated by the multiple-jet processes and the large ΔϕjZ region is dominated by soft/collinear radiation. Usually, the jet energy of multiple-jet processes is relatively low and easier to be shifted below the jet selection threshold (30 GeV) because of parton energy loss [27]. We also notice two significant differences between the p+p and Pb+Pb CMS data near ΔϕjZ=π/2 and ΔϕjZ=7π/8, and our results cannot fit these points well. However, similar abnormal behaviors of the CMS data are not found in the measurements of the γ-jet [136]; hence, we guess that they may be caused by the statistical fluctuations in the experiment.

      Figure 5.  (color online) Distributions of the azimuthal angle difference ΔϕjZ between the Z0 boson and the jet both in p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV compared with CMS data [31]. The distributions are scaled by the number of Z0 events N in p+p collisions. The values of χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data for both p+p and Pb+Pb are also presented in the plots.

      In Fig. 6, we compute xjZ distribution for Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV compared with the CMS data. The χ2/d.o.f are also presented in the figures, indicating that our calculations are consistent with the experimental data, but the p+p baseline needs to be improved. Note here that selected Z0 + jet pairs are required to be almost back-to-back (ΔϕjZ>7π/8). Relative to the p+p baseline, in Pb+Pb collisions, we find that the xjZ distribution is shifted toward smaller values, exhibiting an enhancement at 0<xjZ<0.7 and suppression at 0.7<xjZ<2. As xjZ represents the transverse momentum imbalance of Z0 and the jet, it can be understood that for each Z0 + jet pair, the values of xjZ decrease owing to the jet energy loss and thus are shifted to a smaller xjZ observed in the final state.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Distributions of the transverse momentum balance xjZ of Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%–30% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV compared with CMS data [31]. The distribution is normalized by the number of Z0 events and Z0 + jet pairs are required with ΔϕjZ>7π/8. The values of χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data for both p+p and Pb+Pb are also presented in the plots.

      In Fig. 7, we investigate the nuclear modification factor RAA of the inclusive b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeV in comparison with the CMS measurements [58] to test our model calculations. The values of χ2/d.o.f are shown in each panel of Fig. 7 to quantify the deviation of our calculations from the CMS data for different centrality bins. We find that our calculations are essentially consistent with the experimental data, but we may need to pay attention to some discrepancies. First, our theoretical results show weak pT dependence, but the experimental RAA appears to increase visibly with the jet pT in the 10%–30% and 30%–50% centrality bins. Second, some data points (pT=100 GeV at 0%−10% and 10%−30%, pT=210 GeV at 30%–50% and 50%–100%) cannot be well described by our calculations.

      Figure 7.  (color online) Nuclear modification factor RAA of the b-jet. The p+p baseline is provided by SHERPA, and the theoretical calculations are compared with CMS data [58] at centralities of 0%−10%, 10%−30%, 30%−50%, and 50%−100%. The values of χ2/d.o.f of our fit to the CMS data are also presented in the plots.

      The good agreement between our model calculations and the data of the Z0 + jet and inclusive b-jet makes it possible to study the medium modification of the Z0 + b-jet in nuclear-nuclear collisions. In Fig. 8, we calculate the azimuthal angular correlation of the Z0 boson and b-jet in p+p and 0%–10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV. The b-jets associated with the Z0 boson are reconstructed by FastJet using the anti-kT algorithm with a cone size of ΔR=0.5, |ηjet|<2.4, and pjetT>30 GeV for both p+p and Pb+Pb collisions. These distributions are normalized by the initial Z0 + b-jet event number (in p+p collision) to address the medium modification. We observe an overall suppression in Pb+Pb collisions relative to the p+p baseline. We show their ratio PbPb/pp in the middle panel of Fig. 8 and find that the suppression for the Z0 + b-jet has a far weaker dependence on ΔϕbZ than that for the Z0 + jet, which exhibits stronger suppression in a small ΔϕjZ region where multiple jets dominate. All the selected jets must first be b quark tagged, and this requirement significantly reduces the contribution from multiple-jet processes when we consider the azimuthal angular (ΔϕbZ) distribution.

      Figure 8.  (color online) Upper panel: distributions of the azimuthal angular correlation of the Z0 boson and b-jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV; the distributions are scaled by the number of Z0 + b-jet events N in p+p collisions. Middle panel: ratio of the azimuthal angle correlations in Pb+Pb to p+p. Bottom panel: averaged b-jet transverse momentum pT as a function of ΔϕbZ

      To address the key factor that leads to the flat suppression on ΔϕbZ distribution, we estimate the averaged b-jet transverse momentum pT as a function of ΔϕbZ, which can be calculated by:

      pT(Δϕ)=dσdpTdΔϕpTdpTdσdpTdΔϕdpT.

      (16)

      The decrease of the selected event number in A+A collisions results from the in-medium energy loss, which shifts lower pT jet below the kinematic selection cut. The initial pT distribution actually reflects the ΔϕbZ dependence of this shift. It turns out that the distribution of pT versus ΔϕbZ is nearly a constant value at 55 GeV as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 8, which leads to the rather flat suppression on ΔϕbZ distribution. Here the band of pT distribution represents the statistical standard errors in the simulations.

      As mentioned in Sec. II, the azimuthal angular separation Δϕbb of the two b-jets tagged by Z0 boson is also a useful observable to distinguish the contribution from subprocesses where Z0 boson is emitted from one of the final state b quark or gluon splitting (gbˉb) [41], as shown in diagrams (c) and (d) of Fig. 1. Note that these two categories of contributions corresponding to the cases that the two b-jets are almost back-to-back or collinear. What interests us is how the Δϕbb distribution of these two categories of Z0+2 b-jets would be modified in the QGP. As shown in the top panel of Fig. 9, we plot the Δϕbb distributions both in p+p and 0−10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV and also plot the ratio PbPb/pp in the middle panel. In the upper panel, we can find a kink at Δϕbbπ/5 and a peak at Δϕbbπ in Fig. 9, which present the two contributions of Z0+2 b-jet production: the two b-jets are almost back-to-back or collinear. The two-peaks distribution is similar to what we have observed in the angular correlations of bˉb dijets [68], and the peaks at smaller and larger Δϕbb regions corresponding to the gluon splitting (GSP) processes and flavor creation (FCR) processes. In the middle panel, we observe an upward trend of the ratio from 0.5 to 0.7 as Δϕbb increases. To figure out the Δϕbb dependence of the ratio PbPb/pp, we estimate the initial jet pT of the leading and sub-leading b-jet in p+p collisions, as shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 9. We find that, for both the leading and subleading one, pT is increasing with Δϕbb, which shows a similar trend with that of the ratio PbPb/pp versus Δϕbb. It may indicate that the medium modification of Δϕbb in Pb+Pb has a close connection with the initial b-jet pT distribution versus Δϕbb in p+p collisions.

      Figure 9.  (color online) Distributions of the azimuthal angular separation Δϕbb of the two b-jets tagged by Z0 boson both in p+p and 0−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, the distributions are scaled by the Z0+2 b-jets event number N in p+p collisions. Middle panel: ratio of the azimuthal angular separation in Pb+Pb to that in p+p. Bottom panel: averaged transverse momentum of the leading and the sub-leading b-jet as a function of Δϕbb.

      The associated production of Z0 + jet may shed new light on the mass dependence of the jet quenching effect in nuclear matter, owing to the high purity of light-quark-initiated jets. In Ref. [47], the contributions from light-quark-jets and gluon-jets in the Z0 + jet production are approximately 70% and 30%, respectively. To verify this point, in Fig. 10, we estimate the gluon-jet fraction in four categories of jets in p+p collisions at 5.02 TeV: inclusive jet, inclusive b-jet, Z0 tagged jet, and Z0 tagged b-jet. The gluon-jet in the events can be identified by requiring that the gluon is the leading parton in the jets, which can be easily implemented in the FastJet program. We find that at pjetT50 GeV, the gluon-jet fraction is approximately 50% for the inclusive jet and 30% for the Z0 tagged jet. The Z0-tagging requirement considerably decreases the gluon jet contribution (by 40%), especially at a low pT. More importantly, for the inclusive b-jet and Z0 tagged b-jet, the contributions from the gluon-jet are significantly suppressed owing to the requirement of b-quark tagging and show almost equal values.

      Figure 10.  (color online) Gluon initiated jet fraction as a function of the transverse momentum of the inclusive jet (red dash), inclusive b-jet (blue dash), Z0 + jet (red solid), and Z0 + b-jet (blue solid).

      We plot the scaled xjZ distributions of Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%–10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV in Fig. 11(a) and, with the same configuration, the xbZ distributions of Z0 + b-jet in Fig. 11(b). All the selected jets (b-jets) must satisfy ΔϕjZ>7π/8 (ΔϕbZ>7π/8) to guarantee that they are almost back-to-back with the Z0 boson. We observe that the distributions of xJ shift toward smaller values for both Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions relative to their p+p baselines, owing to the energy loss of the tagged jets. To perform a more intuitive comparison between Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet, we show the difference of the xJ distribution in Pb+Pb from that in p+p (see the bottom panels of Figs. 11(a) and (b)), which have positive values at 0.2<xJ<0.8 and negative values at 0.8<xJ<1.6. Then, we find that the absolute value of the difference (PbPb-pp) of Z0 + jet is larger than that of Z0 + b-jet. Furthermore, we estimate the shifting of the mean value of momentum imbalance ΔxjZ=xjZppxjZPbPb for Z0 + jet, and ΔxbZ=xbZppxbZPbPb for Z0 + b-jet, as shown in Table 1.

      Figure 11.  (color online) (a) xjZ distributions of Z0 + jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, as well as their difference in Pb+Pb to p+p. The distributions are normalized by the Z0 + jet number in both p+p and Pb+Pb collisions. (b): xbZ distributions of Z0 + b-jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, as well as their difference in Pb+Pb to p+p. The distributions are normalized by the Z0 + b-jet number in both p+p and Pb+Pb collisions.

      Z0+ jet Z0 + b-jet
      xJpp 0.987±0.0047 0.941±0.0056
      xJPbPb 0.851±0.0061 0.849±0.0064
      ΔxJ 0.136±0.0108 0.092±0.012

      Table 1.  Mean value of momentum imbalance xJ of Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in both p+p and 0%–10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, as well as the shifting of the mean value of momentum imbalance ΔxJ=xJppxJPbPb. The standard errors of xJ in the simulations are also presented.

      xJ=1σdσdxJxJdxJ.

      (17)

      Here, J denotes different processes. Note that the standard errors of xJ in our simulations are also presented in Table 1. We find that within the statistical uncertainties, ΔxjZ (0.136±0.0108) for Z0 + jet is visibly larger than ΔxbZ (0.092±0.012) for Z0 + b-jet, indicating stronger modifications to the light-quark jet compared with the b-jet. Note that xjZ (xbZ) is defined by the ratio of jet (b-jet) pT to Z0 boson pT. The shifting of xjZ (xbZ) toward smaller values is directly related to the amount of jet (b-jet) energy loss; hence, ΔxjZ>ΔxbZ indicates that light quark jets lose more energy than b-jets.

      The nuclear modification factor IAA is practically another good observable to address the mass hierarchy and flavor dependence of the jet quenching effect. Comparisons of IAA between Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet would provide more reliable evidence of the mass effect of jet quenching. For this purpose, we present the calculations of IAA of Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV as a function of jet pT within three pZT windows in Fig. 12. First, we find different shapes of IAA in these three panels. In the left panel (40<pZT<60 GeV), the two curves of IAA for Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet are flat, but in the right panel (80<pZT<120 GeV), the curves show enhancement at pjetT<80 GeV. This is because if we constrain 80<pZT<120 GeV in the event selection, the cross section at pjetT<80 GeV is steeper, falling with jet pT. Then, the jets shifting from a higher pT to a lower pT because of the in-medium energy loss naturally lead to the relatively large IAA values in the lower pjetT region, even larger than one. Additionally, we observe smaller values of IAA for Z + jet relative to those for Z + b-jet in the three panels of Fig. 12, which indicates that the yield of Z0 tagged light-quark jets suffers stronger suppression after traversing the QCD matter than that of Z0 tagged b-jets. Note that IAA is directly related to the pT shifting of the tagged jets due to in-medium energy loss. The smaller value of IAA for Z0 + jet indicates a larger jet pT shift compared with that of Z0 + b-jet, suggesting that the energy loss of Z0 tagged b-jets is smaller than that of Z0 tagged light-quark jets. Our conclusions are consistent with the recent ATLAS measurements [61], which indicate that the RAA of the b-jet is higher than that of the inclusive jet. We hope that our complementary predictions can be tested via future measurements at the LHC, which may be helpful for solving the puzzle of the mass hierarchy of jet quenching.

      Figure 12.  (color online) Nuclear modification factor as a function of the transverse momentum of Z0 + jet (blue line) and Z0 + b-jet (red line) within three pZT ranges, i.e., 40−60 GeV, 60−80 GeV, and 80−120 GeV, in 0%−10% centrality Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV.

    V.   SUMMARY
    • Vector boson-tagged heavy quark jets are promising new tools for studying the jet quenching effect. In this work, we present a Monte Carlo transport simulation, which takes into account the elastic and inelastic jet interactions within a hydrodynamic background, to study the in-medium modification of Z0 tagged b-jets. The NLO+PS event generator SHERPA was used to provide the p+p baseline of Z0 + b-jet production, which agreed well with the CMS measurements. This framework has been proven to give good descriptions of medium modifications of the ΔϕjZ and xjZ of Z0 + jet, as well as the RAA of the inclusive b-jet, measured in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC.

      The angular correlation between the vector boson and heavy quark-tagged jets may be a new promising observable for studying the in-medium jet interaction. We present the first calculation of the azimuthal angular correlation ΔϕbZ of Z0 + b-jet in both p+p and 0%−10% Pb+Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV. We observe a flat suppression factor versus ΔϕbZ, in contrast to the case of Z0 + jet, because the requirement of b-tagging excludes the contribution from multiple-jet processes. Additionally, we calculate the medium modification of the azimuthal angular correlation Δϕbb in central Pb+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV and observe stronger suppression in a smaller Δϕbb region of the distribution relative to that at Δϕbbπ. By analyzing the pT distribution of the tagged b-jets, we find that the medium modification pattern on ΔϕbZ (Δϕbb) in Pb+Pb has a close connection with the initial pT distribution versus ΔϕbZ (Δϕbb) in p+p collisions. These investigations may help us to understand the experimental measurements of jet angular correlations at the LHC in recent years, e.g., for the γ + jet and Z0 + jet.

      Finally, we predict that the mass effect of jet quenching can be addressed by comparing the medium modifications of Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet. With the high purity of the quark jet in Z0 + (b-) jet events, we estimate the medium modification of the transverse momentum imbalance xjZ (xbZ) and the nuclear modification factor IAA for both Z0 + jet and Z0 + b-jet in Pb+Pb collisions. We find a larger shift of xjZ and stronger suppression of IAA for Z0 + jet than for Z0 + b-jet, indicating that b-jets lose less energy than light quark jets. These predictions can be tested via future measurements at the LHC and may provide a key to solving the puzzle of the mass hierarchy of jet quenching.

Reference (136)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return