format: text

text:
# Analysis of directed flow from elliptic flow

## I Introduction

The azimuthal angles of particles emitted in a heavy ion collisions are correlated with the direction of the impact parameter (reaction plane) of the two incoming nuclei. This correlation is characterized by the Fourier coefficients of the particle azimuthal distribution, $`v_n`$ Voloshin:1996mz :

$$v_n\mathrm{cos}(n(\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_R)),$$
(1)
where $`n`$ is an integer, $`\varphi `$ denotes the azimuthal angle of an outgoing particle, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ is the azimuth of the reaction plane, and angular brackets denote an average over events and over all particles in a given transverse momentum and rapidity window.

The first Fourier coefficient $`v_1`$, referred to as directed flow, is usually positive in the forward hemisphere. This is because particles are deflected away from the target. This effect was first observed at Bevalac in 1984 Gustafsson:1984ka , and reaches its maximum value at about 400 MeV per nucleon FOPI . At much lower energies, below 100 MeV per nucleon, $`v_1`$ becomes negative due to the attractive nuclear mean field balance ; FOPI2 . At ultrarelativistic energies, it decreases: at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS), it is of the order of 2% NA49 . At the Brookhaven Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), it has not been measured yet. Accurate measurements of $`v_1`$ are important since this quantity is a sensitive probe of nuclear matter properties theory . There is an interesting prediction that this quantity may even become negative above SPS energies Snellings:2000bt .

Standard methods for analyzing directed flow Danielewicz:1985hn ; Wang:1991qh ; Poskanzer:1998yz  are based on the assumption that all azimuthal correlations between outgoing particles are due to flow. When flow becomes too small, however, other sources of correlation (“nonflow” correlations) can no longer be neglected. Correlations due to global momentum conservation are well known Danielewicz:1988in , and a systematic method to correct for this effect has recently been proposed Borghini:2002mv . However, many other effects are expected to produce nonflow correlations of the same order of magnitude, such as quantum (HBT) correlations Dinh:1999mn  and resonance decays Borghini:2000cm . We have proposed new methods, based on higher order correlations Borghini:2001sa ; Borghini:2001vi , which allow one to get rid of nonflow correlations. However, statistical errors on four-particle (or higher order) correlations are larger, so that these methods may fail if flow is too small.

In this paper, we propose a new method which is free from these limitations. It allows one to obtain an estimate of $`v_1`$ which is insensitive to nonflow correlations, with statistical errors usually not much larger than with standard techniques. This method is based on the observation that elliptic flow ($`v_2`$, second Fourier harmonic of the azimuthal distribution) is reasonably large in the situations considered where directed flow is hard to measure: $`v_2`$ is roughly 3% at SPS NA49 , and even larger at RHIC STAR . Our method relies on the measurement of three-particle azimuthal correlations, which involve both $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$:

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}(v_1)^2v_2,$$
(2)
where $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, and $`\varphi _3`$ denote azimuthal angles of three particles belonging to the same event, and the average runs over triplets of particles emitted in the collision, and over events. This equation yields $`(v_1)^2v_2`$, and one then deduces $`v_1`$ once $`v_2`$ has been obtained from a separate analysis.

The idea of mixing two Fourier harmonics is not new. It underlies measurements of elliptic flow relative to the event plane determined from directed flow elliptic : in these analyses, one first obtains $`v_1`$, and then $`v_2`$ from an equation similar to Eq. (2). Here we propose to do the other way round: first measure $`v_2`$, then obtain $`v_1`$ from the three-particle correlation.

In Sec. II, we present in more detail the principle of the method, and we explain why it is better than other methods when directed flow is small. Then, in Sec. III, we describe the practical implementation of the method. This implementation makes use of two techniques already introduced in Refs. Borghini:2001vi ; Borghini:2001zr : first, a cumulant expansion allows us to eliminate the effects of azimuthal asymmetries in the detector acceptance; second, the formalism of generating functions provides an elegant way of constructing three-particle correlations (and beyond), with a computer time which grows only linearly with the number of particles involved, while taking into account all possible particle triplets. A generalization to higher order cumulants is presented in Sec. IV. Our results are discussed in Sec. V.

## II Principle and orders of magnitude

In this section, we compare three methods of analyzing directed flow: the standard two-particle technique, the four-particle cumulant, and the three-particle mixed correlation, Eq. (2), which is the focus of this paper. In Sec. II.1, we recall how $`v_1`$ can be obtained from azimuthal correlations in various ways. In Sec. II.2 and Sec. II.3, we estimate for each method the order of magnitude of errors due to nonflow correlations and finite statistics. Numerical estimates are given in Sec. II.4, where we show that three-particle correlations provide the most (if not only) reliable way of analyzing directed flow at ultrarelativistic energies. In Sec. II.5, we finally explain how to perform detailed measurement of $`v_1`$ as a function of transverse momentum and rapidity with this method.

### II.1 Directed flow from azimuthal correlations

In a given collision, the azimuth of the reaction plane $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ is unknown, so that the Fourier coefficients $`v_n`$ of the azimuthal distribution, defined in Eq. (1), can only be obtained from azimuthal correlations between the outgoing particles. The simplest way is to use correlations between two particles Wang:1991qh , labelled 1 and 2, belonging to the same event:

$`e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\varphi _1\mathrm{\Phi }_R)}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_R\varphi _2)}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`e^{i(\varphi _1\mathrm{\Phi }_R)}e^{i(\mathrm{\Phi }_R\varphi _2)}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`(v_1)^2,`$ (5)
where, as in the previous equations, averages are taken over pairs of particles and over events. In going from the first to the second line, we have assumed that all azimuthal correlations are due to flow, i.e., that azimuthal angles relative to the reaction plane $`\varphi _1\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ and $`\varphi _2\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ are independent. The “standard” flow analysis Danielewicz:1985hn  proceeds differently: one correlates the azimuth of a particle with a “flow vector” obtained by summing over many particles: this involves a sum of two-particle correlations, and this method is in fact essentially equivalent to the two-particle technique.

It is straightforward to generalize Eq. (3) to higher order correlations, such as the four-particle correlation:

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4)}=(v_1)^4,$$
(6)
where the average now involves all possible 4-uplets of particles belonging to the same event. This result will be used below.

In this paper, we shall be concerned with yet another type of correlation, namely, a three-particle correlation which mixes the first two Fourier harmonics:

$`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(\varphi _1\mathrm{\Phi }_R)}e^{i(\varphi _2\mathrm{\Phi }_R)}e^{2i(\mathrm{\Phi }_R\varphi _3)}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`(v_1)^2v_2.`$ (8)
If $`v_2`$ is already known from a previous analysis, using the three-particle correlation Eq. (7) allows one to extract an estimate of $`v_1`$.

### II.2 Nonflow correlations

The above estimates were derived under the assumption that all azimuthal correlations are due to flow. However, there are also other, “nonflow,” contributions to azimuthal correlations due to various effects Poskanzer:1998yz ; Dinh:1999mn ; Borghini:2000cm . Let us recall the order of magnitude of these correlations by taking a simple example: if a resonance decays into $`k`$ particles, these $`k`$ particles will be strongly correlated by the decay kinematics. Now, the probability that $`k`$ arbitrary particles seen in a detector originate from the same resonance scales like the total multiplicity $`M`$ of the event like $`1/M^{k1}`$. This is generally the order of magnitude of the genuine $`k`$-particle correlation due to nonflow effects. In particular, the two-particle nonflow correlation is of the order of $`1/M`$, so that Eq. (3) reads in fact

$$e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}=(v_1)^2+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{M}\right).$$
(9)
When $`v_1`$ becomes smaller than $`1/\sqrt{M}`$, the resulting error on $`v_1`$ due to the unknown nonflow term becomes as large as $`v_1`$ itself. This is probably the case at SPS, as shown in Ref. Borghini:2000cm , and a fortiori at RHIC energies.

A similar reasoning applies to higher order correlations. In the case of the four-particle correlation, Eq. (6), it may for instance happen that two pions labelled $`1`$ and $`3`$ originate from the same $`\rho `$ meson, while $`2`$ and $`4`$ come from another $`\rho `$ meson. This gives a four-particle correlation of order $`𝒪(1/M)^2`$. However, these pairwise correlations can be subtracted from the measured four-particle correlation so as to isolate the genuine four-particle correlation. This is the principle of the cumulant expansion which was proposed in Refs. Borghini:2001sa ; Borghini:2001vi  to get rid of nonflow correlations in the flow analysis. The cumulant of the four-particle correlation is defined as

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4)}e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4)}e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _3)}e^{i(\varphi _2\varphi _4)}e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _4)}e^{i(\varphi _2\varphi _3)}.$$
(10)
According to the above discussion, the contribution of nonflow effects to this genuine four-particle correlation is of order $`1/M^3`$, much smaller than $`1/M^2`$. The contribution of flow follows in a straightforward way from Eqs. (3) and (6), so that one may finally write

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4)}=(v_1)^4+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{M^3}\right).$$
(11)
Finally, let us estimate nonflow contributions to the mixed three-particle correlation, Eq. (7). Unlike the four-particle correlation Eq. (6), this quantity does not receive any contribution from two-particle correlations, since quantities such as $`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)}`$ or $`e^{i(\varphi _12\varphi _3)}`$ vanish by symmetry. The only nonflow correlation is the genuine three-particle correlation, of order $`1/M^2`$, and Eq. (7) becomes

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}=(v_1)^2v_2+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{M^2}\right).$$
(12)
In the following, we shall denote by $`v_1\{2\}`$, $`v_1\{4\}`$ and $`v_1\{3\}`$ the estimates of $`v_1`$ obtained from Eqs. (9), (11) and (12), respectively, ignoring the nonflow term. Using these equations, one finds that the differences due to nonflow correlations between these estimates and the exact value $`v_1`$ are of order:

$`v_1\{2\}v_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Mv_1}}\right)`$ (13)
$`v_1\{4\}v_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Mv_1)^3}}\right)`$ (14)
$`v_1\{3\}v_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Mv_1)(Mv_2)}}\right).`$ (15)
As explained in Ref. Borghini:2001sa , it is possible to measure $`v_n`$ only if $`Mv_n1`$, and we assume throughout this paper that this condition holds both for $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. Then, Eq. (13) shows that estimates of $`v_1`$ from three- or four-particle correlations are much less biased by nonflow correlations than standard estimates from two-particle correlations.

### II.3 Statistical errors

In practice, the use of higher order correlations is limited by statistical errors due to limited statistics. The various correlations encountered are quantities of the type $`(1/N)_{j=1}^N\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _j)`$, where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _j`$ are various combinations of the particle azimuths. If the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _j`$ are independent and randomly distributed, the standard error on such a quantity is $`1/\sqrt{2N}`$.

In the case of two-particle correlations, Eq. (3), one can construct $`M(M1)/2`$ different pairs of particles in an event with multiplicity $`M`$, so that the total number of combinations is $`NN_{\mathrm{evts}}M^2/2`$ for $`N_{\mathrm{evts}}`$ events. In the case of four-particle correlations, Eq. (6), one can construct $`M(M1)(M2)(M3)/8`$ independent 4-uplets, so that $`NN_{\mathrm{evts}}M^4/8`$. Finally, in the case of three-particle correlations, there are $`M(M1)(M2)/2`$ independent triplets, so that $`NN_{\mathrm{evts}}M^3/2`$.

One thus obtains the following expressions for the relative statistical errors on the various estimates of $`v_1`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{2\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{evts}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(v_1\sqrt{M})^2}}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{4\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{evts}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(v_1\sqrt{M})^4}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{3\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{N_{\mathrm{evts}}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(v_1\sqrt{M})^2(v_2\sqrt{M})}}.`$ (18)
These estimates are correct as long as $`v_1\sqrt{M}`$ and $`v_2\sqrt{M}`$ are not larger than unity, otherwise correlations due to flow must be taken into account in the calculation of statistical errors Borghini:2001vi . A more accurate formula for $`\delta v_1\{3\}`$ will be given below in Sec. III.4.

In this paper, we are interested in the situation where directed flow is very small, $`v_1\sqrt{M}1`$, which is the case when the standard flow analysis fails due to large nonflow correlations (see Sec. II.2). In that case, one sees that the statistical uncertainty on $`v_1\{4\}`$, i.e., the estimate from the fourth-order cumulant, is much larger than the error on the standard estimate $`v_1\{2\}`$. On the other hand, if elliptic flow is significantly large, $`v_2\sqrt{M}`$ is not much lower than unity: in such a case, the mixed-correlation technique provides an estimate of $`v_1`$ with a statistical error of the same order as the standard analysis, but which is much less biased by nonflow correlations.

### II.4 Orders of magnitude at SPS and RHIC

Let us estimate numerically the various errors discussed above in a realistic situation. In practice, evaluating the magnitude of nonflow correlations requires a detailed modeling. Equations (13), strictly speaking, represent scaling laws rather than orders of magnitude. Detailed studies of various effects at SPS energies Borghini:2000cm ; Dinh:1999mn ; Borghini:2002mv  show that the contribution of nonflow correlations to $`v_1`$ obtained from the standard analysis (which is equivalent to $`v_1\{2\}`$ above) is of the same order as $`v_1`$ itself. For mid-central collisions, $`v_2`$ is about $`3\%`$ NA49  and the number of detected particles $`M300`$. According to Eq. (13), one expects that using three-particle correlations (i.e., $`v_1\{3\}`$) will reduce systematic errors due to nonflow correlations by a factor of at least $`Mv_2`$, that is, a factor of 10. Thus one expects estimates using higher order correlations $`v_1\{3\}`$ and $`v_1\{4\}`$ to be little biased by nonflow correlations, contrarily to $`v_1\{2\}`$.

Statistical errors can be estimated quantitatively using Eqs. (16). Realistic values at SPS are $`N_{\mathrm{evts}}=50`$k events, $`M=300`$ particles, $`v_12\%`$ and $`v_23\%`$. One then obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{2\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`2\%`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{4\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`16\%`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{3\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`4\%.`$ (21)
The relative statistical error on $`v_1\{4\}`$ is too large to allow detailed measurements of $`v_1`$ as a function of $`p_T`$ or $`y`$. On the other hand, the uncertainty on $`v_1\{3\}`$ is only twice larger than the error on $`v_1\{2\}`$, while we have seen above that the gain on the systematic error due to nonflow correlations is typically a factor of 10.

At RHIC, $`v_2`$ is larger, typically 5% for mid-central collisions STAR , so that measuring directed flow from elliptic flow ($`v_1\{3\}`$) is even more appropriate than at SPS. This is reflected in both systematic errors due to nonflow correlations, and in statistical errors. While $`v_2`$ is larger than at SPS, $`v_1`$ is expected to be smaller if one extrapolates the decrease observed at SPS compared to AGS. The number of detected particles $`M`$ can be estimated using the values of $`v_2`$ and the event plane resolution given in Ref. STAR , and is similar to that used above for SPS, $`M300`$.

Since $`v_1`$ is smaller than at SPS, one expects from Eq. (13) that the bias on $`v_1\{2\}`$ from nonflow correlations will be even worse. However, the decrease in $`v_1`$ may be partially compensated by the increase in $`v_2`$, so that the error on $`v_1\{3\}`$ remains of the same order. With $`N_{\mathrm{evts}}=50`$k events, $`v_1=1\%`$, $`v_2=5\%`$, one obtains the following statistical errors

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{2\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`7\%`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{4\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`250\%`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1\{3\}}{v_1}}`$ $``$ $`11\%,`$ (24)
where we have used the formula derived in Sec. III.4 for $`\delta v_1\{3\}`$ \[here, $`v_2\sqrt{M}`$ is of order unity, so that the third of Eqs. (16) no longer applies.\] The statistical uncertainty is only $`50\%`$ larger on $`v_1\{3\}`$ than on $`v_1\{2\}`$, while once again the gain on the systematic error more than compensates for that loss.

These numerical estimates show clearly that three-particle mixed correlations offer the best compromise to measure $`v_1`$ at ultrarelativistic energies. The corresponding estimate $`v_1\{3\}`$ is much less affected by nonflow correlations than standard two-particle methods. In this respect, it shares the advantages of higher order estimates such as $`v_1\{4\}`$. In addition, $`v_1\{3\}`$ is much less limited by statistics than the latter, which would require millions of events at SPS and RHIC energies.

### II.5 Integrated flow, differential flow

As with other methods, the analysis proceeds in two steps. One first estimates the average value of $`v_1`$ over phase space. This is done by averaging $`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ over all possible triplets, as in Eq. (2). However, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ depend strongly on rapidity and transverse momentum (for instance, $`v_1`$ has opposite signs in the backward and forward hemispheres). In practice, one therefore performs a weighted average, and Eq. (2) becomes

$$w_1(1)w_1(2)w_2(3)e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}=w_1v_1^2w_2v_2,$$
(25)
where $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ are weights appropriate to directed flow and elliptic flow, respectively, which may be any function of the particle type, its transverse momentum $`p_T`$ and rapidity $`y`$. In this equation, $`w_n(k)`$ is a shorthand for $`w_n(p_{T}^{}{}_{k}{}^{},y_k)`$. The right-hand side (rhs) of Eq. (25) naturally involves weighted averages $`w_nv_n`$, rather than $`v_n`$.

The best choice for the weights is that which leads to the smallest statistical errors. Repeating the discussion in Sec. II.3, one easily shows that this is done by maximizing $`w_nv_n/\sqrt{w_n^2}`$. Therefore the best weight is the flow itself Danielewicz:1995 ; Borghini:2001sa , $`w_n(p_T,y)=v_n(p_T,y)`$, where $`v_n(p_t,y)`$ denotes the value of the flow in a small $`(p_T,y)`$ bin. In practice, one can choose as a first guess the center-of-mass rapidity for directed flow, $`w_1=yy_{\mathrm{CM}}`$, and the transverse momentum for elliptic flow $`w_2=p_T`$, in regions of phase space covered by the detector acceptance.

Using the value of the integrated (and weighted) elliptic flow $`w_2v_2`$ obtained from a separate analysis, one finally obtains the integrated directed flow $`w_1v_1`$ from Eq. (25). Naturally, one must use the same weight $`w_2`$ in the reference analysis which gives $`w_2v_2`$ and in the mixed-correlation analysis.

The second step is to analyze differential flow, i.e., to obtain values of $`v_1`$ as a function of transverse momentum $`p_T`$ and/or rapidity $`y`$. For that purpose, one averages $`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ over all $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$, but restricts $`\varphi _1`$ to a given particle type in a particular $`(p_T,y)`$ bin.

$$w_1(2)w_2(3)e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}=w_1v_1w_2v_2v_1(p_T,y).$$
(26)
Note that there is no weight for the “differential” particle labelled 1, for which we do not perform any phase space average. With the previously derived values of $`w_2v_2`$ and $`w_1v_1`$, one obtains the differential flow $`v_1(p_T,y)`$. This differential flow $`v_1(p_T,y)`$ will be denoted by $`v_1^{}`$ in this paper, while we keep the notation $`v_1`$ for the integrated value only.

## III Implementation

In this section, we show how to analyze directed flow in practice using the three-particle correlation method. The method proposed here is a straightforward generalization of the one introduced in Ref. Borghini:2001vi , which involves the formalism of cumulants and generating functions. One may believe at first sight that this formalism is a useless complication here. But in fact, it provides an efficient and elegant solution to the following problems:

* Taking into account azimuthal asymmetries in the detector acceptance, which always exist, even if the detector has full azimuthal coverage.
* Eliminating correlations due to detector effects.
* Dealing with the combinatorics, i.e., averaging over all possible triplets.

We define the cumulants in Sec. III.1. The generating functions used in analyzing integrated and differential flow are introduced in Sec. III.2. Then we give interpolation formulas which can be used to extract the relevant cumulants from these generating functions (Sec. III.3). Finally, in Sec. III.4, we derive the standard statistical errors on both integrated and differential flow.

### III.1 Cumulants

Even if the detector has full azimuthal coverage, its acceptance is not perfectly isotropic, so that averages like $`e^{i\varphi }`$ do not strictly vanish. A general way to take into account such effects consists in using cumulants. For instance, the cumulant associated with the two-particle correlation Eq. (3) is defined as

$$e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}e^{i\varphi _1}e^{i\varphi _2}.$$
(27)
If the detector is perfectly isotropic, the last term vanishes and the cumulant reduces to the two-particle correlation. With a realistic detector, however, the cumulant isolates the physical correlation by subtracting the contribution of detector effects. Similarly, the cumulant of the three-particle correlation is defined as

$`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ $``$ $`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ (32)
$`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)}e^{2i\varphi _3}`$
$`e^{i\varphi _1}e^{i(\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$
$`e^{i\varphi _2}e^{i(\varphi _12\varphi _3)}`$
$`+2e^{i\varphi _1}e^{i\varphi _2}e^{2i\varphi _3}.`$
As in the previous case, this isolates the genuine three-particle correlation from effects of detector inefficiencies, and from spurious correlations induced by detector effects.

If the acceptance is almost azimuthally symmetric, then all acceptance corrections are taken into account automatically by the cumulant expansion: in order to obtain the flow, one simply need replace the left-hand side (lhs) of Eq. (7) by the cumulant Eq. (32). If detector asymmetries are stronger, a multiplicative factor appears in the rhs of Eq. (7) relating the correlation to the flow. This correction is derived in appendix A.

### III.2 Generating functions

Generating functions provide an elegant way of summing over all possible $`n`$-uplets in a given event. For a given event with $`M`$ particles seen in the detector, we define the following real-valued function of two complex variables $`z_1=x_1+iy_1`$ and $`z_2=x_2+iy_2`$,

$`G(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{w_1(j)}{M}}\left(z_1^{}e^{i\varphi _j}+z_1e^{i\varphi _j}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{w_2(j)}{M}}\left(z_2^{}e^{2i\varphi _j}+z_2e^{2i\varphi _j}\right)\right]`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{w_1(j)}{M}}\left(2x_1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _j)+2y_1\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _j)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{w_2(j)}{M}}\left(2x_2\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi _j)+2y_2\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _j)\right)\right],`$ (34)
where $`z_1^{}x_1iy_1`$ and $`z_2^{}x_2iy_2`$ are the complex conjugates of $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, respectively, and $`w_1(j)`$ and $`w_2(j)`$ are the weights mentioned in Sec. II.5. For sake of simplicity, we drop these weights from now on, unless otherwise stated.

The generating function $`G(z_1,z_2)`$ generalizes the generating function $`G_n(z)`$ introduced in Ref. Borghini:2001vi : the latter involved only one Fourier harmonic at a time, while we are now mixing two Fourier harmonics. More specifically, we recover the results of our earlier work in the limiting cases when either $`z_1`$ or $`z_2`$ vanishes: $`G(z,0)=G_1(z)`$, $`G(0,z)=G_2(z)`$.

Neither the generating function $`G(z_1,z_2)`$, nor the complex numbers $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$ have a physical meaning. They are a formal trick which allows us to extract azimuthal correlations to all orders, if necessary. This is done by averaging $`G(z_1,z_2)`$ over events (we denote this average by $`G(z_1,z_2)`$), and then expanding in power series of $`z_1`$, $`z_1^{}`$, $`z_2`$ and $`z_2^{}`$. For instance, the coefficient of $`z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2`$ in the expansion is

$$G(z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{}+\frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2}{M^3}\underset{j,k,l}{}e^{i(\varphi _j+\varphi _k2\varphi _l)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(35)
The sum runs over nonequivalent triplets, i.e., $`j<k`$. The values of ($`j`$, $`k`$, $`l`$) are all different, so that autocorrelations are automatically avoided. Since there are $`M(M1)(M2)/2`$ nonequivalent triplets, one obtains for large $`M`$

$$G(z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{}+\frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2}{2}e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(36)
One recognizes here the three-particle correlation Eq. (2), averaged over triplets of particles and over events.

In our averaging over events, we have assumed that the number of particles $`M`$ is the same for all events. Although the method can accommodate small fluctuations of the multiplicity $`M`$, this is a possible source of error Borghini:2001vi . Our recommendation is the following: in a given centrality bin, where the total number of detected particles $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ fluctuates from one event to the other, choose a fixed number of particles $`MM_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ to construct the generating function Eq. (33). Although using only a fraction of the total number of particles results in a loss in statistics, this avoids the uncontrolled effects due to fluctuations in the multiplicity.

Note that the generating function previously introduced in Refs. Borghini:2001vi ; Borghini:2001zr  was a function of only one complex variable $`z`$. Here, we need two independent variables $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ because we are mixing two different Fourier harmonics of the azimuthal distribution.

Generating functions are not only a convenient way of summing over all $`n`$-uplets of particles. They also allow one to construct easily cumulants of arbitrary order. The generating function of cumulants for integrated flow, $`𝒞(z_1,z_2)`$, is defined by Borghini:2001vi ; Borghini:2001zr

$$𝒞(z_1,z_2)M\left(G(z_1,z_2)^{1/M}1\right).$$
(37)
Expanding in power series of $`z_1`$, $`z_1^{}`$, $`z_2`$ and $`z_2^{}`$, one obtains cumulants of arbitrary order. In particular, the coefficient of $`z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2`$ in the expansion is

$$𝒞(z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{}+\frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2}{2}e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}+\mathrm{}$$
(38)
An explicit calculation using Eqs. (33) and (37) shows that the expression of $`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ thus defined coincides with Eq. (32) in the limit of large $`M`$.

While the generating function $`𝒞(z_1,z_2)`$ is real-valued, the cumulant $`e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}`$ defined by Eq. (38) is in general a complex number. However, the imaginary part results from detector effects and statistical fluctuations, and only the real part is relevant. For sake of brevity, we denote this cumulant of three-particle correlations by $`c\{3\}`$ in the following:

$$c\{3\}\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}\right),$$
(39)
where $`\mathrm{Re}`$ denotes the real part. Restoring the weights, this cumulant gives an estimate of the weighted integrated directed flow, which we denote by $`w_1v_1\{3\}`$ \[see Eq. (25)\]:

$$c\{3\}=w_1v_1\{3\}^2w_2v_2,$$
(40)
where the integrated elliptic flow $`w_2v_2`$ comes from an independent analysis.

Let us now turn to differential flow. We shall denote by $`\psi `$ the azimuth of the differential particle under study, and by $`v_1^{}`$ its flow, $`v_1^{}e^{i(\psi \mathrm{\Phi }_R)}`$, and call it a “proton” (although it can be any type of particle). In opposition, we call “pions” the particles used to estimate integrated flow.

The overall procedure in the analysis is quite similar to the analysis of integrated flow. We first introduce a generating function of the azimuthal correlations between the proton and the pions. It is given by the average value over protons of $`e^{i\psi }G(z_1,z_2)`$, where $`G(z_1,z_2)`$ is evaluated for the event where the protons belong:

$$e^{i\psi }G(z_1,z_2)=e^{i\psi }+z_1e^{i(\psi \varphi _1)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(41)
Note that in the averaging procedure, an event with two protons is counted twice, while an event with no proton does not contribute.

Then we define a generating function of the cumulants for differential flow, $`𝒟(z_1,z_2)`$, by Borghini:2001vi ; Borghini:2001zr

$$𝒟(z_1,z_2)\frac{e^{i\psi }G(z_1,z_2)}{G(z_1,z_2)},$$
(42)
where, in the denominator, $`G(z_1,z_2)`$ denotes an average over all events. The cumulants are the coefficients in the expansion in power series of this generating function. As in the case of integrated flow, they are in general complex numbers, but only the real part is relevant from the physical point of view. For instance, the coefficient of $`z_1^{}z_2`$ defines the cumulant of order 3 which we shall use to extract differential flow:

$$d\{3\}\mathrm{Re}\left(e^{i(\psi +\varphi _12\varphi _2)}\right).$$
(43)
Note the similarity between this expression and Eq. (39). In fact, the cumulant $`d\{3\}`$ shares the same features as $`c\{3\}`$: it is free from detector effects, and reflects physical three-particle correlations, due either to direct three-body correlations, or to flow. Restoring the weights, the relation between the cumulant and flow reads \[see Eq. (26)\]:

$$d\{3\}=w_1v_1w_2v_2v_1^{}\{3\}.$$
(44)
We denote by $`v_1^{}\{3\}`$ this estimate of $`v_1^{}`$ obtained from three-particle correlations.

### III.3 Interpolating the cumulants

In this section, we show how to extract the cumulants for integrated and differential flows, Eqs. (39) and (43), numerically, from the computation of the generating function Eq. (33) for various values of $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$. We introduce the interpolation points $`(z_{1,p},z_{2,q})=(x_{1,p}+iy_{1,p}`$, $`x_{2,q}+iy_{2,q})`$ with

$`x_{1,p}=r_0\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p\pi }{8}}\right),y_{1,p}=r_0\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p\pi }{8}}\right),`$ (45)
$`x_{2,q}=r_0\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\pi }{4}}\right),y_{2,q}=r_0\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q\pi }{4}}\right),`$ (46)
for $`p=0,\mathrm{},7`$ and $`q=0,\mathrm{},3`$, and where $`r_0`$ is a real number, which must be neither too large, otherwise the error due to higher order terms in the power-series expansion of $`G(z_1,z_2)`$ is large, nor too small, to avoid numerical errors.

To obtain the cumulants, one should for each event choose randomly $`M`$ particles among the $`M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ detected, and, with the particle azimuths $`\varphi _j`$ (and possibly with their transverse momenta and rapidities, if $`p_T`$ and/or $`y`$-dependent weights are used) compute the generating function, Eq. (33), at the points, Eq. (45). Then one must average the values $`G(z_{1,p},z_{2,q})`$ over events, and calculate the generating function of cumulants, Eq. (37). We denote by $`C_{p,q}`$ the values of the generating function $`𝒞(z_1,z_2)`$ evaluated at the interpolation points (45):

$$C_{p,q}𝒞(z_{1,p},z_{2,q}).$$
(47)
From this quantities, we then build

$`(C_p)_x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_0}}\left(C_{p,0}C_{p,2}\right),`$ (48)
$`(C_p)_y`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_0}}\left(C_{p,3}C_{p,1}\right),`$ (49)
which correspond to the real and imaginary parts of the derivative of $`𝒞(z_1,z_2)`$ with respect to $`z_2`$. Finally, the third order cumulant we are interested in, $`c\{3\}`$, is given by

$`c\{3\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_0^2}}[(C_0)_x(C_1)_y(C_2)_x+(C_3)_y`$ (51)
$`+(C_4)_x(C_5)_y(C_6)_x+(C_7)_y].`$
Consider now differential flow. We denote by $`D_{p,q}`$ the values of the generating function $`𝒟(z_1,z_2)`$ evaluated at the interpolation points (45):

$$D_{p,q}(D_{p,q})_x+i(D_{p,q})_y𝒟(z_{1,p},z_{2,q}),$$
(52)
where in fact one only need use even values of $`p`$: the interpolation of the “differential” cumulant, which is only a second order derivative, requires less points than the “integrated” cumulant, which is a derivative of third order. With the quantities Eq. (52), we then build

$`(D_p)_x`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_0}}\left[(D_{p,0})_x(D_{p,2})_x+(D_{p,1})_y(D_{p,3})_y\right],`$
$`(D_p)_y`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r_0}}\left[(D_{p,0})_y(D_{p,2})_y+(D_{p,3})_x(D_{p,1})_x\right],`$
and the cumulant $`d\{3\}`$ is finally given by

$$d\{3\}=\frac{1}{4r_0}\left[(D_0)_x(D_2)_y(D_4)_x+(D_6)_y\right].$$
(53)
Naturally, one may prefer using a different interpolation scheme. In any case, one should check that the final values, $`c\{3\}`$ and $`d\{3\}`$, do not depend on the parameters introduced in the interpolation: here, one should try different values of $`r_0`$, and check the stability of the result.

### III.4 Statistical errors

The standard deviation of the cumulant $`c\{3\}`$, Eq.(39), is given by

$$(\delta c\{3\})^2=\frac{w_1^2^2w_2^2}{2M^3N_{\mathrm{evts}}}(2+4\chi _1^2+2\chi _2^2+4\chi _1^2\chi _2^2+\chi _1^4).$$
(54)
In this equation, $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are the resolution parameters appropriate for directed flow and elliptic flow, respectively:

$$\chi _n\frac{w_nv_n}{\sqrt{w_n^2}}\sqrt{M}.$$
(55)
From Eq. (54), and the relation between $`c\{3\}`$ and the flow, Eq. (40), one can calculate the statistical error on $`w_1v_1`$. If one neglects the statistical error on $`v_2`$, one recovers the simple estimate (16) with unit weights, in the limit where $`\chi _11`$ and $`\chi _21`$. A more careful estimate must take into account the error on $`w_2v_2`$ in deriving the error on $`w_1v_1`$. Statistical errors on the cumulant are Gaussian. Since the relation between the cumulant and the integrated directed flow, Eq. (40), is quadratic rather than linear, the resulting error bars on $`w_1v_1`$ are asymmetric when the error is large, as discussed in detail in appendix D of Ref. Borghini:2001vi .

Similarly, the standard deviation of the differential cumulant $`d\{3\}`$, Eq. (43), is given by

$$(\delta d\{3\})^2=\frac{w_1^2w_2^2}{2M^2N^{}}(1+\chi _1^2)(1+\chi _2^2),$$
(56)
where $`N^{}`$ denotes the number of protons used in the differential flow analysis. Using the relation (44) between this cumulant and the differential flow, $`v_1^{}\{3\}`$, we easily obtain the statistical error on $`v_1^{}\{3\}`$. Since the analysis is done in a narrow phase space bin, one may reasonably assume here that the error on $`d\{3\}`$ is dominated by the error on $`v_1^{}\{3\}`$, which yields

$$\delta v_1^{}\{3\}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N^{}}}\frac{\sqrt{1+\chi _1^2}}{\chi _1}\frac{\sqrt{1+\chi _2^2}}{\chi _2}.$$
(57)
This result can be understood simply in two limiting cases. When both $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are large compared to unity, the reaction plane $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ can be reconstructed accurately. The error on $`\mathrm{cos}(\psi \mathrm{\Phi }_R)`$ estimated with $`N^{}`$ values of $`\psi `$ is then $`1/\sqrt{2N^{}}`$, to which the error reduces for $`\chi _11`$, $`\chi _21`$. In the opposite case $`\chi _11`$, $`\chi _21`$, comparing Eqs. (54) and (56), one finds for unit weights $`\delta v_1^{}\{3\}/\delta v_1\{3\}=\sqrt{MN_{\mathrm{evts}}/N^{}}`$: errors scale like the inverse square root of the number of particles involved, and the determination of the integrated flow $`v_1`$ involves a total number of $`MN_{\mathrm{evts}}`$ particles while the differential flow $`v_1^{}`$ involves $`N^{}`$ particles.

## IV Higher orders

In the previous section, we have studied the three-particle correlation, which is the lowest order nontrivial result obtained with the generalized generating function. Higher orders can also be derived in a straightforward way. Expanding the generating function of cumulants $`𝒞(z_1,z_2)`$, defined in Eq. (37), in power series of $`z_1`$, $`z_1^{}`$, $`z_2`$, and $`z_2^{}`$, yields cumulants of arbitrary order:

$$𝒞(z_1,z_2)\underset{j,k,l,m}{}\frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}z_1^kz_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}z_2^m}{j!k!l!m!}e^{i(\varphi _1+\mathrm{}+\varphi _j\varphi _{j+1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{j+k}+2(\varphi _{j+k+1}+\mathrm{}+\varphi _{j+k+l}\varphi _{j+k+l+1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{j+k+l+m}))}.$$
(58)
The only relevant cumulants are those which are invariant under a simultaneous shift of all azimuthal angles $`\varphi _j\varphi _j+\alpha `$. Other cumulants vanish except for statistical fluctuations and detector effects. According to Eq. (35), this shift is equivalent to the change of variables $`z_1z_1e^{i\alpha }`$, $`z_2z_2e^{2i\alpha }`$. The only terms in Eq. (58) which are invariant under this transformation are those with $`j+2l=k+2m`$. Any of these cumulants can be used to extract the flow. Until now, we have explored only a few possibilities: the case considered in Sec. III is $`(j,k,l,m)=(2,0,0,1)`$; the cumulants used in Ref. Borghini:2001vi  to extract $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are those with $`j=k`$, $`l=m=0`$ and those with $`j=k=0`$, $`l=m`$ (denoted by $`c_1\{2j\}`$ and $`c_2\{2l\}`$, respectively).

We now derive the relations between cumulants of arbitrary orders and the flow coefficients $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. For this purpose, we compute the average value of $`G(z_1,z_2)`$ in the presence of flow. We first average for a given orientation of the reaction plane $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$. For an arbitrary particle, by definition of $`v_n`$, we may write $`e^{in\varphi }|\mathrm{\Phi }_R=v_ne^{in\mathrm{\Phi }_R}`$. Replacing in Eq. (35), dropping the weights for simplicity, and neglecting all nonflow correlations, we obtain

$`G(z_1,z_2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z_1^{}v_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}+z_1v_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}+z_2^{}v_2e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}+z_2v_2e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}}{M}}\right)^M`$ (59)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(z_1^{}v_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}+z_1v_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(z_2^{}v_2e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}+z_2v_2e^{2i\mathrm{\Phi }_R}\right).`$ (60)
The next step is to average over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$. We make use of the following formula

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(z^{}e^{i\varphi }+ze^{i\varphi }\right)=\underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{iq\varphi }\left(\frac{z}{|z|}\right)^qI_q(2|z|),$$
(61)
where $`I_q`$ is the modified Bessel function of order $`q`$. Applying this identity to each term of Eq. (59) and integrating over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$, one obtains

$`G(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}G(z_1,z_2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_R{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_R}{2\pi }}`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2}{|z_1|^2|z_2|}}\right)^qI_{2q}(2|z_1|v_1)I_q(2|z_2|v_2).`$ (63)
In the limiting cases $`z_1=0`$ or $`z_2=0`$, only the term $`q=0`$ contributes to the sum in the rhs, and we recover $`G(z_1,0)=I_0(2|z_1|v_1)`$, $`G(0,z_2)=I_0(2|z_2|v_2)`$, already derived in Ref. Borghini:2001vi .

Expanding the generating function of cumulants, $`𝒞(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{ln}G(z_1,z_2)`$, in powers of $`z_1`$, $`z_1^{}`$, $`z_2`$, $`z_2^{}`$, and identifying with Eq. (58), one obtains the relations between the various cumulants and flow. As expected, the only nonvanishing terms are those which satisfy the condition $`j+2l=k+2m`$ derived above, and the corresponding cumulants are proportional to $`(v_1)^{j+k}(v_2)^{l+m}`$, with an integer multiplicative constant depending on the values of $`j,k,l,m`$. To order $`z_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z_2^{}z_2^2`$, for instance, one obtains

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3+2\varphi _42\varphi _5)}=(v_1)^2(v_2)^3.$$
(64)
If $`v_2`$ is measured independently, this equation yields an estimate of $`v_1`$ from 5-particle correlations, which we denote by $`v_1\{5\}`$. The statistical error on $`v_1\{5\}`$ is not much larger than the error on the earlier three-particle estimate $`v_1\{3\}`$ if $`v_2`$ is large enough (more precisely, if the resolution parameter $`\chi _2v_2\sqrt{M}`$ is larger than unity). This may be useful at RHIC, not at SPS where $`v_2`$ is too small. Cumulants with $`j+k>2`$ in Eq. (58) involve higher powers of $`v_1`$ and are useless in the situation we are interested in, namely small values of $`v_1`$.

## V Discussion

In the previous sections, we have presented a new method for analyzing directed flow ($`v_1`$), through the help of an independent measurement of elliptic flow ($`v_2`$). It allows one to measure both integrated and differential flow, the value of integrated flow being used in the differential analysis.

Our method relies on a study of three-particle correlations. Unlike standard methods, based on two-particle correlations, it is not biased by two-particle nonflow correlations, which are an important bias at ultrarelativistic energies. This can be checked experimentally by studying $`v_1`$ near midrapidity: while standard two-particle estimates $`v_1\{2\}`$ generally do not cross zero, especially if they are not corrected for momentum conservation Borghini:2002mv , our estimate $`v_1\{3\}`$ should naturally vanish at midrapidity, as expected.

In experiments where analyses of directed flow are already available, it would be interesting to compare these standard estimates from two-particle correlations, $`v_1\{2\}`$, with our new estimate from three-particle correlations $`v_1\{3\}`$. If they are in agreement (within statistical error bars), it is a good hint that they indeed coincide with the true directed flow. If they differ, it is instructive to study the centrality dependence of the product $`M(v_1\{3\}^2v_1\{2\}^2)`$, where $`M`$ is the event multiplicity. If the difference between $`v_1\{2\}`$ and $`v_1\{3\}`$ is due to two-particle nonflow correlations, this product should be approximately constant <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Similarly, the product $`M(v_n\{4\}^2v_n\{2\}^2)`$ may be used to probe the possible difference between a four-particle flow estimate $`v_n\{4\}`$ derived with the method proposed in Ref. Borghini:2001vi  and an estimate $`v_n\{2\}`$ obtained with some two-particle method. (remember that two-particle nonflow correlations scale as $`1/M`$.) If the product differs significantly from a constant, then another explanation must be looked for: the difference between $`v_1\{2\}`$ and $`v_1\{3\}`$ may be due to fluctuations, either fluctuations of the impact parameter within a given centrality class of events Poskanzer , or, more interestingly, physical fluctuations of the flow event-by-event.

The price to pay for eliminating nonflow effects is an increase in statistical errors, compared to standard two-particle methods. However, this increase is moderate, a factor of 2 or less at SPS and RHIC. This new method is thus much less statistics-demanding than those based on correlations between four (or more) particles. All in all, three-particle correlations seem to be the most appropriate way to measure $`v_1`$ when it is small, and especially if $`v_2`$ is strong: near the balance energy, at SPS, RHIC, and the forthcoming experiments at LHC.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Marek Gaździcki, Art Poskanzer, Herbert Ströbele, Sergei Voloshin and Alexander Wetzler for discussions. N. B. acknowledges support from the “Actions de Recherche Concertées” of “Communauté Française de Belgique” and IISN-Belgium.

## Appendix A Acceptance corrections

In the case of a realistic detector, with a nonisotropic acceptance, the relations between the cumulants and flow, Eqs. (40) and (44), no longer hold. In this appendix, we derive the relevant modifications taking into account the detector acceptance.

In what follows, we assume that the various classes of events analyzed, for instance, the different centrality bins, are determined with an independent detector (e.g., a ZDC), which has a full azimuthal coverage (at least approximately). This is meant to make sure that the centrality assigned to a given event is not strongly correlated to the orientation of its reaction plane, which would bias the sample of events used in the flow analysis.

To describe a detector, we introduce its acceptance/ efficiency function $`A(j,\varphi ,p_T,y)`$, which is the probability that a particle of type $`j`$ with azimuth $`\varphi `$, transverse momentum $`p_T`$, and rapidity $`y`$ be detected Borghini:2001vi ; Borghini:2001zr . Obviously, $`A(j,\varphi ,p_T,y)`$ will vary from a detector to another, and a “perfect” detector corresponds to $`A(j,\varphi ,p_T,y)=1`$ for every particle type in the whole phase space. In practice, $`A(j,\varphi ,p_T,y)`$ is proportional to the number of hits in a $`(\varphi ,p_T,y)`$ bin: to obtain its shape for a given detector and for each $`(p_T,y)`$ bin, one only has to count the number of hits in each $`\varphi `$ bin while reading the data to analyze them, and in the end divide by the maximal number encountered. The Fourier coefficients of the acceptance function are defined by

$$A_n(j,p_T,y)_0^{2\pi }A(j,\varphi ,p_T,y)e^{in\varphi }\frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }.$$
(65a)
These differential coefficients can be integrated, with appropriate weighting and a sum over the various types of particles used for the flow analysis, so as to describe the “integrated” acceptance of the detector:
$$a_n[w]=\frac{{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle w(j,p_T,y)A_n(j,p_T,y)𝑑p_T𝑑y}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle w(j,p_T,y)A_0(j,p_T,y)𝑑p_T𝑑y}}.$$
(65b)
Note our introducing the weights $`w(j,p_T,y)`$, which are of course the same as in Eq. (33), either $`w_1(j)`$ or $`w_2(j)`$. In the following, we assume that both weights are equal, so that there is only one set of $`a_n`$ coefficients. If two different weights are used—a weight $`w_1`$ which maximizes $`v_1`$ and the weight $`w_2`$ which was used to derive the reference $`v_2`$—one should keep track of the two different sets of coefficients $`a_n[w_1]`$, $`a_n[w_2]`$ in the calculation which we now sketch.

To compute the contribution of flow to the cumulant $`c\{3\}`$, we follow the same procedure as in Ref. Borghini:2001vi . We first average the generating function Eq. (33) over events with the same azimuth of the reaction plane $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$; then we average over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$. For simplicity, we neglect nonflow correlations in the derivation. Denoting by $`x|\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ the average of a quantity $`x`$ for fixed $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$, the average value of $`e^{in\varphi }`$ for a fixed $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$ is given by Borghini:2001vi

$$e^{in\varphi }|\mathrm{\Phi }_R=a_n^{}+\underset{p0}{}(a_{pn}a_pa_n^{})v_pe^{ip\mathrm{\Phi }_R},$$
(66)
where $`a_n^{}=a_n`$ is the complex conjugate of $`a_n`$. Thus, a nonisotropic acceptance mixes the various flow harmonics. In the case of a perfect acceptance, Eqs. (65) show that all coefficients $`a_n`$ vanish, except $`a_0=1`$, and the identity (66) reads $`e^{in\varphi }|\mathrm{\Phi }_R=v_ne^{in\mathrm{\Phi }_R}`$, which follows in a straightforward way from Eq. (1).

Inserting the average value, Eq. (66) for $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$ in Eq. (33), one obtains the generating function averaged over events with the same orientation of the reaction plane, $`G(z_1,z_2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$. The latter must then be averaged over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$, then one computes the cumulants using Eqs. (37) and (58), keeping only the real part. In particular, the third cumulant reads

$`c\{3\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}((1|a_2|^2)(1|a_1|^2)^2`$ (70)
$`+2[(a_1a_1^{}a_2)^2(a_2^{}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`+\left(1|a_1|^2\right)|a_3a_1a_2|^2`$
$`+(a_4a_2^2)(a_2^{}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2])v_1^2v_2,`$
instead of Eq. (40), where we have assumed that only $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are nonvanishing. When the detector is perfect, one recovers Eq. (40). Even if the detector is not perfect, but nevertheless does not have too bad an acceptance, the factor in front of $`v_1^2v_2`$ in Eq. (70) will remain close to 1, since the correction terms are at least quadratic in the $`a_n`$ coefficients. Thus, Eq. (40) remains a good approximation, except for detectors with a very bad azimuthal coverage.

The contribution of flow to the “differential” cumulant $`d\{3\}`$, Eq. (43), can be calculated along the same lines. In that calculation, one may assume that integrated and differential flows are measured using two different detectors: e.g., a large acceptance detector for integrated flow, and a smaller one, but with better particle identification or $`p_T`$ determination, for differential flow. We thus denote by $`A^{}(j,\psi ,p_T,y)`$ the corresponding acceptance function and by $`A_k^{}(j,p_T,y)`$ its Fourier coefficients defined as in Eq. (65a). The differential acceptance coefficients $`a_k^{}`$ are then defined as in Eq. (65b), without the weights and the summation over $`j`$ (since one usually measures the differential flow of identified particles) and with the integration over $`p_T`$ and $`y`$ restricted to the phase-space region under interest (typically, one integrates over $`p_T`$ or $`y`$, so as to obtain $`v_1^{}`$ as a function of $`y`$ or $`p_T`$, respectively).

The average value over protons in the numerator of Eq. (42) is then computed in two steps, first averaging over protons detected in events with the same orientation of the reaction plane, then averaging over $`\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$. The denominator of Eq. (42), $`G(z_1,z_2)|\mathrm{\Phi }_R`$, is the same as in the calculation of $`c\{3\}`$. Finally, $`d\{3\}`$ is given by the coefficient of $`z_1^{}z_2`$ in the expansion in power series of $`𝒟(z_1,z_2)`$:

$`d\{3\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}[(1|a_1|^2)(1|a_2|^2)+(a_1a_1^{}a_2)^2a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (74)
$`+|a_3a_1a_2|^2+(a_2^{}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(a_4a_2^2)a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]v^{}_1v_1v_2`$
$`+\mathrm{Re}[(1|a_1|^2)(a_3a_1a_2)a_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$
$`+(a_2^{}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(a_1a_1^{}a_2)a_1^{}]v^{}_2v_1^2.`$
A nonisotropic acceptance will cause interference between the various differential flow harmonics: the measurement of directed differential flow $`v_1^{}`$ is perturbed by the elliptic differential flow $`v_2^{}`$. It is worth noting that as soon as the acceptance of the detector used for integrated flow is perfect, Eq. (74) reduces to Eq. (44).