Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Assessing background effects in search of the chiral vortical effect in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The observed ALICE Lambda-proton azimuthal separations, often read as signs of the chiral vortical effect, can be produced entirely by local baryon conservation, baryon coalescence, and hadronic annihilation backgrounds.

desk verdict Useful first systematic background study for CVE searches; the AMPT centrality agreement is the real news, but the BW part is a fit and the feed-down estimate is the most citable piece. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09025 v1 pith:5BLZLENT submitted 2025-09-10 nucl-th

Chunzheng Wang , Jie Wan , Jinfeng Liao , Yugang Ma , Shuzhe Shi , Qiye Shou , Zhengqing Wang , Kegang Xiong
show 2 more authors
Song Zhang Liang Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords chiralvorticaleffectlocalbaryonconservationazimuthalcorrelatorsLambda-protoncorrelationsheavy-ioncollisionsblast-wavemodelAMPTfeed-downcorrection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the Lambda-proton azimuthal correlator differences Delta-delta and Delta-gamma measured by ALICE in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV can be explained by conventional baryon-production backgrounds without introducing a chiral vortical effect (CVE) signal. It shows that the AMPT model, with no parameter tuning, reproduces the ALICE data across all centralities within uncertainties, while a tuned blast-wave model reproduces both the centrality and kinematic hierarchies. The responsible mechanisms are local baryon conservation paired with collective flow, baryon production through string breakups and partonic coalescence, and hadronic annihilation. A hydrodynamic-plus-cascade simulation indicates annihilation creates negative opposite-sign correlations that are masked by stronger local-baryon-conservation effects, and Lambda feed-down protons retain about 97 percent of their parent correlation. If correct, the search for the CVE must first subtract these background contributions before any signal can be claimed.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the azimuthal correlators gamma = cos(phi_alpha + phi_beta - 2 Psi) and delta = cos(phi_alpha - phi_beta), and their opposite-sign minus same-sign differences, which are intended to expose CVE-induced baryon charge separation. The load-bearing mechanism is local baryon conservation implemented as correlated baryon-antibaryon pair emission from the same spatial point or freeze-out cell, with the pair fraction (f_LBC or P_LBC) controlling the strength, followed by a collective-flow boost; in AMPT the equivalent effects emerge automatically from string-breakup baryon conservation and partonic coalescence. The Delta-gamma correlator's linear dependence on elliptic flow v2

What would settle it

Measure the Lambda-proton balance function in Pb-Pb at 5.02 TeV: the tuned blast-wave picture predicts a specific centrality-dependent correlated-pair fraction (f_LBC rising from about 3.4 percent in 10-20% to about 5 percent in 50-60% centrality), and a measured balance function incompatible with those values would falsify the background interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ALICE's Lambda-proton Delta-delta and Delta-gamma can be reproduced by baryon-production backgrounds without any chiral vortical effect. Local baryon conservation, implemented as baryon-antibaryon pairs emitted from a common point and then flow-boosted, produces the observed correlations: AMPT captures this automatically through string-breakup baryon conservation and partonic coalescence, matching ALICE across centralities within uncertainties without tuning. Turning off coalescence removes only the Delta-gamma match, consistent with Delta-gamma scaling linearly with v2 while Delta-delta follows radial flow. AVFD+UrQMD shows hadronic annihilation creates neg

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the data are background-driven rests on the assumption that the models implement baryon production correctly, especially the blast-wave picture of local baryon conservation as Lambda-proton pairs emitted from the same spatial point with the pairing fraction tuned to the same data being explained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured Lambda-proton Delta-delta and Delta-gamma in Pb-Pb at 5.02 TeV can be accounted for without a chiral vortical effect, so these correlators alone are not sufficient evidence for CVE.
  • A reliable CVE extraction will need a model-dependent subtraction of local-baryon-conservation and coalescence backgrounds; the paper leaves signal-background separation as an open problem.
  • Because Delta-gamma scales linearly with v2 and Delta-delta with radial flow, event-shape engineering offers a practical way to search for a residual CVE signal while controlling flow-driven backgrounds.
  • Kinematic selections matter: narrow pseudorapidity differences and high transverse-momentum sums enhance the baryon-pair background, so reported kinematic hierarchies should be interpreted as background-driven under this picture.
  • Lambda feed-down protons contribute roughly 97 percent of the Lambda-Lambda correlation and should be subtracted from experimental Lambda-p measurements using that ratio.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The authors' blast-wave agreement is constrained by tuning f_LBC to the very data being explained; the background hypothesis would be independently testable with a measured Lambda-proton balance function, which is currently unavailable.
  • Editorial inference: If baryon-pair formation is this dominant in the Lambda-p channel, similar local-baryon-conservation backgrounds may contaminate other baryon-based chiral-effect searches, including baryon-electric-charge correlations; modeling them with the same machinery could sharpen those limits.
  • Editorial inference: A discriminating experiment could look for a vortex-dependent residual: select events matched in v2 and kinematic windows and check whether Delta-gamma varies with reaction-plane-aligned vorticity estimated from global polarization—an LBC background would not track vorticity, while a genuine CVE would.
  • Editorial inference: The negative annihilation contribution from AVFD+UrQMD implies that final-state hadronic interactions do not merely dilute backgrounds but can partially cancel opposite-sign correlations, so any future CVE extraction must treat the hadronic phase as part of the background budget.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript examines whether the azimuthal correlator differences Δδ and Δγ measured by ALICE for Λ–p pairs in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV can be explained without invoking the chiral vortical effect. Three phenomenological frameworks are used: a blast-wave (BW) model with a tunable fraction f_LBC of local-baryon-conserving Λ–p pairs; the AMPT transport model in default and string-melting modes; and AVFD+UrQMD with and without local baryon conservation and hadronic cascade. The paper reports that BW, after tuning f_LBC, reproduces the centrality and kinematic hierarchies; AMPT reproduces the centrality dependence and Δη trends but fails the ΣpT dependence; and AVFD+UrQMD shows that hadronic annihilation gives negative opposite-sign correlations, which are overcompensated by LBC effects. A feed-down study estimates that protons from Λ weak decays retain about 97% of the Λ–Λ azimuthal correlation. The paper concludes that baryon-production backgrounds, especially LBC convolved with collective flow, likely dominate the measured correlators and must be subtracted before a CVE signal can be extracted.

Significance. If the background-dominance claim holds, the paper provides a useful counterweight to CVE interpretations of ALICE data and parallels the LCC background program in CME searches. Its strengths include the use of three independent model frameworks, the explicit comparison of AMPT default vs. string-melting to isolate coalescence effects, the direct estimate of Λ-feed-down contamination, and a transparent admission that the BW agreement follows from tuning. The paper is also practically useful for the ALICE/STAR community in designing feed-down corrections. However, the independent evidential weight is limited: the BW component is a fit rather than a prediction, and the only untuned model (AMPT) fails one of the two kinematic tests. The qualitative conclusion is credible, but the manuscript currently overstates the strength of the model-data agreement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, BW model; Fig. 1] The BW agreement is not an independent test of the LBC background hypothesis. Sec. 2 states that f_LBC is tuned to reproduce the ALICE CVE results, and the implementation emits Λ and p from the same spatial point. The paper itself acknowledges that the agreement is expected. Because no measured Λ–p balance function or equivalent observable constrains the pairing fraction or the point-like spatial structure, the BW component cannot by itself support the background-dominance conclusion. I recommend treating BW as an illustrative model and adding an external constraint (e.g., balance-function data, or a scan over the LBC correlation length) before claiming that LBC reproduces the data.
  2. [Sec. 3.1; Fig. 2] The only model not explicitly tuned, AMPT, fails to reproduce the ΣpT dependence of both Δδ and Δγ, while reproducing the Δη hierarchy. This is one of the two measured kinematic hierarchies, so the statement in Sec. 3.1 (and echoed in the abstract) that AMPT 'simultaneously reproduces the ALICE Δδ and Δγ data across all centralities within uncertainties' is too strong: it applies only to the integrated/c centrality-dependent results, not to the full kinematic data. Moreover, no statistical or systematic uncertainty bands are shown for any model curve, so 'within uncertainties' is not quantified. Please either provide uncertainty estimates or specify precisely which observables and kinematic windows are reproduced.
  3. [Secs. 2 and 3.2] The analysis chain for the BW model is underspecified: only Λ and p are generated, and the text does not describe how centrality classes, detector acceptance, event-plane angle Ψ, or multiplicity scaling are handled. Since f_LBC is tuned, the numerical comparison in Fig. 1 lacks enough information to judge whether the extracted values (≈3.4–5%) are physical or an artifact of the simplified setup. Similarly, the AVFD LBC fraction P_LBC=30% is chosen without a documented motivation, and the hadronic-cascade comparison in Fig. 3 is qualitative. If these numbers are to support a background-subtraction recipe, the model-parameter dependence should be quantified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2] The sentence 'each model is tuned to reproduce ... [33,36]' appears to cite the wrong references: Ref. [33] is multiplicity and Ref. [34] is anisotropic flow; [36] is about event shape engineering. Please correct the citation.
  2. [Fig. 3] The y-axis labels '10Ni Δδi' and '100 Ni Nj Δδi,j' are difficult to parse. Please clarify whether the factors 10 and 100 are part of the normalization or a plotting scale, and define N_i explicitly.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The feed-down calculation selects primordial Λ before hadronic interactions and forces weak decays. In the experimental analysis, 'protons from Λ decays' include feed-down from heavier hyperons; please clarify that the 97% ratio applies only to direct Λ-decay protons, and discuss whether this affects the proposed correction.
  4. [Fig. 2] The legend contains many overlapping ΣpT and Δη bins that are hard to read in black-and-white print. A table or a rescaled figure with distinct markers would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The BW model's reproduction of ALICE data is a fit, not a prediction: f_LBC is tuned to the target observables, and the agreement is admitted to be expected.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (BW model description) and Section 3.1 (centrality dependence)]
    "Since the experimental balance function [22] between Λ and p is currently unmeasured, we tune f_LBC to reproduce the ALICE CVE results, as will be presented in the following section. ... In BW, as aforementioned, the parameters are tuned to match ALICE data, so the close agreement is expected."

    The BW model's success in reproducing the ALICE Δδ and Δγ data is not an independent test of the local-baryon-conservation (LBC) background. The free parameter f_LBC, which controls the strength of LBC, is adjusted specifically to make the model output match the very ALICE data that the paper then presents as being 'successfully reproduced.' The paper explicitly acknowledges this in the phrase 'so the close agreement is expected.' Consequently, the agreement provides no independent evidence that LBC (as implemented) is the correct background mechanism; it only demonstrates that a tunable parameter can force agreement. This reduces the BW-based demonstration to a fitting exercise, not a prediction. The paper's abstract and summary, however, present the BW reproduction as supporting the back

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative support comes from two models: BW and AMPT. The BW agreement is explicitly obtained by tuning f_LBC to the ALICE CVE data (Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.1), making that agreement circular by construction. The AMPT model, by contrast, is not tuned to these observables and does independently reproduce the centrality dependence of Δδ and Δγ, providing some non-circular support for the background interpretation. However, the paper admits that AMPT fails to describe the ΣpT dependence (Sec. 3.1, Fig. 2), which weakens the claim of a complete background description. The AVFD+UrQMD results are qualitative and not used as a quantitative prediction of the ALICE data. Overall, the strongest quantitative 'reproduction' of the data reduces to a fit, while the only untuned model only partially matches. This is a partial circularity: the BW component is fitted input presented as agreement, while independent content exists but is incomplete. The score of 6 reflects that one of the two main 'predictions' is circular, but the paper retains independent (though limited) support from AMPT.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The free parameters f_LBC and P_LBC control the strength of the assumed local baryon conservation background; f_LBC is fitted to the target data and therefore inflates the circularity burden.

free parameters (2)
  • f_LBC (BW) = 3.4% (10-20%) to ~5% (50-60%)
    Fraction of pair-emitting spatial points in the blast-wave model, tuned to reproduce the ALICE Delta-delta and Delta-gamma data; the central BW agreement is therefore a fit.
  • P_LBC (AVFD) = 30%
    Fraction of particles produced as baryon-antibaryon pairs in AVFD, chosen by hand to illustrate the effect of local baryon conservation; not constrained by data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BW, AMPT, and AVFD+UrQMD models provide reliable descriptions of background baryon production in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV.
    The entire study rests on the validity of these phenomenological models as proxies for the true background mechanisms.
  • ad hoc to paper Local baryon conservation is implemented as correlated Lambda-proton or anti-Lambda-proton pair emission from the same spatial point or freeze-out cell.
    Introduced in Sec. 2 to generate the background; the strength is fit to data in BW, making the background hypothesis partly circular.
  • domain assumption Baryon-antibaryon annihilation as implemented in UrQMD is realistic enough to estimate the negative correlation contributions.
    The AVFD+UrQMD hadronic cascade result in Sec. 3.2 depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Forcing primordial Lambda weak decays in AMPT preserves the azimuthal correlation structure of the daughter protons.
    The feed-down estimate in Sec. 3.3 uses this artificial decay procedure; the paper estimates a 97% ratio but does not validate it against data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing background effects in search of the chiral vortical effect in relativistic heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BLZLENT

@misc{pith2026250909025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing background effects in search of the chiral vortical effect in relativistic heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BLZLENT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09025}
}
abstract

The search for the Chiral Vortical Effect (CVE) in relativistic heavy-ion collisions is carried out by measuring azimuthal correlators for baryon pairs such as $\Lambda$ and protons. Experimental results from the ALICE collaboration show significant separations in these observables, however, the interpretation remains unclear. It is believed that background contributions from baryon production mechanisms may play an important role. Using three phenomenological models, the Blast Wave, AMPT, and AVFD+UrQMD, we systematically investigate the background effects in Pb--Pb collisions at \snn = 5.02 TeV. We demonstrate that local baryon conservation, as well as hadronic annihilation processes, can significantly influence the correlators. The feed-down contribution from secondary protons is also estimated. Our study provides a foundation for disentangling background mechanisms and further facilitates the search for the CVE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09025 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the centrality dependence of ∆δ and ∆γ in Pb–Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, obtained with the BW and AMPT models and compared with ALICE data. Both observables in two models increase to￾ward peripheral collisions and reproduce the correct magnitude. In BW, as aforementioned, the param￾eters are tuned to match ALICE data, so the close agreement is expected. The fLBC rises from ≈3.4% in 10–20% centrality to ≈ 5% in … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Centrality dependence of ∆δ and ∆γ correlators for Λ − p pairs in different ΣpT and ∆η kinematic windows. The BW+LBC can reproduce both the measured ΣpT and ∆η hierarchies, while AMPT only describes the ∆η dependence and fails for ΣpT trends. and data highlight the existence and significance of background effects from baryon production convolved with collectivity. 3.2. Hadronic effects [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (Color online) Feed-down contribution of secondary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) AVFD simulations of several baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Event by event and vio- lation,

    D.E. Kharzeev, L.D. McLerran, H.J. War- ringa, The effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: “Event by event and vio- lation,” Nuclear Physics A 803 (2008) 227–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.298

    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.298 2008

  2. [2]

    Kharzeev, J

    D.E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S.A. Voloshin, G. Wang, Chiral magnetic and vortical effects in high-energy nuclear collisions—A status report, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 88 (2016) 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.01.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.01.001 2016

  3. [3]

    Kharzeev, J

    D.E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, Chiral magnetic effect reveals the topology of gauge fields in heavy- ion collisions, Nat Rev Phys 3 (2021) 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00254-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-020-00254-6 2021

  4. [4]

    J. Zhao, F. Wang, Experimental searches for the chiral magnetic effect in heavy- ion collisions, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 107 (2019) 200–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.05.001 2019

  5. [5]

    W. Li, G. Wang, Chiral Magnetic Effects in Nu- clear Collisions, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- nucl-030220-065203

    doi:10.1146/annurev- 2020

  6. [6]

    Kharzeev, D.T

    D.E. Kharzeev, D.T. Son, Testing the Chiral Magnetic and Chiral Vortical Effects in Heavy Ion 6 Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 062301. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.062301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.062301 2011

  7. [7]

    Jiang, X.-G

    Y. Jiang, X.-G. Huang, J. Liao, Chi- ral vortical wave and induced flavor charge transport in a rotating quark-gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 071501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.071501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.071501 2015

  8. [8]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23004

    The STAR Collaboration, GlobalΛhyperon po- larization in nuclear collisions, Nature 548 (2017) 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23004

    doi:10.1038/nature23004 2017

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Becattini, M.A

    F. Becattini, M.A. Lisa, Polarization and Vorticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-021920- 095245

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Voloshin, Parity violation in hot QCD: How to detect it, Phys

    S.A. Voloshin, Parity violation in hot QCD: How to detect it, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 057901. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.057901

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Kharzeev, Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can happen, and how to look for it, Physics Letters B 633 (2006) 260–264

    D. Kharzeev, Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can happen, and how to look for it, Physics Letters B 633 (2006) 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.075

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    Shou, Y.-G

    Q.-Y. Shou, Y.-G. Ma, S. Zhang, J.-H. Zhu, Y.-X. Mao, H. Pei, Z.-B. Yin, X.-M. Zhang, D.- C. Zhou, X.-Y. Peng, X.-Z. Bai, Z.-B. Tang, Y.- F. Zhang, X.-M. Li, Properties of QCD mat- ter: a review of selected results from ALICE experiment, NUCL SCI TECH 35 (2024) 219. https://do...

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Acharya, et al, ALICE Collaboration, The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur

    S. Acharya, et al, ALICE Collaboration, The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 813. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12935-y

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    J.-H. Chen, X. Dong, X.-H. He, H.-Z. Huang, F. Liu, X.-F. Luo, Y.-G. Ma, L.-J. Ruan, M. Shao, S.-S. Shi, X. Sun, A.-H. Tang, Z.-B. Tang, F.- Q. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Wang, Z.-G. Xiao, G.- N. Xie, N. Xu, Q.-H. Xu, Z.-B. Xu, C. Yang, S. Yang, W.-M. Zha, Y.-P. Zhang, Y.-F. Zhang, J. ...

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    Xu, Search for the chiral mag- netic and vortical effects using event shape approaches in Au+Au collisions at STAR, EPJ Web Conf

    Z. Xu, Search for the chiral mag- netic and vortical effects using event shape approaches in Au+Au collisions at STAR, EPJ Web Conf. 296 (2024) 04010. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202429604010

    2024

  8. [17]

    Frenklakh, D.E

    D. Frenklakh, D.E. Kharzeev, A. Palermo, Detecting anomalousCPviolation in heavy- ion collisions through baryon-electric charge cor- relations, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 114007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.114007

    2024 doi

  9. [18]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V. Koch, J. Liao, Azimuthal correlations from transverse momentum conservation and possible local parity vi- olation, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 014905. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014905

    2011 doi

  10. [19]

    Retiere, M.A

    F. Retiere, M.A. Lisa, Observable im- plications of geometrical and dynamical aspects of freeze-out in heavy ion colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 044907. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.044907

    2004 doi

  11. [20]

    B. Tomasik, DRAGON: Monte Carlo generator of particle production from a fragmented fireball in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions, Computer Physics Communications 180 (2009) 1642–1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.019

    2009 doi

  12. [21]

    Wu, Q.-Y

    W.-Y. Wu, Q.-Y. Shou, P. Christakoglou, P. Das, Md.R. Haque, G.-L. Ma, Y.-G. Ma, B. Mohanty, C.-Z. Wang, S. Zhang, J. Zhao, Global constraint on the magnitude of anomalous chiral effects in heavy-ion col- lisions, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) L031902. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRe...

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    S.A. Bass, P. Danielewicz, S. Pratt, Clock- ing Hadronization in Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions with Balance Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2689–2692. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2689

    2000 doi

  14. [23]

    Lin, C.M

    Z.-W. Lin, C.M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, S. Pal, Multiphase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064901

    2005 doi

  15. [24]

    Z.-W. Lin, L. Zheng, Further developments of a multi-phase transport model for relativistic nu- clear collisions, NUCL SCI TECH 32 (2021) 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00944-5

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Gyulassy, X.-N

    M. Gyulassy, X.-N. Wang, HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high energy hadronic and nuclear collisions, Computer Physics Communications 83 (1994) 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- 4655(94)90057-4

    1994 doi

  17. [26]

    Zhang, ZPC 1.0.1: a parton cascade for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Computer Physics Communications 109 (1998) 193–206

    B. Zhang, ZPC 1.0.1: a parton cascade for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Computer Physics Communications 109 (1998) 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00010-1

    1998 doi

  18. [27]

    Fries, V

    R. Fries, V. Greco, P. Sorensen, Co- alescence Models for Hadron Forma- tion from Quark-Gluon Plasma, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58 (2008) 177–205. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171134

    2008

  19. [28]

    Li, Formation of superdense hadronic matter in high energy heavy-ion colli- sions, Phys

    B.-A. Li, Formation of superdense hadronic matter in high energy heavy-ion colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 2037–2063. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.52.2037

    1995 doi

  20. [29]

    S. Shi, Y. Jiang, E. Lilleskov, J. Liao, Anomalous chiral transport in heavy ion col- lisions from Anomalous-Viscous Fluid Dynam- ics, Annals of Physics 394 (2018) 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2018.04.026

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Jiang, S

    Y. Jiang, S. Shi, Y. Yin, J. Liao, Quantifying the chiral magnetic effect from anomalous-viscous fluid dynamics, Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 011001–011001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/42/1/011001

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    S.A. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brand- stetter, L. Bravina, C. Ernst, L. Gerland, M. Hofmann, S. Hofmann, J. Konopka, G. Mao, L. Neise, S. Soff, C. Spieles, H. Weber, L.A. Winck- elmann, H. Stöcker, W. Greiner, Ch. Hartnack, J. Aichelin, N. Amelin, Microscopic models f...

    1998 doi

  23. [32]

    Bleicher, E

    M. Bleicher, E. Zabrodin, C. Spieles, S.A. Bass, C. Ernst, S. Soff, L. Bravina, M. Belka- cem, H. Weber, H. Stocker, W. Greiner, Rel- ativistic hadron-hadron collisions in the ultra- relativistic quantum molecular dynamics model, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 25 (1999) 1859. h...

    1999 doi

  24. [33]

    Adam, et al, ALICE Collaboration, Centrality Dependence of the Charged-Particle Multiplicity Density at Midrapidity in Pb-Pb Collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV, Phys

    J. Adam, et al, ALICE Collaboration, Centrality Dependence of the Charged-Particle Multiplicity Density at Midrapidity in Pb-Pb Collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 222302. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.222302

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    Acharya, et al, ALICE Collabora- tion, Anisotropic flow of identified parti- cles in Pb-Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV, J

    S. Acharya, et al, ALICE Collabora- tion, Anisotropic flow of identified parti- cles in Pb-Pb collisions at sNN = 5.02 TeV, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018 (2018) 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2018)006

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    Schukraft, A

    J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, S.A. Voloshin, Ultra- relativistic nuclear collisions: Event shape engi- neering, Physics Letters B 719 (2013) 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.045

    2013 doi

  27. [36]

    S. Acharya, et al, ALICE Collaboration, Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engi- neering in Pb–Pb collisions at sNN = 2.76 TeV, Physics Letters B 777 (2018) 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.12.021

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    Zhang, J.-H

    L.-Y. Zhang, J.-H. Chen, Z.-W. Lin, Y.-G. Ma, S. Zhang, Two-particle angular correlations inpp andp-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider from a multiphase transport model, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 034912. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034912. 8

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Chen, W. Li, Z.-W. Lin, Implication of two-baryon azimuthal correla- tions in pp collisions at LHC energies on the QGP, Physics Letters B 829 (2022) 137063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137063

    2022

  30. [39]

    Acharya, et al, ALICE Collabora- tion, p-p , p-Λ, andΛ-Λcorrelations stud- ied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at s = 7 TeV, Phys

    S. Acharya, et al, ALICE Collabora- tion, p-p , p-Λ, andΛ-Λcorrelations stud- ied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at s = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024001. 9

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.