pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16914 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-16 · ✦ hep-ph · nucl-th

3D Initial-State Dynamics across scales: A Comparative Study of saturation and string-based descriptions

Lucas Constantin , Oscar Garcia-Montero , Niklas G\"otz , Hannah Elfner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 20:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph nucl-th
keywords initial conditionsheavy-ion collisionsstring modelscolor glass condensate3D hydrodynamicsbaryon depositionlongitudinal profiles
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

String-based and saturation-based initial condition models agree on longitudinal deposition at low energies but differ substantially at higher energies.

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

This paper compares two models for the initial state in heavy-ion collisions: a string-based approach (SMASH) that works at lower energies and a saturation-based approach (McDipper) rooted in the color-glass-condensate framework for higher energies. Both supply the longitudinally resolved profiles of conserved quantities needed for three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations. The authors examine how transverse energy, electric charge, and baryon number are deposited across collision energies from 62.4 GeV to 5.02 TeV. They find that the models produce similar deposition patterns at lower energies yet diverge markedly in energy and baryon deposition once the center-of-mass energy increases.

Core claim

The string-based SMASH and saturation-based McDipper models agree in their longitudinal deposition of conserved quantities at lower collision energies, but their predictions for energy and baryon number deposition differ substantially at higher center-of-mass energies.

What carries the argument

Longitudinally resolved deposition profiles of transverse energy, charge, and baryon number generated by the SMASH string model and the McDipper saturation model.

If this is right

  • The models can be interfaced in the intermediate energy range for three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations.
  • Direct profile comparisons across energies map out the regions where each description remains reliable.
  • Divergent baryon deposition at high energies will affect the early-stage evolution in hydrodynamic calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A hybrid initial-condition scheme that switches between the two models at an energy-dependent boundary could be tested against data.
  • High-energy baryon stopping measurements at the LHC could discriminate between string fragmentation and saturation physics.
  • The observed divergence implies that saturation effects begin to dominate string-like dynamics well below top LHC energies.

Load-bearing premise

The two models correctly capture the initial-state dynamics across the full energy range and that comparing their deposition profiles directly identifies where each applies.

What would settle it

Precise measurements of baryon and energy density profiles in collisions at 5 TeV that match one model's prediction but not the other's.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16914 by Hannah Elfner, Lucas Constantin, Niklas G\"otz, Oscar Garcia-Montero.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: t−z diagram of the SMASH initial conditions. The figure shows an example Au-Au collision at √ sNN=62.4 GeV. The orange dots represent the interaction points between par￾ticles in the evolution of SMASH. For demonstration, the col￾lision of an initial neutron with a π − is shown. The string exci￾tation is handled in Pythia and one of the resulting hadrons (π + ) is highlighted. Because of the reduced cross … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Longitudinal deposition of transverse energy den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Slices in the transverse plane (top) and the x- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Transverse energy deposition at midrapidity as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Longitudinal baryon (a) and charge (b) deposition from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Baryon deposition at midrapidity as a function of rapidity shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Baryon and Charge stopping parameters αi as a function of impact parameter from SMASH-IC and McDip￾per. Results are obtained from the linear fits shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact parameter (left) and energy dependence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Longitudinal deposition of energy (top) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Longitudinal deposition of energy (top) and baryon number (bottom) in Au-Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV and b=2 fm for different values of the lon￾gitudinal smearing parameter Rη in the SMASH-IC and BG in McDipper. production is very non-linear due to the insertion of the nucleon density in Eq. (7) 6 . Hence, the total (now gluon) multiplicity is sensitive to the smearing size, or in other words, the ef… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We compare the longitudinal deposition of various conserved quantities in the initial condition models of a string based (SMASH) and a saturation based (McDipper) approach. SMASH has been shown to work reasonably well at lower collision energies as an initial condition for the SMASH-vHLLE hybrid approach, while McDipper, based on the color-glass-condensate (CGC), works well in the regime of perturbative QCD. The two models are capable of providing longitudinally resolved initial conditions, which is essential for 3D hydrodynamical simulations. The goal of this study is to interface the different regions of applicability of the two models, to investigate the initial state dynamics in the intermediate energy regime. We analyze the deposition of transverse energy, charge and baryon number across a large range of collision energies (62.4 GeV to 5.02 TeV) and find that, while they are good agreement at lower energies, their energy and baryon deposition differs substantially at higher center of mass energies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares the longitudinal deposition of transverse energy, electric charge, and baryon number in the initial conditions generated by the string-based SMASH model and the saturation-based McDipper model for heavy-ion collisions. The study spans center-of-mass energies from 62.4 GeV to 5.02 TeV and concludes that the two approaches show good agreement at lower energies but exhibit substantial differences in energy and baryon deposition at higher energies. The goal is to interface the applicability regions of the two models for use in 3D hydrodynamic simulations.

Significance. If the reported differences are confirmed with quantitative measures, this comparison could help determine the energy range where each model is more appropriate, facilitating more accurate initial conditions for simulations across a wide energy range in heavy-ion physics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] The central claim that the models are in 'good agreement' at 62.4 GeV but 'differ substantially' at 5.02 TeV rests on qualitative visual comparison of deposition profiles. No quantitative metrics (e.g., integrated absolute or relative deviations, overlap integrals, or L2 norms between profiles) are reported to substantiate the magnitude of differences or to demonstrate that they exceed typical model variations.
  2. [Methods] No uncertainty bands or parameter variations are shown for either model (e.g., variation of the saturation scale in McDipper or string tension/fragmentation parameters in SMASH). Without these, it cannot be established whether the high-energy differences are robust or sensitive to reasonable setup choices within each framework.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify in the text whether 'charge' refers to electric charge or net baryon charge, and ensure consistent terminology between the abstract and the main body.
  2. [Discussion] Add a brief discussion of how the models are tuned or matched at the intermediate energies to strengthen the interfacing argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the suggestions to enhance the quantitative rigor and robustness of our analysis. Below, we address each major comment point by point and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] The central claim that the models are in 'good agreement' at 62.4 GeV but 'differ substantially' at 5.02 TeV rests on qualitative visual comparison of deposition profiles. No quantitative metrics (e.g., integrated absolute or relative deviations, overlap integrals, or L2 norms between profiles) are reported to substantiate the magnitude of differences or to demonstrate that they exceed typical model variations.

    Authors: We agree that incorporating quantitative metrics would provide a stronger basis for our claims. In the revised manuscript, we will add quantitative measures, including the integrated absolute deviation and relative differences between the longitudinal profiles of transverse energy, electric charge, and baryon number for both models at the energies considered. These will be presented in a new table or figure to clearly quantify the agreement at lower energies and the substantial differences at higher energies. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] No uncertainty bands or parameter variations are shown for either model (e.g., variation of the saturation scale in McDipper or string tension/fragmentation parameters in SMASH). Without these, it cannot be established whether the high-energy differences are robust or sensitive to reasonable setup choices within each framework.

    Authors: We acknowledge that demonstrating the robustness against parameter variations is important. While a comprehensive uncertainty analysis is beyond the current scope, we will include in the revision a discussion of the sensitivity to key parameters. Specifically, we will show results for variations in the saturation scale for McDipper and the string tension for SMASH at the highest energy of 5.02 TeV, to illustrate that the differences in energy and baryon deposition remain significant. This will be added to the methods or results section. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct numerical comparison of two independent models with no derivation chain

full rationale

The manuscript conducts a side-by-side numerical comparison of the SMASH string-based and McDipper saturation-based initial-condition models across collision energies from 62.4 GeV to 5.02 TeV. No derivation is claimed or performed; each model is run independently to produce longitudinal deposition profiles for energy, charge, and baryon number, after which the outputs are inspected for agreement or divergence. The abstract and description contain no fitted parameters, self-definitional relations, or predictions that reduce to the input data by construction. Any prior citations to the individual models' performance are external to the present comparison and do not form a load-bearing self-referential loop within this work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5718 in / 1240 out tokens · 40934 ms · 2026-05-19T20:28:10.464076+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Strong-interaction matter under extreme condi- tions

    Saturation model: IP-Sat The dipoles in Eqs. (3) and (4) depend on the color- field configurations assumed for the incoming targets. The correlations of these configurations are generally quite complex, but can be phenomenologically modeled. Such is the case for the impact-parameter dependent sat- uration (IP-Sat) model [34, 37], which will be the satura-...

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venu- gopalan, QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connections, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035003 (2021), arXiv:2005.12299 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Arslandok, S

    M. Arslandok, S. A. Bass, A. A. Baty, I. Bautista, C. Beattie, F. Becattini, R. Bellwied, Y. Berdnikov, A. Berdnikov, J. Bielcik, J. T. Blair,et al., Hot QCD White Paper, (2023), arXiv:2303.17254 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Mäntysaari, Theoretical developments on the initial state in relativistic particle collisions, EPJ Web Conf

    H. Mäntysaari, Theoretical developments on the initial state in relativistic particle collisions, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 01019 (2024), arXiv:2312.07805 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    J. D. Bjorken, Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Col- lisions: The Central Rapidity Region, Phys. Rev. D27, 140 (1983)

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, G.-Y. Qin, V. Roy, and X.- N. Wang, Decorrelation of anisotropic flow along the longitudinal direction, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 97 (2016), arXiv:1511.04131 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurements of longitudinal flow decorrelations inppand Xe+Xe collisions with the ATLAS detector, (2023), arXiv:2308.16745 [nucl-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurements of longitudinal flow decorrelations inppand Xe+Xe collisions with the ATLAS detector, (2023), arXiv:2308.16745 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    I. G. Beardenet al.(BRAHMS), Nuclear stopping in Au + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200-GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 102301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0312023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    Angular momentum conservation in heavy ion collisions at very high energy

    F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Angular momen- tum conservation in heavy ion collisions at very high en- ergy, Phys. Rev. C77, 024906 (2008), arXiv:0711.1253 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  11. [11]

    Wu, L.-G

    H.-Z. Wu, L.-G. Pang, X.-G. Huang, and Q. Wang, Lo- cal spin polarization in high energy heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033058 (2019), arXiv:1906.09385 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Huang, J

    X.-G. Huang, J. Liao, Q. Wang, and X.-L. Xia, Vor- ticity and Spin Polarization in Heavy Ion Collisions: Transport Models, Lect. Notes Phys.987, 281 (2021), arXiv:2010.08937 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    N. Sass, M. Müller, O. Garcia-Montero, and H. Elfner (SMASH), Global angular momentum generation in heavy-ion reactions within a hadronic trans- port approach, Phys. Rev. C108, 044903 (2023), arXiv:2212.14385 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    M. E. Carrington and S. Mrowczynski, Angular momen- tum of glasma, (2025), arXiv:2505.07324 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Garcia-Montero, H

    O. Garcia-Montero, H. Elfner, and S. Schlichting, McDIPPER: A novel saturation-based 3+1D initial-state model for heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C109, 044916 (2024), arXiv:2308.11713 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Computing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei, Phys. Rev. D49, 2233 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309289

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  17. [17]

    J. Weilet al.(SMASH), Particle production and equilib- rium properties within a new hadron transport approach 6 Our parameterB G is in fact highly constrained by DIS data at HERA [56], we mean this appendix as a instructive piece. for heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C94, 054905 (2016), arXiv:1606.06642 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Elfner and R

    H. Elfner and R. Góes-Hirayama, SMASH: Results from hadronic transport for heavy-ion collisions at high densi- ties, (2025), arXiv:2508.21477 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Schäfer, I

    A. Schäfer, I. Karpenko, X.-Y. Wu, J. Hammelmann, and H. Elfner (SMASH), Particle production in a hybrid ap- proach for a beam energy scan of Au+Au/Pb+Pb colli- sions between√ sNN = 4.3 GeV and√ sNN = 200.0 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 230 (2022), arXiv:2112.08724 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    Event-by-event fluctuations in perturbative QCD + saturation + hydro model: pinning down QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions

    H. Niemi, K. J. Eskola, and R. Paatelainen, Event-by- event fluctuations in a perturbative QCD + saturation + hydrodynamics model: Determining QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    M. Kuha, J. Auvinen, K. J. Eskola, H. Hirvonen, Y. Kanakubo, and H. Niemi, Monte Carlo event gen- erator MC-EKRT with saturated minijet production for initializing (3+1)D fluid dynamics in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C111, 054914 (2025), arXiv:2406.17592 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, A Multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C72, 064901 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0411110

    work page arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    Shen and S

    C. Shen and S. Alzhrani, Collision-geometry-based 3D initial condition for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C102, 014909 (2020), arXiv:2003.05852 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Soeder, W

    D. Soeder, W. Ke, J. F. Paquet, and S. A. Bass, Bayesian parameter estimation with a new three-dimensional initial-conditions model for ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, (2023), arXiv:2306.08665 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    com/Non-Equilibrium-QCD/McDipper(2023), accessed: 2023-08-21

    Oscar Garcia-Montero,McDipper,https://github. com/Non-Equilibrium-QCD/McDipper(2023), accessed: 2023-08-21

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Garcia-Montero and S

    O. Garcia-Montero and S. Schlichting, Effective theories for nuclei at high energies, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 54 (2025), arXiv:2502.09721 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Dumitru and L

    A. Dumitru and L. D. McLerran, How protons shatter colored glass, Nucl. Phys. A700, 492 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0105268

    work page arXiv 2002

  29. [29]

    Linearly polarized gluons and axial charge fluctuations in the Glasma

    T. Lappi and S. Schlichting, Linearly polarized gluons and axial charge fluctuations in the Glasma, Phys. Rev. D97, 034034 (2018), arXiv:1708.08625 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    J. P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, High-energy pA collisions in the color glass condensate approach

    work page

  31. [31]

    Quark production, Nucl. Phys. A743, 57 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402257

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Probing colored glass via $q\bar{q}$ photoproduction

    F. Gelis and A. Peshier, Probing colored glass via q anti-q photoproduction, Nucl. Phys. A697, 879 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107142

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  33. [33]

    Probing colored glass via $q\bar{q}$ photoproduction II: diffraction

    F. Gelis and A. Peshier, Probing colored glass via q anti-q photoproduction. 2. Diffraction, Nucl. Phys. A707, 175 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0111227

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Forward Quark Jets from Protons Shattering the Colored Glass

    A. Dumitru and J. Jalilian-Marian, Forward quark jets from protons shattering the colored glass, Phys. Rev. 13 Lett.89, 022301 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204028

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  35. [35]

    Dumitru, A

    A. Dumitru, A. Hayashigaki, and J. Jalilian-Marian, The Color glass condensate and hadron production in the for- ward region, Nucl. Phys. A765, 464 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0506308

    work page arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

    An Impact Parameter Dipole Saturation Model

    H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, An Impact parameter dipole saturation model, Phys. Rev. D68, 114005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304189

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    A. H. Rezaeian, M. Siddikov, M. Van de Klundert, and R. Venugopalan, Analysis of combined HERA data in the Impact-Parameter dependent Saturation model, Phys. Rev. D87, 034002 (2013), arXiv:1212.2974 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Garcia-Montero, S

    O. Garcia-Montero, S. Schlichting, and J. Zhu, Effects of subnucleonic fluctuations on the longitudinal structure of heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D111, 076029 (2025), arXiv:2501.14872 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture

    H. Kowalski, L. Motyka, and G. Watt, Exclusive diffrac- tive processes at HERA within the dipole picture, Phys. Rev. D74, 074016 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606272

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlichet al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    N. Götz, I. Karpenko, and H. Elfner, Bayesian analysis of a (3+1)D hybrid approach with initial conditions from hadronic transport, Phys. Rev. C112, 014910 (2025), arXiv:2503.10181 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    d’Enterria and C

    D. d’Enterria and C. Loizides, Progress in the Glauber Model at Collider Energies, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 315 (2021), arXiv:2011.14909 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Giacalone, G

    G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, and W. van der Schee, Determina- tion of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202302 (2023), arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054909 (2021), arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 202301 (2021), arXiv:2010.15130 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Tracking the baryon number with nuclear collisions, (2024), arXiv:2408.15441 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    J. Mohs, S. Ryu, and H. Elfner (SMASH), Particle Production via Strings and Baryon Stopping within a Hadronic Transport Approach, J. Phys. G47, 065101 (2020), arXiv:1909.05586 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Garcia-Montero and S

    O. Garcia-Montero and S. Schlichting, Baryon stop- ping and charge deposition in heavy-ion collisions due to gluon saturation, Phys. Rev. C111, 024912 (2025), arXiv:2409.06788 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Lewis, W

    N. Lewis, W. Lv, M. A. Ross, C. Y. Tsang, J. D. Bran- denburg, Z.-W. Lin, R. Ma, Z. Tang, P. Tribedy, and Z. Xu, Search for baryon junctions in photonuclear pro- cesses and isobar collisions at RHIC, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 590 (2024), arXiv:2205.05685 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Coquet, M

    M. Coquet, M. Winn, X. Du, J.-Y. Ollitrault, and S. Schlichting, Dilepton Polarization as a Signature of Plasma Anisotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 232301 (2024), arXiv:2309.00555 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Coquet, X

    M. Coquet, X. Du, J.-Y. Ollitrault, S. Schlichting, and M. Winn, Intermediate mass dileptons as pre-equilibrium probes in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B821, 136626 (2021), arXiv:2104.07622 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    How brightly does the Glasma shine? Photon production off-equilibrium

    J. Berges, K. Reygers, N. Tanji, and R. Venugopalan, How brightly does the Glasma shine? Photon produc- tion off-equilibrium, Nucl. Phys. A967, 708 (2017), arXiv:1704.04032 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Garcia-Montero, N

    O. Garcia-Montero, N. Löher, A. Mazeliauskas, J. Berges, and K. Reygers, Probing the evolution of heavy-ion collisions using direct photon interferometry, Phys. Rev. C102, 024915 (2020), arXiv:1909.12246 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Garcia-Montero, P

    O. Garcia-Montero, P. Plaschke, and S. Schlichting, Scaling of pre-equilibrium dilepton production in QCD kinetic theory, Phys. Rev. D111, 034036 (2025), arXiv:2403.04846 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    H. S. Scheid, Experimental overview of electromagnetic radiation in heavy-ion collisions, EPJ Web Conf.364, 01022 (2026), arXiv:2509.26456 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    X.-Y. Wu, L. Du, C. Gale, and S. Jeon, Probing the equi- libration of the QCD matter created in heavy-ion colli- sions with dileptons, Phys. Rev. C110, 054904 (2024), arXiv:2407.04156 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Garcia-Montero, Non-equilibrium photons from the bottom-up thermalization scenario, Annals Phys.443, 168984 (2022), arXiv:1909.12294 [hep-ph]

    O. Garcia-Montero, Non-equilibrium photons from the bottom-up thermalization scenario, Annals Phys.443, 168984 (2022), arXiv:1909.12294 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano, P. Quiroga- Arias, and C. A. Salgado, AAMQS: A non-linear QCD analysis of new HERA data at small-x including heavy quarks, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1705 (2011), arXiv:1012.4408 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    The shape of the proton at high energies

    S. Schlichting and B. Schenke, The shape of the pro- ton at high energies, Phys. Lett. B739, 313 (2014), arXiv:1407.8458 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    Singh, G

    P. Singh, G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and S. Schlichting, Small-x structure of oxygen and neon isotopes as seen by the Large Hadron Collider, EPJ Web Conf.296, 10005 (2024), arXiv:2312.07462 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024