D meson elliptic flow in non-central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76TeV

ALICE Collaboration

REVIEW

D meson elliptic flow in non-central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76TeV

ALICE Collaboration

Nuclear Experiment · Submitted 13 May 2013 · 47 references

Pith's verdict: First D meson v2 at the LHC, done carefully; the soft spot is the abstract's wording, not the analysis.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1305.2707 (version 4)

Pith IDAIYU6FFV, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationALICE Collaboration. "D meson elliptic flow in non-central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76TeV." arXiv:1305.2707 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/AIYU6FFV

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is the first direct measurement of D meson elliptic flow in Pb-Pb at 2.76 TeV, and it's done properly. The number that matters: prompt D0, D+ and D*+ v2 averages 0.204 ± 0.030 (stat) ± 0.020 (syst) over 2 < pT < 6 GeV/c, positive at 5.7σ. That converts a qualitative question — do charm quarks pick up the medium's collective motion? — into something transport models have to hit. Worth your time if you work on heavy-flavour or on J/ψ anisotropy, since the recombination arguments there lean on exactly this number [abstract:s2]. The analysis is not thin: three extraction routes (in-plane/out-of-plane yield ratio, v2-versus-mass fits with scalar product and Q-cumulants), a resolution factor cross-checked with a wider η gap using VZERO, cut-variation stability, and a Monte Carlo check that in-plane and out-of-plane efficiencies agree. The systematic budget is laid out in the open. Where it's soft, and it's soft in a specific place: the feed-down correction in Eq. (2) assumes v2(feed-down) = v2(prompt), and neither that nor f_prompt is measured — f_prompt comes from FONLL, EvtGen, and an assumed R_AA ratio varied over 1-3. The stress-test is right that this cannot hurt the positivity claim, since the correction is one-sided upward, but it can push the central value to ~0.30, which is no longer obviously 'comparable in magnitude' to the charged-particle v2 in Fig. 3 [abstract:s2]. So the exposed claim is the comparison, not the significance. Two smaller things. The +45% band is a lower bound, not a bound: if the true R_AA ratio exceeds 3, f_prompt drops and the band widens. And [abstract:s3] says the 5.7σ combines statistical and systematic uncertainties, but the dominant systematic (+0.092/-0) is excluded from that quadrature — numerically defensible because it's one-sided, but the abstract should say so. On the classifier: it recorded no stated limitations, which is wrong. The paper quantifies the feed-down uncertainty and explicitly declines a firm conclusion for pT > 6 GeV/c. Those are acknowledged, not buried. Nothing here is circular, nothing is post-hoc. This deserves referees; my only real ask of them is that the abstract carry the feed-down qualification it currently leaves in the body.

Referee report

Significance

If it holds, this is an important result: it is the first direct measurement of open-charm elliptic flow at the LHC and, together with the large D-meson $R_{AA}$ suppression already reported by ALICE, it places a two-sided constraint on heavy-quark transport coefficients and on the hadronization mechanism at low and intermediate $p_T$. The analysis is built on data-driven quantities — the yield asymmetry and the event-plane resolution are both extracted from the same data set — and the paper deserves credit for three independent cross-checks: the in-plane/out-of-plane ratio of Eq. (1), an independent $v_2(M)$ extraction based on scalar-product and Q-cumulant two-particle correlations, and stability tests against selection cuts together with a Monte Carlo check that in-plane and out-of-plane efficiencies agree. The feed-down correction is handled by varying $v_2^{feed-down}$ over the full range $0 le v_2^{feed-down} le v_2^{prompt}$ rather than by adopting a single model, which is the right posture for an unmeasured quantity.

Major objections (4)

[Abstract, sentence abstract:s3, versus the paragraph following Fig. 2] The abstract states that the $5.7sigma$ significance is 'based on the combination of statistical and systematic uncertainties', but the body defines that number from $0.204 pm 0.030 (stat) pm 0.020 (syst)$, i.e. from the quadrature sum of the statistical and the data-systematic uncertainties only, with the dominant B feed-down term ${}^{+0.092}_{-0}$ excluded. The two statements are not the same, and the abstract as written overstates what was combined. Because the feed-down correction is one-sided upward, the quoted $5.7sigma$ is in fact a conservative lower bound, so the physics conclusion is not at risk; the fix is a wording change. Please state explicitly in the abstract and in the sentence quoting the average that the feed-down uncertainty is excluded from the quadrature and that the significance is therefore a lower bound.
[Abstract, sentence abstract:s2, and Fig. 3] The claim that the D-meson $v_2$ is 'comparable in magnitude to that of light-flavour hadrons' is stated without qualification, but the shaded feed-down band in Fig. 3 extends the central value from $0.204$ up to roughly $0.30$ over $2 < p_T < 6$ GeV/$c$, which is above the charged-particle $v_2$ shown in the same figure (about $0.1$–$0.15$ in that range). The comparison is therefore only 'comparable' for the central assumption $v_2^{feed-down} = v_2^{prompt}$ and is not robust across the quoted feed-down range. Please qualify the abstract sentence, for example by noting that the comparison holds for the central feed-down assumption and that the upper edge of the feed-down band lies above the light-hadron value, or by quantifying the comparison in the text.
[Feed-down correction, Eq. (2) and the paragraph beginning 'The systematic uncertainty related to the contribution of D'] The $+45%$ feed-down band is presented as an uncertainty, but it is derived from an assumed ratio $R_{AA}^{feed-down}/R_{AA}^{prompt}$ varied over the range 1–3, 'motivated by' a comparison of the ALICE prompt-D $R_{AA}$ with the CMS $J/psi$-from-B result of Ref. [47], which is a preliminary conference note (CMS-PAS-HIN-12-014). If the true ratio exceeds 3, $f_{prompt}$ is smaller and the band is wider, so $+45%$ is a lower bound on the feed-down uncertainty rather than a bound. Please say so explicitly, and either justify the upper limit of 3 with a published source or extend the variation to show how the result behaves beyond it.
[Paragraph beginning 'The $v_2$ result obtained with Eq. (1) was cross checked'] An independent extraction of $v_2$ from fits to $v_2(M)$ as a function of invariant mass, using the scalar-product and Q-cumulant methods, is described as a cross-check of the central result, but no number, figure or table comparing the two methods is shown anywhere in the Letter. Since this cross-check is the main evidence that the yield-ratio estimator of Eq. (1) is unbiased, the reader cannot presently verify it. Please add the comparison, either as a supplementary panel in Fig. 2 or as a short table of the two estimates per $p_T$ interval, so that the level of agreement is visible.

Minor objections (8)

[Definition of the in-plane and out-of-plane intervals, paragraph before Eq. (1)] The out-of-plane intervals are printed as ']$-pi/4, 3pi/4$] and ]$5pi/4, 7pi/4$]', which overlaps the in-plane window and cannot be right; the intended intervals are presumably [$pi/4, 3pi/4$] and [$5pi/4, 7pi/4$]. Since this sentence defines the estimator, please correct the bracket notation.
[Event-plane resolution, paragraph after Eq. (1)] The statistical uncertainty on $R_2$ is quoted as $pm 0.0001$, four orders of magnitude below the systematic term; this is presumably a consequence of the very large event sample, but it would be clearer to state that the statistical error is negligible and to quote only the systematic uncertainty.
[Figs. 2 and 3] No table of numerical $v_2$ values with their uncertainties is provided, so theorists wishing to compare with transport models must digitize the figures. A table of $v_2$ versus $p_T$ for the three meson species and for the average, with statistical and systematic uncertainties listed separately, would substantially increase the usefulness of the result.
[Abstract and Sec. 2 (event and track selection)] The abstract quotes the rapidity coverage as $|y| < 0.8$, while the text notes that the acceptance varies from $|y| < 0.7$ at $p_T = 2$ GeV/$c$ to $|y| < 0.8$ for $p_T > 5$ GeV/$c$. Please make the abstract consistent with the text, or state the $p_T$-dependent acceptance there.
[Abstract, $p_T$ range] The abstract quotes the measured range as $2$–$16$ GeV/$c$, whereas the axes of Figs. 2 and 3 extend to $18$ GeV/$c$. Please confirm which is the last populated bin and make the two consistent.
[List of systematic uncertainties, first bullet] The entry 'determination of D meson yields and their anisotropy relative to the event plane (e.g. 10–30% in $4 < p_T < 6$ GeV/$c$ depending on the meson species)' does not say whether the 10–30% refers to the yield or to $v_2$. Please state which quantity the range applies to.
[Feed-down paragraph, sentence 'which includes all model predictions [29–32]'] The assertion that the interval $0 le v_2^{feed-down} le v_2^{prompt}$ 'includes all model predictions' is stronger than the four cited references can establish. Please soften to 'includes the range spanned by the models of Refs. [29–32]' or similar.
[Fig. 3 and Ref. [11]] The charged-particle $v_2$ used for the comparison in Fig. 3 is taken from Ref. [11], which at the time of submission was an arXiv preprint (1205.5761). Please update the reference to the published version if one now exists.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

ALICE measures a positive elliptic flow for D mesons in semi-central Pb–Pb collisions, indicating that charmed quarks take part in the collective motion of the medium rather than decoupling from it.

The reading

The ALICE collaboration asks whether charm quarks, the heaviest quarks that are copiously produced in a heavy-ion collision, are swept along by the same azimuthal asymmetry that shapes the bulk of the fireball. They reconstruct $D^0$, $D^+$ and $D^{*+}$ mesons from their hadronic decays in 30–50% centrality Pb–Pb collisions at $2.76$ TeV and measure the second Fourier coefficient $v_2$ of the D meson azimuthal distribution with respect to the event plane, in eight $p_T$ intervals from 2 to 16 GeV/$c$. The answer is yes: averaged over $2 < p_T < 6$ GeV/$c$ the D meson $v_2$ is $0.204$, positive at $5.7$ standard deviations once statistical and systematic uncertainties are combined, and of the same size as the flow of charged particles dominated by light hadrons. If this holds, charm is not a passive probe that merely loses energy in the medium; it inherits the geometry of the collision, which is the signature of participation in a collectively expanding system. The measurement also matters because it constrains models of how heavy quarks interact with the plasma, and because J/ψ's regenerated from charm pairs would inherit exactly this anisotropy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the event-plane method: the direction of the second-order symmetry plane is estimated event by event from the second harmonic of the charged-particle azimuthal distribution, with each D meson candidate's own tracks subtracted from the flow vector to avoid auto-correlation, and the candidate yields in the in-plane and out-of-plane quadrants are converted to $v_2$ through $v_2 = (1/R_2)(pi/4)(N_{in} - N_{out})/(N_{in} + N_{out})$. The factor $pi/4$ comes from integrating $2v_2 cos(2 Delta phi)$ over the chosen angular intervals; the factor $1/R_2$ corrects for the imperfect resolution of the event plane, obtained from the correlation between planes measured in the two halves of the TPC. A second piece of machinery is the feed-down inversion of Eq. (2), which converts the measured inclusive flow into the flow of promptly produced D mesons given an assumed beauty feed-down fraction $f_{prompt}$ and an assumed flow for the feed-down component.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the first measurement of elliptic flow for charmed D mesons in Pb–Pb collisions. Using $9.5$ million events in the 30–50% centrality class, the collaboration classifies each D meson candidate as in-plane or out-of-plane relative to the second-order event plane and extracts $v_2$ from the asymmetry between the fitted signal yields in the two angular intervals, correcting for the finite event-plane resolution $R_2 = 0.8059$ and for the roughly 10–20% contamination from D mesons produced in beauty-hadron decays. The three species give consistent results, and their statistical-weighted average is comparable in magnitude to the charged-particle $v_2$ measured in the same centrality class. A positive flow is also seen above $6$ GeV/$c, where the authors attribute it most plausibly to the path-length dependence of parton energy loss, though the uncertainties there do not permit a firm conclusion. The stated significance of $5.7sigma$ covers the interval $2 < p_T < 6$ GeV/$c$ and folds in both statistical and systematic errors.

Load-bearing premise

The central values assume that D mesons coming from beauty-hadron decays carry the same elliptic flow as promptly produced D mesons; the authors acknowledge that neither this flow nor the prompt fraction is measured, and that setting the feed-down flow to zero would raise the result by up to 45%, an uncertainty larger than the quoted statistical error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Charm quarks with momenta of a few GeV/$c$ must interact strongly enough with the medium to develop the same azimuthal anisotropy as light partons, which places a lower bound on the charm-medium coupling used in energy-loss models.
The result gives a direct constraint on recombination-based hadronization scenarios, which predict that D meson $v_2$ should exceed the $v_2$ of the underlying charm quarks at low and intermediate $p_T$.
Because J/ψ's formed by recombination of charm and anticharm quarks would inherit their parents' anisotropy, this measurement sets the reference against which the observed J/ψ elliptic flow can be interpreted.
Combined with the already-measured strong suppression of D mesons in central collisions, a positive $v_2$ forces any successful model of heavy-quark transport to reproduce both the energy loss and the angular correlation at once.
The persistence of a positive signal above $6$ GeV/$c$, if confirmed with more statistics, would support a path-length-dependent energy-loss contribution to heavy-quark flow at high transverse momentum.

Reading between the lines

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

The measurement is made in one broad centrality bin; a differential study in narrower centrality classes would test whether the D meson $v_2$ scales with the initial eccentricity the way light-hadron flow does, which is the sharper test of collective behaviour.
If charm flows as strongly as light quarks already at $2$–$3$ GeV/$c$, the relaxation time of charm in the medium cannot be much longer than that of light quarks, which sits uneasily with the naive expectation from the larger quark mass and is worth stating as a quantitative target for transport models.
A cleaner separation of prompt and feed-down D mesons, for instance through a sharper topological selection or through beauty-tagged samples, would remove the single largest systematic in this result and turn the $5.7sigma$ observation into a precision number.
The same event-plane machinery applied to identified charmed baryons or to $D_s$ mesons would probe whether the flow is carried by the quark or built up during hadronization, since different hadronization paths should leave different imprints.

Original abstract

Azimuthally anisotropic distributions of D$^0$, D$^+$ and D$^{*+}$ mesons were studied in the central rapidity region ($|y|<0.8$) in Pb-Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV per nucleon-nucleon collision, with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The second Fourier coefficient $v_2$ (commonly denoted elliptic flow) was measured in the centrality class 30-50% as a function of the D meson transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$, in the range 2-16 GeV/$c$. The measured $v_2$ of D mesons is comparable in magnitude to that of light-flavour hadrons. It is positive in the range $2 < p_{\rm T} < 6$ GeV/$c$ with $5.7\sigma$ significance, based on the combination of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,934 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.09 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.16 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.81 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v4. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Azimuthally anisotropic distributions of D$^0$, D$^+$ and D$^{*+}$ mesons were studied in the central rapidity region ($|y|<0.8$) in Pb-Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV per nucleon-nucleon collision, with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The second Fourier coefficient $v_2$ (commonly denoted elliptic flow) was measured in the centrality class 30-50% as a function of the D meson transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$, in the range 2-16 GeV/$c$. The measured $v_2$ of D mesons is comparable in magnitude to that of light-flavour hadrons. It is positive in the range $2 < p_{\rm T} < 6$ GeV/$c$ with $5.7\sigma$ significance, based on the combination of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Azimuthally anisotropic distributions of D$^0$, D$^+$ and D$^{*+}$ mesons were studied in the central rapidity region ($\|y\|<0.8$) in Pb-Pb collisions at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV per nucleon-nucleon collision, with the ALICE detector at the LHC.	contribution 0.72	0.95	0.03	asserted 0.97
s1	The second Fourier coefficient $v_2$ (commonly denoted elliptic flow) was measured in the centrality class 30-50% as a function of the D meson transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}$, in the range 2-16 GeV/$c$.	method 0.63	0.96	0.05	asserted 1.00
s2	The measured $v_2$ of D mesons is comparable in magnitude to that of light-flavour hadrons.	result 0.98	0.90	0.69	asserted 1.00
s3	It is positive in the range $2 < p_{\rm T} < 6$ GeV/$c$ with $5.7\sigma$ significance, based on the combination of statistical and systematic uncertainties.	result 1.00	0.95	0.25	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.95.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v4

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Invariant mass distributions for D0 candidates and their charge conjugates with 3 < pT < 4 GeV/c for 9.5×106 Pb–Pb collisions in the 30–50% centrality class. The distributions are shown separately for the in-plane (open symbols) and out-of-plane (closed symbols) intervals of azimuthal angle. The curves show the fit functions as described in the text. D meson candidates were classified in two groups according to their azimuthal angle relative to the event plane (∆ϕ = ϕD −ψ2): in-plane ( − π 4 , π 4

**Figure 2.** v2 as a function of pT for prompt D0 , D+ and D∗+ mesons for Pb–Pb collisions in the centrality range 30–50%. The central value was obtained with the assumption v feed-down 2 = v prompt 2 . Vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainty, empty boxes the systematic uncertainty due to the D meson anisotropy measurement and the event-plane resolution, and shaded boxes show the uncertainty from the contribution of D mesons from B feed-down. the medium. These two quantities have not been measured. However, as it can be seen in Eq. (2), v all 2 coincides with v prompt 2

**Figure 3.** Average of D0 , D+ and D∗+ v2 as a function of pT, compared to charged-particle v2 [11] measured with the event plane (EP) method. The symbols are positioned horizontally at the average pT of the three D meson species. 6

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1305.2707 by the authors.

References

Works cited (47)

[47]

CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-HIN-12-014 (2012). 9 D meson elliptic ﬂow in non-central Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV ALICE Collaboration A The ALICE Collaboration B. Abelev72 , J. Adam 38 , D. Adamov´ a79 , A.M. Adare 130 , M.M. Aggarwal 83 , G. Aglieri Rinella 34 , M. Agnello100 ,89 , A.G. Agocs 129 , A. Agostinelli 28 , Z. Ahammed 124 , N. Ahmad 18 ,...

View on Pith 2012
[1]

F. Karsch, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 46 (2006) 122; S. Borsanyi et al. [Wuppertal-Budapest Collaboration], JHEP 09 (2010) 073; S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. K rieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 11 (2010) 077; S. Borsanyi, arXiv:1210.6901 [hep-lat]; P . Petreczky, arXiv:1301.6188 [hep-lat]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[2]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302 [arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[3]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 032301 [arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[4]

M. Luzum and P . Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 262302 [arXiv:0901.4588 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[5]

K. H. Ackermann et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 402 [nucl-ex/0009011]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[6]

B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 054901 [arXiv:0801.3466 [nucl- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[7]

A. Adare et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 142301 [arXiv:1006.3740 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[8]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014902 [arXiv:1204.1409 [nucl- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[9]

G. Aad et al. [A TLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 330 [arXiv:1108.6018 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[10]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 022301 [arXiv:1204.1850 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[11]

B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1205.5761 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

W. A. Horowitz and M. Gyulassy, J. Phys. G38 (2011) 124114

View on Pith 2011
[13]

J. Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 229

View on Pith 1992
[14]

P . F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz in Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark glu on plasma, World Scientiﬁc, Singapore (2004) 634-714 [nucl-th/0305084]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[15]

U. W. Heinz, in ’Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics’, Lando lt-Boernstein New Series, I/23, edited by R. Stock (Springer V erlag, New Y ork,2010) Chap. 5 [arXiv:0901.4355 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[16]

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2537 [nucl-th/0012092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[17]

E. V . Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 027902 [nucl-th/0112042]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[18]

P . Braun-Munzinger, J. Phys. G 34 (2007) S471 [nucl-th/0701093 [NUCL-TH]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[19]

S. Batsouli, S. Kelly, M. Gyulassy and J. L. Nagle, Phys. Lett. B 557 (2003) 26 [nucl-th/0212068]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[20]

V . Greco, C. M. Ko and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 202 [nucl-th/0312100]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[21]

G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 064904 [hep-ph/0412346]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[22]

D. Molnar and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 092301 [nucl-th/0302014]. 8 D meson elliptic ﬂow in non-central Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV ALICE Collaboration

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[23]

V . Greco, C. M. Ko and P . Levai, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034904 [nucl-th/0305024]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[24]

E. Abbas et al. [ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1303.5880 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

Y . Liu, N. Xu and P . Zhuang, Nucl. Phys. A 834 (2010) 317C [arXiv:0910.0959 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[26]

X. Zhao, A. Emerick and R. Rapp, arXiv:1210.6583 [hep-p h]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[27]

K. Adcox et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 022301 [nucl-ex/0109003]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[28]

B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 09 (2012) 112

View on Pith 2012
[29]

P . B. Gossiaux, S. V ogel, H. van Hees, J. Aichelin, R. Rap p, M. He and M. Bluhm, [arXiv:1102.1114 [hep-ph]]. J. Aichelin, P . B. Gossiaux and T. Gousset, arXiv:1201.4192 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[30]

M. He, R. J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 112301 [arXiv:1204.4442 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[31]

T. Lang, H. van Hees, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, arX iv:1211.6912 [hep-ph]; T. Lang, H. van Hees, J. Steinheimer, Y . -P . Y an and M. Bleicher, arXiv:1212.0696 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

J. Uphoff, O. Fochler, Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024908 [arXiv:1104.2295 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[33]

W. M. Alberico et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1666 [arXiv:1101.6008 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[34]

S. S. Adler et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 024901 [nucl-ex/0502009]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[35]

A. Adare et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 172301 [nucl-ex/0611018]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[36]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JINST 3 (2008) S08002

View on Pith 2008
[37]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JINST 5 (2010) P03003

View on Pith 2010
[38]

J. Alme et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622 (2010) 316

View on Pith 2010
[39]

B. Abelev et al. [ ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[40]

B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 01 (2012) 128

View on Pith 2012
[41]

A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671 [nucl-ex/9805001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[42]

N. Borghini, J. Y . Ollitrault and , Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 064905 [nucl-th/0407041]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[43]

C. Adler et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034904 [nucl-ex/0206001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[44]

A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings and S. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044913 [arXiv:1010.0233 [nucl- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[45]

M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P . N ason and G. Ridolﬁ, CERN-PH- TH/2011-227, arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[46]

D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152

View on Pith 2001

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

D-meson azimuthal anisotropy in mid-central Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02}$ TeV
nucl-ex 2017-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Prompt D0, D+, D*+ and Ds+ mesons in 30-50% Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV show positive elliptic flow comparable to charged pions, with the Ds+ measured for the first time and consistent with the non-strange D mesons.
Linearized Boltzmann transport model for jet propagation in the quark-gluon plasma: Heavy quark evolution
nucl-th 2016-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A linearized Boltzmann transport model for heavy quarks in a hydrodynamic plasma reproduces measured D meson suppression and elliptic flow once the quark transport coefficient is enhanced at low momentum and near the ...
A non-perturbative estimate of the heavy quark momentum diffusion coefficient
hep-lat 2015-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Continuum-extrapolated lattice data for the colour-electric correlator, analysed with a family of spectral-function models, give a heavy-quark momentum diffusion coefficient kappa = (1.8 to 3.4) T^3 in pure SU(3) plas...
Transverse momentum distributions of charmonium states with the statistical hadronization model
nucl-th 2019-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A statistical-hadronization model with hydrodynamic flow reproduces low-momentum J/psi spectra in Pb-Pb collisions and predicts that X(3872) production is about 1% of J/psi with a similar momentum shape.
Transverse momentum dependence of D-meson production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV
nucl-ex 2015-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Prompt D-meson yields in central Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV are suppressed by up to a factor of 5-6 relative to binary-scaled pp yields at pT about 10 GeV/c, with a factor of 2-3 suppression persisting out to 36 GeV/c.

Show 7 more citing papers

Measurement of flow harmonics with multi-particle cumulants in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2014-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Four-particle and higher cumulants of charged-particle azimuthal correlations in Pb+Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV give flow harmonics well below the two-particle values, and the derived fluctuation measure F(vn) is not re...
Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy
nucl-th 2017-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Thermal fits to hadron yields in nuclear collisions yield a freeze-out temperature that tracks the lattice-QCD pseudo-critical line, which the authors read as an experimental determination of the QCD phase boundary.
Energy loss, hadronization and hadronic interactions of heavy flavors in relativistic heavy-ion collisions
nucl-th 2015-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A single tuned heavy-quark transport coefficient, combined with radiative energy loss, hybrid fragmentation-coalescence hadronization, and UrQMD hadronic rescattering, reproduces D meson suppression at RHIC and LHC bu...
Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP
hep-ph 2022-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review connecting jet, heavy-flavor, and quarkonium measurements at RHIC and the LHC to the theoretical descriptions of parton energy loss, diffusion, and quarkonium suppression in the quark-gluon plasma.
Experimental overview on small collision systems at the LHC
nucl-ex 2016-02 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

High-multiplicity proton-proton and proton-lead collisions at the LHC reproduce nearly every bulk observable associated with collective flow in lead-lead collisions, and no single framework yet explains all of them.
Heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a review of the results from Run 1
nucl-ex 2015-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Run 1 at the LHC confirmed that PbPb collisions create a dense, strongly collective, nearly ideal fluid that is opaque to energetic partons, and unexpectedly found collective-like behaviour in high-multiplicity pPb co...
The Hot QCD White Paper: Exploring the Phases of QCD at RHIC and the LHC
nucl-ex 2015-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

The white paper consolidates evidence that quark-gluon plasma is a strongly coupled liquid with the smallest specific viscosity measured, and lays out the measurements and facilities needed to pin down its temperature...

How later papers used it

66 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 52 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 10 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 12 of the 90 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

3 later papers by other authors are listed below: 1 used its data or values and 2 compared their own results with it. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 built on it.

Builds on it 1 paper · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

The results complement the heavy-flavour decay muon $v_2$ measurements at forward rapidity [ref] and extend towards lower $p_T$ those of D mesons at mid-rapidity [ref] .

Elliptic flow of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV (2016) (same authors) · Introduction · 0.82

Uses its data or values 1 of 4 papers with this label

Superimposed this paper's prompt D meson elliptic flow in the 30-50% centrality class on theoretical results.

D-meson nuclear modification factor and v$_2$ in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC (2014) · 0.81 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Compares with it 2 of 7 papers with this label

Compared its Langevin setup's elliptic flow outcomes with this paper's ALICE data in semi-peripheral 30-50% Pb-Pb collisions.

Heavy flavours in AA collisions: production, transport and final spectra (2013) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Compared its own results, serving as a proxy for open charm hadron flow, with this paper's ALICE D-meson data at 30%-50% centrality.

Dissociation and regeneration of charmonia within microscopic Langevin simulations (2024) · 0.96 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

59 arXiv papers cite this in 81 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 63 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

The results complement the heavy-flavour decay muon $v_2$ measurements at forward rapidity [ref] and extend towards lower $p_T$ those of D mesons at mid-rapidity [ref] .

Elliptic flow of electrons from heavy-flavour hadron decays at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 2.76 TeV · Introduction · 0.82

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

These take into account the changes due to the variations of the reference particle selection criteria as in [ref] , to allow us to check the robustness of the $v_2^μ$ measurement.

Elliptic flow of muons from heavy-flavour hadron decays at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV · Inclusive muon elliptic flow · 0.87

Uses its data or values 4 papers

Right: $v_2$ for prompt $D$ mesons in the 30-50% centrality class as a function of $$ [ref] superimposed to theoretical results.

D-meson nuclear modification factor and v$_2$ in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC · Results · 0.81
The second Fourier coefficient $v_2$ is measured for single heavy-flavored quark hadrons by ALICE [ref] , CMS [ref] and STAR [ref] .

Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP · Heavy-Flavor and Quarkonia · 0.90
The elliptic flow $v_2$ of D mesons as a function of $p_T$ measured in semi-central Pb–Pb collisions is reported in the right panel of Fig. [ref] [ref] .

INFN What Next: Ultra-relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions · Current status of theory and experiment · 0.98

Compares with it 6 papers

The energy loss model including fluctuations qualitatively agrees with the experimental results from ALICE [ref] , although with a generic underprediction for the $v_2$ at intermediate-$p_T$ values $p_T ≲ 10$ GeV/c.

Fluctuating Heavy Quark Energy Loss in Strongly-Coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma · Results · 0.98
Outcomes of our Langevin setup for the elliptic flow $v_2$ are compared to ALICE data [ref] in semi-peripheral ($30-50%$) Pb-Pb collisions.

Heavy flavours in AA collisions: production, transport and final spectra · Results · 0.99
This is reflected in figure [ref], where the calculated $v_2$ of $D$ mesons is shown in the $30-50$ % centrality class from Pb+Pb collisions at $√(s)=2.76$ TeV and compared to ALICE data [ref] .

Influence of hadronic bound states above $T_c$ on heavy-quark observables in Pb+Pb collisions at at the CERN Large Hadron Collider · Elliptic flow · 0.85

Cites it as background 5 papers

Traditional heavy-quark observables like the nuclear modification factor $R_AA$ and the elliptic flow $v_2$ are thoroughly measured at RHIC [ref] and the LHC [ref] .

Heavy-flavor azimuthal correlations of D mesons · Introduction · 0.96
They are predominantly produced by hard partonic scattering processes in the early stage of the heavy-ion collisions and thus experience the full evolution of the system [ref] .

Data-driven analysis of the beauty hadron production in p+p collisions at the LHC with Bayesian unfolding · Introduction · 0.80
In heavy-ion collisions, measurements of heavy flavor nuclear modification factor ($R_AA$) [ref] and elliptic flow ($v_2$) of prompt and non-prompt charm hadrons [ref] have provided ample information about energy loss mechanisms and thermalization of heavy quarks in the QGP.

An Impact of Parton Distribution Functions on Open Heavy Flavor Azimuthal Angular Correlations in Pb-Pb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.5 TeV · Introduction · 0.95

What it cites · 21 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 3 papers

We estimated $f_prompt$ as described in [ref] using: (i) FONLL [ref] predictions for prompt D and B mesons; (ii) B$→$D+$X$ decay kinematics from EvtGen [ref] ; (iii) reconstruction and selection efficiencies for prompt and feed-down D mesons from simulations; and (iv) a hypothesis on the nuclear modification factor of the feed-down D mesons, $^feeddown$.

Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC · Introduction · 0.96
Here $(M)$ was obtained with methods based on two-particle correlations, namely the scalar product [ref] and the $Q$-cumulants [ref] .

Flow analysis with cumulants: direct calculations · Introduction · 1.00
Collisions were classified according to their centrality, determined from the VZERO summed amplitudes and defined in terms of percentiles of the total hadronic $$ cross section [ref] .

Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV with ALICE · Introduction · 0.98

Compares with 1 paper

It is comparable in magnitude to that of charged particles, dominated by light-flavour hadrons [ref] .

Anisotropic flow of charged hadrons, pions and (anti-)protons measured at high transverse momentum in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV · Introduction · 0.80

Cites as background 3 papers

For non-central collisions the overlap region of the colliding nuclei has a lenticular shape and the anisotropy is dominated by the second coefficient $v_2$, commonly denoted elliptic flow [ref] .

Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV · Introduction · 0.98
For non-central collisions the overlap region of the colliding nuclei has a lenticular shape and the anisotropy is dominated by the second coefficient $v_2$, commonly denoted elliptic flow [ref] .

Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV · Introduction · 0.98
Under these conditions, according to Quantum-Chromodynamics (QCD) calculations on the lattice, the confinement of quarks and gluons inside hadrons is no longer effective and a phase transition to a Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) occurs [ref] .

Thermodynamics of the QCD transition from lattice · Introduction · 0.97

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [47]

CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-HIN-12-014 (2012). 9 D meson elliptic ﬂow in non-central Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV ALICE Collaboration A The ALICE Collaboration B. Abelev72 , J. Adam 38 , D. Adamov´ a79 , A.M. Adare 130 , M.M. Aggarwal 83 , G. Aglieri Rinella 34 , M. Agnello100 ,89 , A.G. Agocs 129 , A. Agostinelli 28 , Z. Ahammed 124 , N. Ahmad 18 ,...

View on Pith 2012

[2] [1]

F. Karsch, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 46 (2006) 122; S. Borsanyi et al. [Wuppertal-Budapest Collaboration], JHEP 09 (2010) 073; S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. K rieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 11 (2010) 077; S. Borsanyi, arXiv:1210.6901 [hep-lat]; P . Petreczky, arXiv:1301.6188 [hep-lat]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[3] [2]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302 [arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[4] [3]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 032301 [arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[5] [4]

M. Luzum and P . Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 262302 [arXiv:0901.4588 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[6] [5]

K. H. Ackermann et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 402 [nucl-ex/0009011]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[7] [6]

B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 054901 [arXiv:0801.3466 [nucl- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[8] [7]

A. Adare et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 142301 [arXiv:1006.3740 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[9] [8]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014902 [arXiv:1204.1409 [nucl- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[10] [9]

G. Aad et al. [A TLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 330 [arXiv:1108.6018 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[11] [10]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 022301 [arXiv:1204.1850 [nucl-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[12] [11]

B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1205.5761 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [12]

W. A. Horowitz and M. Gyulassy, J. Phys. G38 (2011) 124114

View on Pith 2011

[14] [13]

J. Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 229

View on Pith 1992

[15] [14]

P . F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz in Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark glu on plasma, World Scientiﬁc, Singapore (2004) 634-714 [nucl-th/0305084]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[16] [15]

U. W. Heinz, in ’Relativistic Heavy Ion Physics’, Lando lt-Boernstein New Series, I/23, edited by R. Stock (Springer V erlag, New Y ork,2010) Chap. 5 [arXiv:0901.4355 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[17] [16]

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2537 [nucl-th/0012092]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[18] [17]

E. V . Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 027902 [nucl-th/0112042]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[19] [18]

P . Braun-Munzinger, J. Phys. G 34 (2007) S471 [nucl-th/0701093 [NUCL-TH]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[20] [19]

S. Batsouli, S. Kelly, M. Gyulassy and J. L. Nagle, Phys. Lett. B 557 (2003) 26 [nucl-th/0212068]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[21] [20]

V . Greco, C. M. Ko and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 202 [nucl-th/0312100]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[22] [21]

G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 064904 [hep-ph/0412346]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[23] [22]

D. Molnar and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 092301 [nucl-th/0302014]. 8 D meson elliptic ﬂow in non-central Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV ALICE Collaboration

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[24] [23]

V . Greco, C. M. Ko and P . Levai, Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034904 [nucl-th/0305024]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[25] [24]

E. Abbas et al. [ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1303.5880 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [25]

Y . Liu, N. Xu and P . Zhuang, Nucl. Phys. A 834 (2010) 317C [arXiv:0910.0959 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[27] [26]

X. Zhao, A. Emerick and R. Rapp, arXiv:1210.6583 [hep-p h]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[28] [27]

K. Adcox et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 022301 [nucl-ex/0109003]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[29] [28]

B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 09 (2012) 112

View on Pith 2012

[30] [29]

P . B. Gossiaux, S. V ogel, H. van Hees, J. Aichelin, R. Rap p, M. He and M. Bluhm, [arXiv:1102.1114 [hep-ph]]. J. Aichelin, P . B. Gossiaux and T. Gousset, arXiv:1201.4192 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [30]

M. He, R. J. Fries and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 112301 [arXiv:1204.4442 [nucl-th]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[32] [31]

T. Lang, H. van Hees, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, arX iv:1211.6912 [hep-ph]; T. Lang, H. van Hees, J. Steinheimer, Y . -P . Y an and M. Bleicher, arXiv:1212.0696 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[33] [32]

J. Uphoff, O. Fochler, Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024908 [arXiv:1104.2295 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[34] [33]

W. M. Alberico et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1666 [arXiv:1101.6008 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[35] [34]

S. S. Adler et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 024901 [nucl-ex/0502009]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[36] [35]

A. Adare et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 172301 [nucl-ex/0611018]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[37] [36]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JINST 3 (2008) S08002

View on Pith 2008

[38] [37]

K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JINST 5 (2010) P03003

View on Pith 2010

[39] [38]

J. Alme et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622 (2010) 316

View on Pith 2010

[40] [39]

B. Abelev et al. [ ALICE Collaboration], arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[41] [40]

B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 01 (2012) 128

View on Pith 2012

[42] [41]

A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671 [nucl-ex/9805001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[43] [42]

N. Borghini, J. Y . Ollitrault and , Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 064905 [nucl-th/0407041]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[44] [43]

C. Adler et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 034904 [nucl-ex/0206001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[45] [44]

A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings and S. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044913 [arXiv:1010.0233 [nucl- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[46] [45]

M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P . N ason and G. Ridolﬁ, CERN-PH- TH/2011-227, arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[47] [46]

D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 462 (2001) 152

View on Pith 2001