Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 134 references

Experimental Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions: A Perspective

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After a decade of searches, the chiral magnetic effect is still unconfirmed, but two precise measurements now bracket its possible size: an upper limit near 10% and a 2.9σ hint near 15%.

desk verdict A candid, useful CME status review whose numbers are model-dependent but whose 'inconclusive' verdict holds; it needs cleanup of a kappa contradiction and a pasted artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09742 v2 pith:VXVBC6C3 submitted 2025-02-13 nucl-ex nucl-th

Yicheng Feng , Sergei A. Voloshin , Fuqiang Wang This is my paper
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords chiralmagneticeffectheavy-ioncollisionsgammacorrelatorisobarspectator/participantplanesCMEfractionlocalchargeconservationquark-gluonplasma
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

After more than a decade of measurements, the experimental search for the chiral magnetic effect remains inconclusive, but the question has become quantitative. The effect would produce an electric current along the magnetic field in a chirally imbalanced quark–gluon plasma, appearing as charge separation perpendicular to the reaction plane in noncentral heavy-ion collisions. The two most precise probes now bracket its possible size: a blind comparison of isobar collisions sets an upper limit of about 10% on the CME fraction of the measured $\Delta\gamma$, while a spectator/participant-plane analysis of midcentral Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV finds a hint of about 15% with 2.9$\sigma$ significance. The obstacle to a firmer statement is background—flow-induced correlations and reaction-plane-independent three-particle correlations mimic the signal—not statistics alone. Because RHIC is expected to deliver roughly ten times more Au+Au events by 2025, the authors view the search as poised to move from hint to either discovery or stronger exclusion.

What carries the argument

The workhorse observable is the charge-dependent three-particle azimuthal correlator $\gamma_{\alpha\beta} = \langle \cos(\phi_\alpha+\phi_\beta-2\psi_{\rm RP})\rangle$, reduced to the opposite-sign minus same-sign difference $\Delta\gamma = \gamma_{\rm os}-\gamma_{\rm ss}$, and the extracted quantity is the CME fraction $f_{\rm cme} = \Delta\gamma_{\rm cme}/\Delta\gamma$. The decisive machinery is differential comparison between two measurements that differ in expected CME content but share background physics: the isobar double ratio $(\Delta\gamma/v_2)_{\rm Ru+Ru}/(\Delta\gamma/v_2)_{\rm Zr+Zr}$, which cancels reaction-plane resolution and normalizes to elliptic flow, and the spectator/participant-plane method, whose ratio $(\Delta\gamma/v_2)_{\rm sp}/(\Delta\gamma/v_2)_{\rm pp}=1+f_{\rm cme}[(v_2^{pp}/v_2^{sp})^2-1]$ identifies flow-proportional background by design. The clean definition of $\Delta\gamma$ as a difference between in-plane and out-of-plane correlations is what removes all background unrelated to the reaction-plane orientation.

What would settle it

Re-run the spectator/participant-plane analysis on the 20–50% central Au+Au 200 GeV data once the tenfold-statistics dataset is available: if the true CME fraction is around 15%, the extracted $f_{\rm cme}$ should remain positive after applying the HIJING/AMPT nonflow corrections and exceed 2.9$\sigma$ in significance; if the current hint is a nonflow artifact, the corrected value should instead be consistent with zero within about 3%. A complementary check is to measure the event-shape-engineering intercept with a large pseudorapidity gap between the event-shape variable and the particles of interest, which suppresses nonflow by construction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that no measurement to date establishes the chiral magnetic effect, yet the search is no longer open-ended: the CME fraction in the charge-dependent correlator is constrained from above at roughly 10% (95% confidence) by the isobar program and is possibly nonzero at the 15% level with 2.9$\sigma$ significance in midcentral Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The isobar result is not a disproof of the CME, because the signal-to-background ratio in those smaller systems is expected to be several times lower than in Au+Au; the Au+Au hint, if real, would be consistent with that expectation. The authors therefore frame the current data as an unresolved hint, and argue that the tenfold increase in Au+Au statistics plus upgraded forward detectors should settle whether the effect is present.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted 15% signal and 10% upper limit both depend on model-based subtraction of background correlations that are not tied to the reaction plane, using HIJING and AMPT simulations; if those simulations misestimate jets, resonance decays, or other nonflow correlations, the central numbers could shift substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 2.9$\sigma$ Au+Au hint is real, the expected tenfold increase in Au+Au statistics by 2025 should turn it into a decisive measurement.
  • The roughly 10% isobar upper limit does not exclude a substantial CME in Au+Au, because the signal-to-background ratio in isobars is expected to be at least a factor of three smaller.
  • The spectator/participant-plane method isolates the flow-induced background without committing to its physical source, as long as that background scales with elliptic flow.
  • Searches at the LHC so far yield only upper limits, consistent with a weaker CME fraction there because the magnetic field decays faster at higher collision energies.
  • Future high-statistics data should account for nonflow and reaction-plane-independent three-particle correlations at the percent level, which all current event-shape-engineering analyses have neglected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 15% hint survives, it would be the first experimental evidence for topological vacuum transitions in QCD and for parity/CP violation in the strong interaction—a consequence the authors leave implicit.
  • The apparent gap between the isobar upper limit and the Au+Au hint could be tested by comparing different collision systems (higher-mass isobars or Xe+Pb) under the same double-ratio analysis, where magnetic-field strength and lifetime scale differently.
  • A data-driven cross-check of the model-dependent background subtraction could come from the invariant-mass dependence the paper reports: if the low-mass continuum excess survives flow subtraction after the resonance peaks are removed, it is a candidate CME signal rather than local charge conservation.
  • Applying the spectator/participant-plane method to identified hadron species would test whether the extracted fraction is carried by pions from resonance decays or by a genuine charge-separation component.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspective reviews the experimental search for the chiral magnetic effect (CME) in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. It introduces the standard gamma correlator and its backgrounds, lays out the main experimental techniques (event-shape engineering, isobar collisions, spectator/participant planes), and summarizes the progression of measurements from the first STAR results to the 2018 isobar run, the 2022 blind-analysis result, and recent SP/PP-based analyses in Au+Au collisions. The paper's central claim is that the CME search remains inconclusive, with a model-dependent upper limit of about 10% on the CME fraction from isobar collisions and an intriguing but not conclusive 2.9-sigma hint of about 15% in midcentral Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The outlook is optimistic that the anticipated factor-of-ten increase in RHIC Au+Au statistics by 2025, together with detector upgrades, may settle the question.

Significance. The paper is a useful, balanced, and authoritative synthesis of the current experimental status. Its central qualitative conclusion—that the CME search is inconclusive because of background uncertainties—is robust and supported by the cited measurements. The treatment of the SP/PP method and the isobar program is particularly clear, and the text is appropriately candid about the limitations of HIJING and AMPT-based nonflow corrections. The paper does not present new data, code, or derivations; its value lies in the synthesis and in identifying the data-driven routes that future analyses should take. The specific quantitative claims (the 15% hint and the 10% upper limit) are more fragile than the broad conclusion and need to be carefully framed as model-dependent, but this is a revision issue rather than a flaw in the central assessment.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV B and IV E, Eq. (18), Fig. 21] The 2.9-sigma significance quoted for the SP/PP result applies to the observed CME fraction f_obs^cme = (14.7 +/- 4.3 +/- 2.6)% for one full-event analysis setting in Ref. [112], not to the background-subtracted signal. The paper itself notes in Section IV E that the model nonflow correction is nearly zero or even negative and that HIJING lacks collective flow. Consequently, the summary/outlook statement describing a 2.9-sigma 'hint' of a possible CME signal should explicitly state that this significance is before model-based nonflow subtraction, and that no systematic uncertainty is assigned to f_model in Fig. 21. As written, the text risks presenting the 2.9-sigma as the significance of the final, background-corrected CME estimate.
  2. [Section IV C, IV E, and V, Fig. 18] The approximately 10% (95% CL) upper limit in isobar collisions is extracted from baselines estimated with the 2D two-particle correlation fitting method and HIJING (Refs. [119,120]). The manuscript itself states that the relative abundance of clusters need not scale with multiplicity at percent accuracy and that the data are consistent with the estimated baselines within about 1 sigma. The summary sentence 'An upper limit of approximately 10% CME signal in the measured Delta-gamma in isobar collisions is extracted at 95% confidence level' should therefore be qualified as a model-dependent upper limit, otherwise readers may mistake it for a direct, model-independent experimental bound.
  3. [Section III B, Eqs. (20)-(22)] There is an internal contradiction concerning the kappa parameter. The text states that 'the value of the kappa parameter cannot be theoretically calculated or experimentally measured,' but two sentences later it cites the CMS measurement kappa = Delta-gamma/(v2 Delta-delta) in Eq. (22) and says the measured values are approximately of order unity. Please reconcile this by either distinguishing the fudge factor kappa in Eqs. (20) from the ratio measured by CMS, or by removing the categorical statement that it cannot be experimentally measured.
  4. [Section II C 6, Eqs. (17)-(19)] The SP/PP extraction of the CME fraction relies on Eq. (17), which assumes that the CME signal scales reciprocally with v2 between participant and spectator planes, with the same parameter a. This is presented as plausible, but Eq. (18) is directly sensitive to violations of this assumption, and no quantitative discussion of the associated systematic uncertainty is given. Since the 15% hint in Au+Au is derived from this method, the text should explicitly identify Eq. (17) as an assumption and summarize what is known about its model dependence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The word 'non-belean' should be 'non-Abelian'.
  2. [Section II C 4] The phrase 'sweat spot' should be 'sweet spot'.
  3. [Section III B] The word 'azimuathal' should be 'azimuthal' in the discussion around Eq. (21).
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] The phrase 'is also show' should be 'is also shown'.
  5. [Section IV A] The phrase 'pseudorapidity rages' should be 'pseudorapidity ranges'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central status assessment and quantitative bounds trace to external STAR/ALICE/CMS measurements and to model corrections that are not fitted to the target result.

full rationale

This paper is a perspective/review, not a derivation of new predictions. The central claims—'inconclusive' searches, an ~10% isobar upper limit, and a 2.9σ hint of ~15% in Au+Au—rest on published experimental analyses (STAR Refs. [112,115,119,120], ALICE Refs. [91,97,123], CMS Ref. [101]) and on model calculations (AMPT, HIJING, MC-Glauber, TRENTo) that are not fitted to the CME fraction they are used to correct. The SP/PP extraction, Eq. (18), is an algebraic unfolding of the assumed reciprocal scaling in Eq. (17); the assumption is stated, not hidden, and the result is an estimate from measured A and a, not a self-referential definition. The isobar equation, Eq. (15), similarly parametrizes the expected double-ratio deviation in terms of fcme and B-field ratio; it does not define fcme into existence. The paper's use of Ref. [124] (which shares authors) to estimate nonflow bias is a genuine model calculation with stated inputs and is transparently presented as such; the net correction is reported as nearly zero or negative, so the 'hint' does not reduce to that correction. The only quasi-circular element identified in the text is the BW-LCC background model's tuning to the charge balance function, 'the detailed shape of which by itself includes the possible CME' (Sec. III A); however, the paper flags this limitation explicitly and does not use BW-LCC as the basis for its central quantitative claims. Under the proportionality standard (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or fitted parameter renamed as prediction), no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This perspective introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It rests on the standard theoretical framework of the CME and on the assumptions of the experimental methods it reviews, including spectator-plane magnetic field alignment, flow-proportional backgrounds, inverse-multiplicity scaling, and model-based nonflow subtraction. These are all inherited from prior work and are openly stated or cited in the text.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The charge-dependent three-point correlator Δγ is a valid observable for CME searches, with the CME contribution antisymmetric between opposite-sign and same-sign pairs.
    The entire review is built around Δγ as the primary probe (Section II A); this assumption is inherited from the cited experimental program and is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field in noncentral heavy-ion collisions is on average perpendicular to the spectator plane and sufficiently long-lived to produce a measurable CME signal.
    This is central to the SP/PP extraction via Eq. (17) and the surrounding discussion in Section II C 6. The orientation and lifetime of the magnetic field are model-dependent inputs from prior simulations.
  • domain assumption Flow-induced background in Δγ is proportional to elliptic flow and can be isolated by comparing measurements at different flow values or in different collision systems.
    This proportionality underlies the ESE, isobar, and Xe-Pb methods, as expressed in Eq. (6) and Section II B 1. The paper notes caveats, but it relies on this scaling for background subtraction.
  • domain assumption Models such as HIJING, AMPT, and MC-Glauber provide adequate estimates of nonflow and reaction-plane-independent background contributions.
    The paper uses these models to correct nonflow in SP/PP (Ref. [124]) and isobar analyses (Refs. [119,120]), acknowledging limitations such as HIJING lacking collective flow, but still relying on the numerical estimates for the central conclusions.
  • domain assumption The background contribution to Δγ/v2 in isobar collisions scales with inverse charged-particle multiplicity, providing the baseline for the double-ratio analysis.
    This scaling is used in Section IV C to interpret the isobar double ratio below unity. The paper shows that the baseline is uncertain (the alternative r baseline differs), and the conclusion is drawn with caution, but the inverse-multiplicity assumption is still load-bearing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions: A Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXVBC6C3

@misc{pith2026250209742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions: A Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXVBC6C3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09742}
}
read the original abstract

The chiral magnetic effect (CME) refers to generation of the electric current along a magnetic field in a chirally imbalanced system of quarks. The latter is predicted by quantum chromodynamics to arise from quark interaction with non-trivial topological fluctuations of the vacuum gluonic field. The CME has been actively searched for in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, where such gluonic field fluctuations and a strong magnetic field are believed to be present. The CME-sensitive observables are unfortunately subject to a possibly large non-CME background, and firm conclusions on a CME observation have not yet been reached. In this perspective, we review the experimental status and progress in the CME search, from the initial measurements more than a decade ago, to the dedicated program of isobar collisions in 2018 and the release of the isobar blind analysis result in 2022, to intriguing hints of a possible CME signal in Au+Au collisions, and discuss future prospects of a potential CME discovery in the anticipated high-statistic Au+Au collision data at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider by 2025. We hope such a perspective will help sharpening our focus on the fundamental physics of the CME and steer its experimental search.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Schematic view of a heavy-ion colli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Schematic view of the transverse plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) The first measurements of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Three-point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) The centrality dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (Color online) The multiplicity-scaled ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color online) Comparison of the charge-dependent parts of correlators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color online) (a) The relative excess of OS over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (Color online) Charge multiplicity asymmetry cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ∆γ112 vs v2 for hadrons or hadron pairs (excluding p and ¯p) with |η| < 1, using spectator plane from EPD (|η| > 3.2) in the 30–40% centrality range of Au+Au collisions at 19.6 GeV. q2 2 and v2 are based on either single particles or particle pairs from POI. The applic…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (Color online) The ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (Color online) The dependence of the CME signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. (Color online) The ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. (Color online) (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. (Color online) Isobar Ru+Ru/Zr+Zr ratios of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. (Color online) Centrality dependence of the CME [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. (Color online) The CME fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [112]

    Search for anomalous chiral effects in heavy-ion collisions with ALICE

    C.-Z. Wang (ALICE), Search for anomalous chiral ef- fects in heavy-ion collisions with ALICE, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 04007 (2024), arXiv:2312.07346 [nucl-ex]. 22

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964)

    1964

  3. [2]

    P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964)

    1964

  4. [3]

    Nambu, Axial vector current conservation in weak interactions, Phys

    Y. Nambu, Axial vector current conservation in weak interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960)

    1960

  5. [4]

    E. V. Shuryak, Quark-Gluon Plasma and Hadronic Pro- duction of Leptons, Photons and Psions, Phys.Lett. B78, 150 (1978)

    1978

  6. [5]

    ’t Hooft, How Instantons Solve the U(1) Problem, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, How Instantons Solve the U(1) Problem, Phys. Rept. 142, 357 (1986)

    1986

  7. [6]

    flowing clusters

    Measurements relative to spectator and participant planes Measurements relative to the second harmonic partici- pant plane yield by definition the largest values of elliptic flow. The elliptic flow values measured with respect to the participant plane, vpp 2 , and to the spectator plane, vsp 2 , differ by 10–20% depending on the collision central- ity. Th...

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    E. V. Shuryak, Quantum Chromodynamics and the Theory of Superdense Matter, Phys. Rept. 61, 71 (1980)

    1980

Show all 134 references
  1. [8]

    Sch¨ afer and E

    T. Sch¨ afer and E. V. Shuryak, Instantons in QCD, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 323 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9610451

    1998 arXiv

  2. [9]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. War- ringa, The Effects of topological charge change in heavy ion collisions: ’Event by event P and CP violation’, Nucl.Phys. A803, 227 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, The chiral magnetic effect, Phys.Rev. D78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Yin and J

    Y. Yin and J. Liao, Hydrodynamics with chiral anomaly and charge separation in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B756, 42 (2016), arXiv:1504.06906 [nucl- th]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Jiang, S

    Y. Jiang, S. Shi, Y. Yin, and J. Liao, Quantify- ing the chiral magnetic effect from anomalous-viscous fluid dynamics, Chin. Phys. C 42, 011001 (2018), 19 arXiv:1611.04586 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    S. Shi, Y. Jiang, E. Lilleskov, and J. Liao, Anoma- lous Chiral Transport in Heavy Ion Collisions from Anomalous-Viscous Fluid Dynamics, Annals Phys. 394, 50 (2018), arXiv:1711.02496 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kharzeev and R

    D. Kharzeev and R. D. Pisarski, Pionic measures of par- ity and CP violation in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys.Rev. D61, 111901 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9906401 [hep-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Kharzeev, Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can happen, and how to look for it, Phys.Lett

    D. Kharzeev, Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can happen, and how to look for it, Phys.Lett. B633, 260 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0406125 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Yu. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Estimate of the magnetic field strength in heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, (Electro-)Magnetic field evolution in relativistic heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054911 (2011), arXiv:1103.4239 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Event-by-event gener- ation of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C85, 044907 (2012), arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl- th]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [19]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Observation of charge- dependent azimuthal correlations and possible local strong parity violation in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054908 (2010), arXiv:0909.1717 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Tuchin, Time and space dependence of the electro- magnetic field in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    K. Tuchin, Time and space dependence of the electro- magnetic field in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024911 (2013), arXiv:1305.5806 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    McLerran and V

    L. McLerran and V. Skokov, Comments About the Elec- tromagnetic Field in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Nucl. Phys. A929, 184 (2014), arXiv:1305.0774 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    W. Li, S. Lin, and J. Mei, Conductivities of mag- netic quark-gluon plasma at strong coupling, Phys. Rev. D98, 114014 (2018), arXiv:1809.02178 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Huang, D

    A. Huang, D. She, S. Shi, M. Huang, and J. Liao, Dy- namical magnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 107, 034901 (2023), arXiv:2212.08579 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl.Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Experimen- tal and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s crit- ical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl.Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009 [nucl-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Arsene et al

    I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS Collaboration), Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Per- spective from the BRAHMS experiment, Nucl.Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020 [nucl-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Back et al

    B. Back et al. (PHOBOS Collaboration), The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC, Nucl.Phys. A757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022 [nucl-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Muller, J

    B. Muller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wyslouch, First Results from Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 62, 361 (2012), arXiv:1202.3233 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Roland, K

    G. Roland, K. Safarik, and P. Steinberg, Heavy-ion colli- sions at the LHC, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.77, 70 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, New forms of QCD mat- ter discovered at RHIC, Nucl.Phys. A750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013 [nucl-th]

    2005 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Shuryak, Physics of Strongly coupled Quark- Gluon Plasma, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys

    E. Shuryak, Physics of Strongly coupled Quark- Gluon Plasma, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 62, 48 (2009), arXiv:0807.3033 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  25. [32]

    D. E. Kharzeev, The Chiral Magnetic Effect and Anomaly-Induced Transport, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 75, 133 (2014), arXiv:1312.3348 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Chiral magnetic and vortical effects in high-energy nuclear collisions—A status report, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 88, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.04050 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Huang, Electromagnetic fields and anomalous transports in heavy-ion collisions — A pedagogi- cal review, Rept

    X.-G. Huang, Electromagnetic fields and anomalous transports in heavy-ion collisions — A pedagogi- cal review, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 076302 (2016), arXiv:1509.04073 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Hattori and X.-G

    K. Hattori and X.-G. Huang, Novel quantum phenom- ena induced by strong magnetic fields in heavy-ion col- lisions, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 26 (2017), arXiv:1609.00747 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Zhao, Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect in Rel- ativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, Int

    J. Zhao, Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect in Rel- ativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1830010 (2018), arXiv:1805.02814 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Zhao and F

    J. Zhao and F. Wang, Experimental searches for the chiral magnetic effect in heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 200 (2019), arXiv:1906.11413 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Li and G

    W. Li and G. Wang, Chiral Magnetic Effects in Nuclear Collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 293 (2020), arXiv:2002.10397 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    D. E. Kharzeev and J. Liao, Chiral magnetic effect re- veals the topology of gauge fields in heavy-ion collisions, Nature Rev. Phys. 3, 55 (2021), arXiv:2102.06623 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [40]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, and P. Tribedy, Chiral mag- netic effect in heavy ion collisions: The present and future, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2430007 (2024), arXiv:2405.05427 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    D. E. Kharzeev and H.-U. Yee, Chiral Magnetic Wave, Phys. Rev. D 83, 085007 (2011), arXiv:1012.6026 [hep- th]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Burnier, D

    Y. Burnier, D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, and H.-U. Yee, Chi- ral magnetic wave at finite baryon density and the elec- tric quadrupole moment of quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 052303 (2011), arXiv:1103.1307 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Landsteiner, E

    K. Landsteiner, E. Megias, L. Melgar, and F. Pena- Benitez, Holographic Gravitational Anomaly and Chiral Vortical Effect, JHEP09 09, 121 (2011), arXiv:1107.0368 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Burnier, D

    Y. Burnier, D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, and H. U. Yee, From the chiral magnetic wave to the charge dependence of elliptic flow (2012), arXiv:1208.2537 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Yee and Y

    H.-U. Yee and Y. Yin, Realistic Implementation of Chi- ral Magnetic Wave in Heavy Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044909 (2014), arXiv:1311.2574 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Observation of charge asymmetry dependence of pion elliptic flow and the pos- sible chiral magnetic wave in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 252302 (2015), arXiv:1504.02175 [nucl- ex]. 20

    2015 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Charge-dependent flow and the search for the chiral magnetic wave in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044903 (2016), arXiv:1512.05739 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Probing the chi- ral magnetic wave in pP b and PbPb collisions at√sN N =5.02TeV using charge-dependent azimuthal anisotropies, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064908 (2019), arXiv:1708.08901 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys.Rev

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys.Rev. D46, 229 (1992)

    1992

  43. [50]

    Voloshin and Y

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Flow study in relativistic nu- clear collisions by Fourier expansion of Azimuthal par- ticle distributions, Z.Phys. C70, 665 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9407282 [hep-ph]

    1996

  44. [51]

    S. A. Voloshin, Parity violation in hot QCD: How to detect it, Phys.Rev. C70, 057901 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0406311 [hep-ph]

    2004

  45. [52]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Azimuthal Charged-Particle Correlations and Possible Local Strong Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 251601 (2009), arXiv:0909.1739 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Ajitanand, R

    N. Ajitanand, R. A. Lacey, A. Taranenko, and J. Alexander, A New method for the experimental study of topological effects in the quark-gluon plasma, Phys.Rev. C83, 011901 (2011), arXiv:1009.5624 [nucl- ex]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Magdy, S

    N. Magdy, S. Shi, J. Liao, N. Ajitanand, and R. A. Lacey, A New Correlator to Detect and Characterize the Chiral Magnetic Effect, Phys. Rev. C97, 061901 (2018), arXiv:1710.01717 [physics.data-an]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Y. Feng, J. Zhao, and F. Wang, Responses of the chiral- magnetic-effect-sensitive sine observable to resonance backgrounds in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C98, 034904 (2018), arXiv:1803.02860 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Y. Feng, J. Zhao, H.-J. Xu, and F. Wang, Decipher the RΨm correlator in search for the chiral magnetic effect in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034912 (2021), arXiv:2011.01123 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Bzdak, Suppression of elliptic flow induced correla- tions in an observable of possible local parity violation, Phys.Rev

    A. Bzdak, Suppression of elliptic flow induced correla- tions in an observable of possible local parity violation, Phys.Rev. C85, 044919 (2012), arXiv:1112.4066 [nucl- th]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Sun and C

    Y. Sun and C. M. Ko, Probing the topological charge in QCD matter via multiplicity up–down asymmetry, Phys. Lett. B 789, 228 (2019), arXiv:1807.11451 [nucl- th]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Tang, Probe Chiral Magnetic Effect with Signed Balance Function, Chin

    A. Tang, Probe Chiral Magnetic Effect with Signed Balance Function, Chin. Phys. C 44, 054101 (2020), arXiv:1903.04622 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Y. Feng, J. Zhao, and F. Wang, Back-to-back relative- excess observable to identify the chiral magnetic ef- fect, Phys. Rev. C101, 014915 (2020), arXiv:1908.10210 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [61]

    H.-S. Li, Y. Feng, and F. Wang, Influence of the chi- ral magnetic effect on particle-pair elliptic anisotropy (2024), to appear to Phys.Rev.C, arXiv:2404.05032 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Choudhury et al

    S. Choudhury et al. , Investigation of experimental ob- servables in search of the chiral magnetic effect in heavy- ion collisions in the STAR experiment, Chin. Phys. C 46, 014101 (2022), arXiv:2105.06044 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Wang, Effects of Cluster Particle Correlations on Local Parity Violation Observables, Phys.Rev

    F. Wang, Effects of Cluster Particle Correlations on Local Parity Violation Observables, Phys.Rev. C81, 064902 (2010), arXiv:0911.1482 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V. Koch, and J. Liao, Remarks on possible local parity violation in heavy ion collisions, Phys.Rev. C81, 031901 (2010), arXiv:0912.5050 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Schlichting and S

    S. Schlichting and S. Pratt, Charge conservation at ener- gies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and contributions to local parity violation observables, Phys.Rev. C83, 014913 (2011), arXiv:1009.4283 [nucl- th]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [66]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. Voloshin, Methods for ana- lyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys.Rev. C58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001 [nucl-ex]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Globally polarized quark- gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    2005 arXiv

  61. [68]

    S. A. Voloshin, Polarized secondary particles in unpo- larized high energy hadron-hadron collisions? (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0410089

    2004 arXiv

  62. [69]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Global polarization mea- surement in Au+Au collisions, Phys. Rev. C 76, 024915 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 039906 (2017)], arXiv:0705.1691 [nucl-ex]

    2007 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Global Λ hyperon polariza- tion in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid, Nature 548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [71]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Pattern of global spin alignment of ϕ and K ∗0 mesons in heavy-ion collisions, Nature 614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

    2023

  65. [72]

    Yang, R.-H

    Y.-G. Yang, R.-H. Fang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Quark coalescence model for polarized vector mesons and baryons, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034917 (2018), arXiv:1711.06008 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, and Q. Wang, What can we learn from the global spin alignment of ϕ mesons in heavy-ion collisions?, Phys. Rev. D 101, 096005 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 099903 (2022)], arXiv:1910.13684 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [74]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, X.-G. Huang, and H. Zhong Huang, Local spin alignment of vector mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136325 (2021), arXiv:2010.01474 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Gao, Helicity polarization in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys

    J.-H. Gao, Helicity polarization in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D 104, 076016 (2021), arXiv:2105.08293 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [76]

    M¨ uller and D.-L

    B. M¨ uller and D.-L. Yang, Anomalous spin polariza- tion from turbulent color fields, Phys. Rev. D 105, L011901 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 039904 (2022)], arXiv:2110.15630 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.- N. Wang, Spin Alignment of Vector Mesons in Heavy- Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 042304 (2023), arXiv:2205.15689 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.- N. Wang, Relativistic spin dynamics for vector mesons, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036004 (2024), arXiv:2206.05868 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Sheng, S

    X.-L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Momentum depen- dence of the spin alignment of the ϕ meson, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054902 (2023), arXiv:2308.14038 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [80]

    D. Shen, J. Chen, A. Tang, and G. Wang, Impact of globally spin-aligned vector mesons on the search for the chiral magnetic effect in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. 21 Lett. B 839, 137777 (2023), arXiv:2212.03056 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  74. [81]

    S. A. Voloshin, Collective phenomena in ultra- relativistic nuclear collisions: anisotropic flow and more, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 67, 541 (2012), arXiv:1111.7241 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  75. [82]

    S. A. Voloshin (ALICE), Results on flow from the AL- ICE Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 904-905, 90c (2013), arXiv:1211.5680 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  76. [83]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V. Koch, and J. Liao, Charge-Dependent Correlations in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions and the Chiral Magnetic Effect, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 503 (2013), arXiv:1207.7327 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Constraining the Chiral Magnetic Effect with charge-dependent azimuthal cor- relations in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, JHEP09 09, 160 (2020), arXiv:2005.14640 [nucl- ex]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [85]

    S. A. Voloshin, Testing the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Central U+U collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 172301 (2010), arXiv:1006.1020 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Schukraft, A

    J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, and S. A. Voloshin, Ultra- relativistic nuclear collisions: event shape engineering, Phys. Lett. B719, 394 (2013), arXiv:1208.4563 [nucl- ex]

    2013 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, Test the chiral magnetic effect with isobaric collisions, Phys. Rev. C94, 041901 (2016), arXiv:1607.04697 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  81. [88]

    S. Shi, H. Zhang, D. Hou, and J. Liao, Signatures of Chiral Magnetic Effect in the Collisions of Isobars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14010 [nucl- th]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Ma and B

    G.-L. Ma and B. Zhang, Effects of final state inter- actions on charge separation in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys.Lett. B700, 39 (2011), arXiv:1101.1701 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  83. [90]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, Predictions for isobaric collisions at √sN N = 200 GeV from a multiphase transport model, Phys. Rev. C97, 044901 (2018), arXiv:1802.02292 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [91]

    S. A. Voloshin, Estimate of the signal from the chi- ral magnetic effect in heavy-ion collisions from mea- surements relative to the participant and specta- tor flow planes, Phys. Rev. C 98, 054911 (2018), arXiv:1805.05300 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  85. [92]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Constraining the magnitude of the Chiral Magnetic Effect with Event Shape Engi- neering in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B777, 151 (2018), arXiv:1709.04723 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  86. [93]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Measurement of charge multiplicity asymmetry correlations in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 89, 044908 (2014), arXiv:1303.0901 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  87. [94]

    H.-J. Xu, J. Zhao, X. Wang, H. Li, Z.-W. Lin, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Varying the chiral magnetic effect relative to flow in a single nucleus-nucleus collision, Chin. Phys. C42, 084103 (2018), arXiv:1710.07265 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  88. [95]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Fluctuations of charge sep- aration perpendicular to the event plane and local parity violation in √sN N= 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 88, 064911 (2013), arXiv:1302.3802 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Beam-energy dependence of charge separation along the magnetic field in Au+Au collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 052302 (2014), arXiv:1404.1433 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  90. [97]

    R. L. Ray and R. S. Longacre, MEVISM: A Monte Carlo event generator for STAR (2000), arXiv:nucl- ex/0008009

    2000

  91. [98]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Charge separation rel- ative to the reaction plane in Pb-Pb collisions at√sN N= 2.76 TeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 012301 (2013), arXiv:1207.0900 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  92. [99]

    Wu et al

    W.-Y. Wu et al. , Global constraint on the magnitude of anomalous chiral effects in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 107, L031902 (2023), arXiv:2211.15446 [nucl- th]

    2023 arXiv

  93. [100]

    S. A. Voloshin, Transverse radial expansion in nuclear collisions and two particle correlations, Phys. Lett. B 632, 490 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0312065

    2006 arXiv

  94. [101]

    S. A. Voloshin, Two particle rapidity, transverse mo- mentum, and azimuthal correlations in relativistic nu- clear collisions and transverse radial expansion, Nucl. Phys. A 749, 287 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0410024

    2005 arXiv

  95. [102]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Constraints on the chi- ral magnetic effect using charge-dependent azimuthal correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044912 (2018), arXiv:1708.01602 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Observation of charge- dependent azimuthal correlations in p-Pb collisions and its implication for the search for the chiral mag- netic effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 122301 (2017), arXiv:1610.00263 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  97. [104]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Charge-dependent pair correla- tions relative to a third particle in p + Au and d+ Au collisions at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134975 (2019), arXiv:1906.03373 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  98. [105]

    Belmont and J

    R. Belmont and J. L. Nagle, To CME or not to CME? Implications of p+Pb measurements of the chiral mag- netic effect in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C96, 024901 (2017), arXiv:1610.07964 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  99. [106]

    J. Zhao, Y. Feng, H. Li, and F. Wang, HIJING can de- scribe the anisotropy-scaled charge-dependent correla- tions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 101, 034912 (2020), arXiv:1912.00299 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  100. [107]

    J. Zhao, H. Li, and F. Wang, Isolating the chiral mag- netic effect from backgrounds by pair invariant mass, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 168 (2019), arXiv:1705.05410 [nucl- ex]

    2019 arXiv

  101. [108]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Pair invariant mass to isolate background in the search for the chiral magnetic effect in Au + Au collisions at sNN=200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 106, 034908 (2022), arXiv:2006.05035 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  102. [109]

    Xu (STAR), Search for the chiral magnetic and vor- tical effects using event shape approaches in Au+Au collisions at STAR, EPJ Web Conf

    Z. Xu (STAR), Search for the chiral magnetic and vor- tical effects using event shape approaches in Au+Au collisions at STAR, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 04010 (2024), arXiv:2401.00317 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  103. [110]

    Z. Xu, B. Chan, G. Wang, A. Tang, and H. Z. Huang, Event shape selection method in search of the chiral magnetic effect in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138367 (2024), arXiv:2307.14997 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [111]

    H.-S. Li, Y. Feng, and F. Wang, Investigating the Event-Shape Methods in Search for the Chiral Mag- netic Effect in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions (2024), arXiv:2407.14489 [physics.data-an]

    2024

  105. [113]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Search for the Chiral Magnetic Effect via Charge-Dependent Azimuthal Cor- relations Relative to Spectator and Participant Planes in Au+Au Collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 092301 (2022), arXiv:2106.09243 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  106. [114]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Directed flow in Au+Au col- lisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 62-GeV, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034903 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0510053

    2006 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Aboona et al

    B. Aboona et al. (STAR), Search for the Chiral Mag- netic Effect in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 27 GeV with the STAR forward Event Plane Detectors, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137779 (2023), arXiv:2209.03467 [nucl-ex]

    2023

  108. [116]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Search for the chiral mag- netic effect with isobar collisions at √sN N=200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014901 (2022), arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  109. [117]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Methods for a blind analysis of isobar data collected by the STAR collaboration, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 32, 48 (2021), arXiv:1911.00596 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  110. [118]

    Li, H.-j

    H. Li, H.-j. Xu, J. Zhao, Z.-W. Lin, H. Zhang, X. Wang, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Multiphase transport model predictions of isobaric collisions with nuclear structure from density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C98, 054907 (2018), arXiv:1808.06711 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  111. [119]

    H.-j. Xu, H. Li, X. Wang, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Determine the neutron skin type by relativistic iso- baric collisions, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136453 (2021), arXiv:2103.05595 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  112. [120]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Upper limit on the chiral magnetic effect in isobar collisions at the Rela- tivistic Heavy-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L032005 (2024), arXiv:2308.16846 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  113. [121]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Estimate of back- ground baseline and upper limit on the chiral mag- netic effect in isobar collisions at sNN=200 GeV at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014905 (2024), arXiv:2310.13096 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  114. [122]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, and S. Shi, Implications of the isobar-run results for the chiral magnetic effect in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 106, L051903 (2022), arXiv:2205.00120 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Y. Feng, Y. Lin, J. Zhao, and F. Wang, Revisit the chiral magnetic effect expectation in isobaric collisions at the relativistic heavy ion collider, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136549 (2021), arXiv:2103.10378 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Search for the Chiral Mag- netic Effect with charge-dependent azimuthal correla- tions in Xe–Xe collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138862 (2024), arXiv:2210.15383 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Y. Feng, J. Zhao, H. Li, H.-j. Xu, and F. Wang, Two- and three-particle nonflow contributions to the chiral magnetic effect measurement by spectator and partic- ipant planes in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 105, 024913 (2022), arXiv:2106.15595 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Bozek, W

    P. Bozek, W. Broniowski, and J. Moreira, Torqued fire- balls in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys.Rev. C83, 034911 (2011), arXiv:1011.3354 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  119. [127]

    K. Xiao, F. Liu, and F. Wang, Event-plane decorrela- tion over pseudo-rapidity and its effect on azimuthal anisotropy measurement in relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions, Phys.Rev. C87, 011901 (2013), arXiv:1208.1195 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Evidence for transverse momentum and pseudorapidity dependent event plane fluctuations in PbPb and pPb collisions, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034911 (2015), arXiv:1503.01692 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Measurement of longitudi- nal flow decorrelations in Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 142 (2018), arXiv:1709.02301 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Gluon shadowing and jet quenching in A + A collisions at √s = 200-GeV, Phys.Rev.Lett. 68, 1480 (1992)

    1992

  123. [131]

    Wang, Effect of jet quenching on high pT hadron spectra in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys

    X.-N. Wang, Effect of jet quenching on high pT hadron spectra in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C58, 2321 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804357 [hep-ph]

    1998 arXiv

  124. [132]

    F. Du, L. E. Finch, and J. Sandweiss, Observing spon- taneous strong CP violation through hyperon helicity correlations, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044908 (2008)

    2008

  125. [133]

    L. E. Finch and S. J. Murray, Investigating local parity violation in heavy-ion collisions using Λ helicity, Phys. Rev. C96, 044911 (2017), arXiv:1801.06476 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  126. [134]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Event-by-event corre- lations between Λ (Λ¯) hyperon global polarization and handedness with charged hadron azimuthal separation in Au+Au collisions at sNN=27 GeV from STAR, Phys. Rev. C 108, 014909 (2023), arXiv:2304.10037 [nucl-ex]

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.