Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Impact of Initial-State Nuclear and Sub-Nucleon Structures on Ultra-Central Puzzle in Heavy Ion Collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ultra-central $v_2\{2\}/v_3\{2\}$ puzzle in heavy-ion collisions is substantially an initial-state nuclear-structure effect.

desk verdict A careful, well-calibrated simulation study that shows initial-state uniformity can reduce the ultra-central v2/v3 gap, but the dmin knob is unvalidated and the viscosity is re-tuned per scenario, so the nuclear-structure claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19208 v1 pith:UGRUO4RN submitted 2025-04-27 nucl-th hep-ph

Qi Wang , Long-Gang Pang , Xin-Nian Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords ultra-centralheavy-ioncollisionsanisotropicflowv2/v3puzzlenucleon-nucleoncorrelationssub-nucleonfluctuationsinitialeccentricitiesshearviscosityTRENTo
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

This paper argues that the long-standing mismatch in ultra-central Pb+Pb collisions, where hydrodynamic models underpredict $v_3$ relative to $v_2$, is not just a transport-coefficient problem: it depends on how nucleons are distributed inside the colliding nuclei. Using TRENTo initial conditions and the CLVisc hydrodynamic code, the authors show that imposing a minimum separation distance between nucleons and adding sub-nucleon fluctuations both reduce the fluctuation-driven eccentricities of the initial fireball. With smaller eccentricities, a smaller shear viscosity can be used, which preferentially boosts the higher-order harmonic $v_3$ and narrows the gap between $v_2\{2\}$ and $v_3\{2\}$ toward the CMS data. If this is right, ultra-central flow becomes a sensitive probe of nuclear and sub-nucleon structure, and transport-coefficient extraction must account for initial-state correlations.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is a geometric one: the rejection-sampling constraint in TRENTo that enforces a minimum distance $d_{\min}$ between nucleon centers, together with optional $N_c = 3$ Gaussian sub-nucleon constituents (\'hot spots\'). The former homogenizes the sampled nucleon distribution and suppresses the fluctuation-driven eccentricities $\epsilon_n\{2\}$; the latter sharpens the entropy-density spots and further changes the eccentricities. These reduced eccentricities change the hydrodynamic response so that a lower shear-viscosity-to-entropy ratio $\eta/s$ can reproduce the experimental $v_2\{2\}$ and $v_3\{2\}$, reversing the usual pattern where a large $\eta/s$ needed to fit $v_2$ kills $v_3$.

What would settle it

Measure the two-nucleon separation distribution in $^{208}$Pb (from ab initio nuclear-structure calculations or from electron-scattering and short-range-correlation experiments). If it shows a substantial population of pairs closer than 1.4 fm, rerun the TRENTo+CLVisc calculation with that realistic distribution; loss of the $v_2\{2\}/v_3\{2\}$ agreement would falsify the claim that such uniformity is the physical cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ultra-central $v_2\{2\}/v_3\{2\}$ ratio puzzle is substantially an initial-state nuclear-structure effect. The authors modify the TRENTo sampling of $^{208}$Pb nuclei by enforcing a minimum nucleon separation $d_{\min} = 1.0$–$1.7$ fm to homogenize the nucleon distribution, and separately amplify sub-nucleon fluctuations by sampling $N_c = 3$ Gaussian constituent quarks inside each nucleon. Both modifications lower the event-averaged eccentricities $\epsilon_n\{2\}$ for all orders $n = 2$–$6$. This lowering matters because viscous damping of higher harmonics is controlled by $\eta/s$: with less eccentricity, the hydrodynamic run can use a smaller $\eta/s$ without over-suppressing $v_3$, so the calculated $v_2\{2\}$ and $v_3\{2\}$ move closer to the CMS measurements in 0–1% centrality. The best agreement is obtained with $d_{\min} = 1.4$ fm (or $d_{\min} = 1.0$ fm plus sub-nucleon fluctuations) and a reduced shear viscosity, while $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$ and $p_T$ spectra remain consistent with ALICE data across centralities.

Load-bearing premise

The physical relevance of the minimum-separation parameter: the paper states it is a proof-of-principle knob and that real $^{208}$Pb contains short-range-correlated pairs closer than 1.4 fm; if the true nucleon distribution is not as uniform, the improved $v_2/v_3$ agreement would be an artifact of the toy sampling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ultra-central $v_n\{2\}$ values can act as a probe of nucleon-nucleon correlations in heavy nuclei, since the minimum-separation parameter directly controls the flow pattern.
  • Extracted values of $\eta/s$ depend on the assumed nuclear structure; using the conventional Woods-Saxon distribution may bias the shear-viscosity estimate.
  • Sub-nucleon structure is not a negligible correction: adding sub-nucleon fluctuations changes the eccentricities and flow harmonics enough to matter for the puzzle.
  • The modification does not spoil the centrality dependence of bulk observables ($dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$, $p_T$ spectra), so the $d_{\min}$ knob is consistent with global calibrations.
  • The higher harmonics $v_4$ and $v_5$ remain compatible with the data under the modified initial conditions, so the improvement is not achieved by distorting only the low-order harmonics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism holds, the same correlated-nucleon treatment should affect ultra-central flow in other species, such as $^{129}$Xe or $^{238}$U, where nuclear deformation and correlations differ; comparing those data would test the universality of the $d_{\min}$ knob.
  • A natural next step is to replace $d_{\min}$ with a microscopically derived short-range repulsive core from nuclear forces; if a realistic nucleon-nucleon potential reproduces the $d_{\min} \approx 1.4$ fm effect, the proof-of-principle becomes a quantitative nuclear-structure statement.
  • Bayesian parameter estimations of $\eta/s$ that use Woods-Saxon initial states may be systematically biased; reweighting the prior over nucleon configurations with correlations could shift the extracted transport coefficients and tighten their uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ultra-central v2/v3 puzzle in Pb+Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV using TRENTo initial conditions coupled to the CLVisc hydrodynamic model. Two modifications to the initial state are considered: imposing a minimum separation dmin between nucleons in the Woods-Saxon sampling, and adding sub-nucleon constituent-quark fluctuations. The authors report that increasing dmin reduces the root-mean-square initial eccentricities, and that combined with a re-tuned shear viscosity this brings vn{2} closer to CMS data in the 0-1% centrality bin. Sub-nucleon fluctuations are also shown to reduce eccentricities and to improve the v2/v3 trend. The manuscript concludes that initial-state nuclear and sub-nucleon structures are critical factors in the ultra-central puzzle.

Significance. If the central conclusion were fully established, the paper would be a valuable demonstration that short-range nuclear correlations and sub-nucleon granularity can affect ultra-central flow observables, with implications for both nuclear-structure studies and the extraction of QGP transport coefficients. The authors are transparent about the proof-of-principle nature of the minimum-distance prescription, and they compare against ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS data using an established hydrodynamic framework. The strength of the conclusion, however, is conditional on verifying that the dmin sampling preserves the known 208Pb density and on isolating the effect of the initial-state modification from the per-scenario re-tuning of eta/s. As written, the evidence supports a weaker statement: certain correlated initial geometries can improve the ultra-central vn description within this model setup.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B, Fig. 1] The rejection sampling used to impose dmin is not shown to preserve the single-nucleon density of Eq. (2). Because the Woods-Saxon density peaks at r=0, sequentially discarding nucleons closer than dmin to previously accepted nucleons preferentially removes central candidates and flattens the radial profile. The statement in Section II.B that the single-nucleon density and charge radius are experimentally constrained is an assumption, not a verification; the paper never computes or reweights the one-body density or radius of the dmin=1.4 configurations. Without this check, the reduced eccentricities in Fig. 6 and the improved vn{2} in Fig. 8 could be caused by a modified mean radial profile rather than by short-range correlations.
  2. [Section III.C, Figs. 8-10] The shear viscosity is re-tuned for each initial-state scenario: eta/s=0.16 is used for the calibration and non-central comparisons in Figs. 3-5, eta/s=0.22 for the dmin scans in Figs. 8 and 9, and eta/s=0.18 for the sub-nucleon comparison in Fig. 10. Since both the initial geometry and the viscosity are changed simultaneously, the improvement in the v2/v3 ratio cannot be cleanly attributed to the initial-state structure alone. The abstract's claim that the initial-state modifications 'reduce required viscosity' is also not directly demonstrated by these plots, because the dmin=1.4 runs use a larger eta/s than the baseline calibration.
  3. [Section III.C, Fig. 10] The exclusion of sub-nucleon fluctuations for the dmin=1.4 case is justified post hoc: the text states that including them would make v3{2} and v4{2} significantly underestimate the data. Selecting the preferred configuration after inspecting the outcome removes the predictive content of the claim that sub-nucleon structure is a critical factor. The paper should show the dmin=1.4 plus sub-nucleon result and discuss the tension explicitly rather than omitting it from the main comparison.
  4. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract's conclusion that initial-state nuclear and sub-nucleon structures are 'critical factors' goes beyond the paper's own caveat in Section II.B that the minimum-separation prescription is a proof-of-principle study. The discussion should be reframed as a demonstration that a specific class of correlated initial geometries can improve the ultra-central v2/v3 description in this model setup, pending validation against measured nuclear densities and a consistent viscosity treatment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.B, Fig. 6] Please clarify how the centrality selection via the 'mult' parameter is affected by dmin; the statement in Section III.A that dmin does not influence centrality dependence is supported only for dmin=1.4 by Fig. 3, not for the full range of dmin values used in Fig. 6.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption is confusing: it says the results consider 'nuclear-nuclear correlation (MUSIC + IP-glasma)' and 'without nuclear-nuclear correlation,' but the legend identifies blue triangles as MUSIC/IP-glasma results and red symbols as CLVisc results; please separate the model labels from the correlation labels.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The Gaussian distribution for constituent quarks appears to be missing parentheses around the coordinate differences; the expression '(x-x'2)+(y-y'2)' should be a squared Euclidean distance.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'thev2-v3 gap' in the abstract, 'dij > 1/...' in the Fig. 1 caption, and reference 41 with 'Nature Communications' embedded in the title; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The eccentricity reduction from dmin is built into the sampling prescription, and eta/s is re-tuned per scenario; the nuclear-structure attribution is therefore partially circular.

  1. self definitional [Section II.B (Fig. 1) and Section III.B (Fig. 6)]
    "The same rejection method as in TRENTo is employed to discard newly sampled nucleons if their distance from previously sampled nucleons is less than the minimum distance dij. ... The data reveal that as the minimum distance increases, the root mean square eccentricities exhibit a gradual decrease."

    Equation (5) defines epsilon_n as a moment of the transverse thickness T_R. The dmin rejection sampling is literally a prescription that forbids nucleons from being closer than dmin, i.e., it imposes spatial homogeneity by construction. Increasing dmin therefore directly suppresses the local density fluctuations that generate epsilon_n, so the monotonic decrease in Fig. 6 is a built-in consequence of the sampling method, not an independent empirical finding about Pb nuclear structure. The paper then promotes this imposed knob to a 'critical factor' for the ultra-central puzzle without verifying that the dmin-modified configurations still reproduce the measured 208Pb single-nucleon density or charge radius.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III.C (Figs. 8-10)]
    "Consequently, a value of η/s = 0.22 was employed in this analysis. ... For the same reason, a smaller η/s has been used as compared with Fig.9."

    The shear viscosity is re-selected per scenario after seeing the flow mismatch: eta/s = 0.16 in the calibration (Figs. 3-5), 0.22 for the dmin comparisons (Figs. 8-9), and 0.18 for the subnucleon comparison (Fig. 10). Because viscous damping suppresses v3 more strongly than v2, lowering eta/s mechanically raises v3{2} relative to v2{2}; choosing eta/s per scenario therefore manufactures part of the claimed narrowing of the v2/v3 gap. The paper's conclusion that initial-state structure 'reduces the required viscosity' is a re-description of this per-scenario re-tuning rather than a prediction from a fixed, independently constrained transport coefficient.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that nuclear and sub-nucleon structures are critical for the ultra-central v2/v3 puzzle rests on two adjustable inputs. First, dmin is introduced as a minimum-separation rejection parameter whose entire purpose is to homogenize nucleon distributions; since Eq. (5) computes eccentricity from the same density profile, the reported decrease of epsilon_n with increasing dmin is a direct consequence of the sampling prescription, not an independent nuclear-structure constraint. Second, the hydrodynamic transport coefficient eta/s is not held fixed across the comparisons: it is changed from the calibrated 0.16 to 0.22 and then to 0.18 depending on the scenario, and smaller eta/s by itself raises v3 relative to v2. Thus part of the 'resolution' is a fitted adjustment. The hydrodynamic response of CLVisc to a given initial condition is a nontrivial computation, and the code calibration against spectra is independent evidence for the model's general validity, so this is not a pure self-citation or definitional identity. However, the paper's headline attribution of the puzzle's resolution to nuclear structure is partially forced by its own dmin definition and by scenario-dependent viscosity tuning, warranting a score of 6 rather than a non-finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two hand-tuned knobs (dmin and eta/s) plus standard but unstated TRENTo parameters. The eccentricity reduction follows directly from the sampling prescription, and the improved flow agreement is obtained by scanning those knobs rather than by an independent prediction.

free parameters (4)
  • dmin (minimum nucleon separation distance) = scanned: 1.0, 1.4, 1.7 fm
    Chosen by hand to homogenize nucleon distributions; dmin=1.4 fm is used for the main comparison because it improves agreement with CMS flow data. Not derived from experiment or theory.
  • eta/s (shear viscosity to entropy density ratio) = 0.16, 0.18, 0.22 depending on scenario
    Adjusted per centrality and scenario: 0.16 for Figs 3-5, 0.22 for Fig 9, 0.18 for Fig 10, to bring vn closer to data. Treated as a free knob rather than a fixed transport property.
  • Sub-nucleon constituent parameters = Nc=3, w=0.5 fm, v=0.3 fm
    Standard TRENTo defaults adopted; central to the subnucleon modification but not constrained in this paper.
  • TRENTo model parameters (p, normalization, etc.) = not stated in this paper
    Inherited from prior TRENTo calibrations; the paper does not report them, so the initial-state model contains hidden fitted parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Woods-Saxon density for 208Pb with R=6.62 fm and a=0.546 fm describes the single-nucleon distribution.
    Used as the baseline for nucleon sampling in Section II.A; known from electron scattering, not derived here.
  • domain assumption Flow response is approximately linear: vn is proportional to epsilon_n for n=2 and 3.
    Invoked in Section III.B to motivate eccentricity analysis; established phenomenologically but approximate.
  • domain assumption The TRENTo reduced-thickness ansatz f=(TA^p+TB^p)/2^(1/p) correctly maps nucleon thickness to entropy deposition.
    Basis of the initial conditions; taken from ref [51], not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper A minimum separation dmin can be imposed without altering the centrality dependence of observables.
    Assumed in Section III.A when calibrating with dmin=1.4 fm; tested only indirectly through pseudorapidity distributions.
  • domain assumption Sub-nucleon fluctuations can be represented by Nc=3 Gaussian constituents with widths w and v.
    Standard in TRENTo subnucleon models; not independently tested in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Hard-core exclusion zone around nucleons (minimum separation dmin)
    purpose: Makes sampled nucleon distributions more uniform to reduce initial eccentricities.
    Not an observed physical feature; the authors call the study proof-of-principle and state the distance does not imply nucleons cannot be closer in reality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Initial-State Nuclear and Sub-Nucleon Structures on Ultra-Central Puzzle in Heavy Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UGRUO4RN

@misc{pith2026250419208,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Initial-State Nuclear and Sub-Nucleon Structures on Ultra-Central Puzzle in Heavy Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UGRUO4RN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19208}
}
abstract

Hydrodynamic models fail to describe the near-equal $v_2/v_3$ ratio observed in ultra-central heavy-ion collisions, despite their success in other centrality classes. This discrepancy stems from shear viscosity suppressing higher-order geometric eccentricities, resulting in underestimated $v_3$ when using the conventional QGP viscosity coefficient. We explore two initial-state modifications to resolve this puzzle: (1) enforcing a minimum nucleon separation distance to homogenize distributions, and (2) amplifying sub-nucleon structures to reduce initial eccentricity. Using TRENTo initial conditions and 3+1D viscous hydrodynamic model CLVisc, both approaches significantly lower geometric eccentricity, reduce required viscosity, and narrow the $v_2$-$v_3$ gap in ultra-central collisions. Our results implicate initial-state nuclear and sub-nucleon structures as critical factors in addressing this puzzle. Resolving it would advance nuclear structure studies and improve precision in extracting QGP transport coefficients (e.g., shear viscosity), bridging microscopic nuclear features to macroscopic quark-gluon plasma properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19208 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A schematic diagram illustrating the relationship be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The distribution of initial entropy density in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Pseudorapidity distribution for charged hadron in Pb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of anisotropic flow coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) The root mean square of eccentricities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The flow harmonics, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) The flow harmonics, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of the flow coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A "breathing'' octupole $^{208}$Pb nucleus: resolving the elliptical-to-triangular azimuthal anisotropy puzzle in ultracentral relativistic heavy ion collisions

    nucl-th 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fluctuating octupole deformation of 208Pb with root-mean-square amplitude 0.15 simultaneously matches the v2/v3 ratio and the v3{4} cumulant data in ultracentral Pb+Pb collisions.

  2. A comparison study of collisions at relativistic energies involving light nuclei

    nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The elliptic-to-triangular flow ratio near target rapidity in lead-light nucleus collisions is the most sensitive model-level probe of light-nucleus deformation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Jamil, J

    M. Jamil, J. T. Rhee, Quark–gluon plasma, by k. yagi, t. hatsuda and y. miake, Contemporary Physics 50 (6) (2009) 665–666

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    K. Yagi, T. Hatsuda, Y. Miake, Quark-Gluon Plasma: 8 From Big Bang to Little Bang, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Ellis, From little bangs to the big bang, J

    J. Ellis, From little bangs to the big bang, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 50 (1) (2006) 8

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Aamodt, Abelev, et al, Elliptic flow of charged parti- cles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

    K. Aamodt, Abelev, et al, Elliptic flow of charged parti- cles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Aamodt, Abelev, et al, Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in pb-pb colli- sions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

    K. Aamodt, Abelev, et al, Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in pb-pb colli- sions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 032301

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    B. B. Abelev, et al., Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, JHEP 06 (2015) 190

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Mapping the hydrodynamic response to the initial ge- ometry in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 024908

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Ding, W.-Y

    C. Ding, W.-Y. Ke, L.-G. Pang, X.-N. Wang, Hydrody- namic description of d meson production in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, Chinese Physics C 45 (7) (2021) 074102

    work page 2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, X.-N. Wang, Pseudorapidity distribution and decorrelation of anisotropic flow within the open-computing-language implementation clvisc hy- drodynamics, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 064918

    2018

  2. [10]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, G.-Y. Qin, V. Roy, X.-N. Wang, Longitudinal fluctuations and decorrelation of anisotropic flow, Nuclear Physics A 956 (2016) 272–275, the XXV International Conference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: Quark Matter 2015

    2016

  3. [11]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, G.-Y. Qin, V. Roy, X.-N. Wang, Decorrelation of anisotropic flow along the longitudinal direction, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (4) (2016) 97

    2016

  4. [12]

    Pang, G.-Y

    L.-G. Pang, G.-Y. Qin, V. Roy, X.-N. Wang, G.-L. Ma, Longitudinal decorrelation of anisotropic flows in heavy- ion collisions at the cern large hadron collider, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 044904

    2015

  5. [13]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, (3+1)d hydrodynamic sim- ulation of relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 014903

    2010

  6. [14]

    Shen, J.-F

    C. Shen, J.-F. m. c. Paquet, G. S. Denicol, S. Jeon, C. Gale, Collectivity and electromagnetic radiation in small systems, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 014906

    2017

  7. [15]

    Wu, G.-Y

    X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, L.-G. Pang, X.-N. Wang, (3+1)-D viscous hydrodynamics at finite net baryon density: Iden- tified particle spectra, anisotropic flows, and flow fluctu- ations across energies relevant to the beam-energy scan at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C 105 (3) (2022) 034909

    2022

  8. [16]

    G. S. Denicol, C. Gale, S. Jeon, J. F. Paquet, B. Schenke, Effect of initial-state nucleon-nucleon correlations on col- lective flow in ultra-central heavy-ion collisions (6 2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Chatrchyan, et al., Studies of Azimuthal Dihadron Correlations in Ultra-Central PbPb Collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, JHEP 02 (2014) 088

    S. Chatrchyan, et al., Studies of Azimuthal Dihadron Correlations in Ultra-Central PbPb Collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, JHEP 02 (2014) 088

    2014

  10. [18]

    G. Aad, B. Abbott, Abdallah, Measurement of the az- imuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in√sN N = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 014907

    2012

  11. [19]

    Petersen, G.-Y

    H. Petersen, G.-Y. Qin, S. A. Bass, B. M¨ uller, Triangular flow in event-by-event ideal hydrodynamics in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200A Gev, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 041901

    2010

  12. [20]

    Giacalone, P

    G. Giacalone, P. Guerrero-Rodr´ ıguez, M. Luzum, C. Marquet, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions generated by QCD interactions in the color glass condensate effective theory, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 024905

    2019

  13. [21]

    Snyder, M

    R. Snyder, M. Byres, S. H. Lim, J. L. Nagle, Gluonic hot spot initial conditions in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 024906

    2021

  14. [22]

    R. S. Bhalerao, G. Giacalone, P. Guerrero-Rodriguez, M. Luzum, C. Marquet, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Relating eccen- tricity fluctuations to density fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions, ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA B 50 (6) (2019) 1165–1176, cracow Epiphany Conference on Advances in Heavy I...

    2019

  15. [23]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, U. Heinz, Shape and flow fluctuations in ultracentral Pb + Pb collisions at the energies avail- able at the CERN large hadron collider, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 014901

    2015

  16. [24]

    Carzon, S

    P. Carzon, S. Rao, M. Luzum, M. Sievert, J. Noronha- Hostler, Possible octupole deformation of 208Pb and the ultracentral v2 to v3 puzzle, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 054905

    2020

  17. [25]

    B. G. Zakharov, Collective nuclear vibrations and initial state shape fluctuations in central Pb + Pb collisions: Resolving the v2 and v3 puzzle, JETP LETTERS 112 (7) (2020) 393–398

    2020

  18. [26]

    Santos, Analysis of ultra-central relativistic heavy ions collisions based on energy parameterization, BRAZIL- IAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS 54 (6) (DEC 2024)

    L. Santos, Analysis of ultra-central relativistic heavy ions collisions based on energy parameterization, BRAZIL- IAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS 54 (6) (DEC 2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear col- lisions at the subnucleon level, Phys

    C. Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear col- lisions at the subnucleon level, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 024914

    2016

  20. [28]

    R. A. Lacey, Anisotropy scaling functions in heavy-ion collisions: Insights into the ultracentral flow puzzle and constraints on transport coefficients and nuclear defor- mation, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) L031901

    2024

  21. [29]

    Luzum, J.-Y

    M. Luzum, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Extracting the shear viscos- ity of the quark-gluon plasma from flow in ultra-central heavy-ion collisions, Nuclear Physics A 904-905 (2013) 377c–380c, the Quark Matter 2012

    2013

  22. [30]

    Rose, J.-F

    J.-B. Rose, J.-F. Paquet, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, Extracting the bulk vis- cosity of the quark–gluon plasma, Nuclear Physics A 931 (2014) 926–930, Quark Matter 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    A. V. Giannini, M. N. Ferreira, M. Hippert, D. D. Chinel- lato, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, J. Noronha, T. Nunes da Silva, J. Takahashi, Assessing the ultracentral flow puzzle in hydrodynamic modeling of heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 044907

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kuroki, A

    K. Kuroki, A. Sakai, K. Murase, T. Hirano, Hydrody- namic fluctuations and ultra-central flow puzzle in heavy- ion collisions, Physics Letters B 842 (2023) 137958

    2023

  25. [33]

    Rybczynski, W

    M. Rybczynski, W. Broniowski, Fluctuations of flow har- monics in Pb + Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV from the Glauber model, ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA B 47 (4) (2016) 1033–1044

    2016

  26. [34]

    J. Adam, D. Adamov´ a, M. M. Aggarwal, A. Rinella.Correlated event-by-event fluctuations of flow harmonics in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2 .76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 182301

    2016

  27. [35]

    P. Alba, V. Mantovani Sarti, J. Noronha, J. Noronha- Hostler, P. Parotto, I. Portillo Vazquez, C. Ratti, Effect of the QCD equation of state and strange hadronic res- onances on multiparticle correlations in heavy ion colli- 9 sions, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 034909

    2018

  28. [36]

    Giacalone, Observing the deformation of nuclei with relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys

    G. Giacalone, Observing the deformation of nuclei with relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 202301

    2020

  29. [37]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Jia, C. Zhang, Impact of nuclear de- formation on relativistic heavy-ion collisions: Assessing consistency in nuclear physics across energy scales, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 242301

    2021

  30. [38]

    Dimri, S

    A. Dimri, S. Bhatta, J. Jia, Impact of nuclear shape fluc- tuations in high-energy heavy ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (3) (2023) 45

    2023

  31. [39]

    Z. Wang, J. Chen, H.-j. Xu, J. Zhao, Systematic inves- tigation of the nuclear multipole deformations in U + U collisions with a multi-phase transport model, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 034907

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zhao, H.-j

    S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, Y. Zhou, Y.-X. Liu, H. Song, Explor- ing the nuclear-shape phase transition in ultrarelativistic 129Xe+ 129 Xe collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 192301

    2024

  33. [41]

    Nature Communications H.-j. Xu, J. Zhao, F. Wang, Hexadecapole Deformation of 238U from Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions Using a Nonlinear Response Coeffi- cient, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (26) (2024) 262301

    2024

  34. [42]

    Ding, L.-G

    C. Ding, L.-G. Pang, S. Zhang, Y.-G. Ma, Signals of α clusters in 16O + 16O collisions at the LHC from relativis- tic hydrodynamic simulations, Chinese Physics C 47 (2) (2023) 024105

    2023

  35. [43]

    Y. Wang, S. Zhao, B. Cao, H.-j. Xu, H. Song, Exploring the compactness of α clusters in 16O nuclei with rela- tivistic 16O + 16O collisions, Phys. Rev. C 109 (5) (2024) L051904

    2024

  36. [44]

    Bijker, F

    R. Bijker, F. Iachello, The algebraic cluster model: Struc- ture of 16O, Nuclear Physics A 957 (2017) 154–176

    2017

  37. [45]

    S.-G. Zhou, J. Meng, P. Ring, E.-G. Zhao, Neutron halo in deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 011301

    2010

  38. [46]

    D. Habs, M. Gross, P. G. Thirolf, P. Boeni, Neutron halo isomers in stable nuclei and their possible application for the production of low energy, pulsed, polarized neutron beams of high intensity and high brilliance, APPLIED PHYSICS B-LASERS AND OPTICS 103 (2) (2011) 485– 499

    2011

  39. [47]

    Q. Liu, S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, H. Song, Determining the neu- tron skin thickness by relativistic semi-isobaric collisions, Phys. Rev. C 109 (3) (2024) 034912

    2024

  40. [48]

    Li, H.-j

    H. Li, H.-j. Xu, Y. Zhou, X. Wang, J. Zhao, L.-W. Chen, F. Wang, Probing the neutron skin with ultrarelativistic isobaric collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 222301

    2020

  41. [49]

    Adhikari, H

    D. Adhikari, H. Albataineh, D. Androic, et al, Accu- rate determination of the neutron skin thickness of 208Pb through parity-violation in electron scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 172502

    2021

  42. [50]

    Giacalone, G

    G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, Determination of the Neutron Skin of 208Pb from Ultrarelativistic Nu- clear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (20) (2023) 202302

    2023

  43. [51]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, S. A. Bass, Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 011901

    2015

  44. [52]

    De Roeck, Measurement of hot spots in the proton at hera, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 29 (1) (1992) 61–66

    A. De Roeck, Measurement of hot spots in the proton at hera, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 29 (1) (1992) 61–66

    1992

  45. [53]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, U. Heinz, Applying bayesian parameter estimation to rel- ativistic heavy-ion collisions: Simultaneous characteriza- tion of the initial state and quark-gluon plasma medium, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 024907

    2016

  46. [54]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, Probing subnucleon scale fluctuations in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions, Physics Letters B 772 (2017) 832–838

    2017

  47. [55]

    M¨ antysaari, F

    H. M¨ antysaari, F. Salazar, B. Schenke, C. Shen, W. Zhao, Probing nuclear structure at the Electron-Ion Collider and in ultra-peripheral nuclear collisions, EPJ Web Conf. 296 (2024) 10001

    2024

  48. [56]

    Zhu, X.-Y

    J. Zhu, X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, Anisotropic flow, flow fluc- tuation, and flow decorrelation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions: the roles of sub-nucleon structure and shear viscosity, Chinese Physics C 49 (4) (2025) 044103

    2025

  49. [57]

    J. Adam, D. Adamov´ a, M. Aggarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, Centrality dependence of the pseudorapidity density dis- tribution for charged particles in Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, Physics Letters B 772 (2017) 567– 577

    2017

  50. [58]

    Abelev, et al., Centrality Dependence of Charged Par- ticle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Pb– Pb Collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

    B. Abelev, et al., Centrality Dependence of Charged Par- ticle Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Pb– Pb Collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 720 (2013) 52–62

    2013

  51. [59]

    Aad, et al., Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in√sNN = 2.76 TeV lead- lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    G. Aad, et al., Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in√sNN = 2.76 TeV lead- lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 014907

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.