Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Study of anisotropic flow of heavy hadrons in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV using HYDJET++ framework

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Charm-hadron flow in Au+Au collisions is reproduced up to $p_T = 4$ GeV/c by a parameterized event generator, with $v_2$--$v_4$ predictions for $D^\pm$ and $\Lambda_c$.

desk verdict First HYDJET++ look at charm-hadron v2–v4 at RHIC; useful but the unreported anisotropy parameters leave the central claim unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12373 v1 pith:ZICTN6AY submitted 2025-06-14 hep-ph

Sunidhi Saxena , Gauri Devi , Rajiv Gupta , Ajay Kumar This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Ld
keywords anisotropicflowheavy-flavorhadronscharmHYDJET++quark-gluonplasmaelliptictriangularNCQscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the HYDJET++ event generator, with a centrality-dependent parameterization of freeze-out anisotropies, describes the measured collective flow of charm hadrons in gold--gold collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. It reports that its $D^0$ elliptic and triangular flow curves match the experimental data up to $p_T = 4$ GeV/c in the 0--10% and 10--40% centrality classes, and that the model captures the observed shift of the flow peak toward lower $p_T$ in peripheral collisions, interpreted as weaker radial flow. On that basis it predicts the $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ spectra of $D^\pm$ mesons and $\Lambda_c$ baryons, and claims better heavy-flavor flow agreement than four earlier transport-model calculations. If correct, the study supports the view that charm quarks are fully thermalized in the quark-gluon plasma and that a comparatively simple freeze-out parameterization can carry the essential collective dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is HYDJET++'s parameterized freeze-out anisotropy. Equation (3) relates the elliptic flow to two impact-parameter-dependent coefficients, $\delta(b)$ (flow anisotropy) and $\epsilon(b)$ (spatial anisotropy), through $v_2 \propto 2(\delta-\epsilon)/[(1-\delta^2)(1-\epsilon^2)]$; Equation (4) modulates the freeze-out radius with a triangular coefficient $\epsilon_3(b)$, and Equation (5) modulates the maximum transverse flow rapidity with $\rho_{3u}(b)$ and $\rho_{4u}(b)$. These centrality-dependent parameters convert the initial almond-shaped overlap and its fluctuations into final momentum anisotropies $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ without solving full hydrodynamics. The same parameter set is used for all charm hadrons in the soft thermal component, which is why the model can generate species-specific predictions from one common flow input.

What would settle it

Report the centrality-dependent values of $\delta(b)$, $\epsilon(b)$, $\epsilon_3(b)$, $\rho_{3u}(b)$, and $\rho_{4u}(b)$ and rerun HYDJET++ for a species or centrality not used in the comparison, such as $D^\pm$ $v_2$ in the 40--80% bin, with the same fixed parameters; if the predicted curves do not match existing or future measured data within uncertainties, the claim of an accurate independent description fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HYDJET++'s two-component description---a thermal soft component plus a jet-quenched hard component---reproduces the measured $D^0$ elliptic flow $v_2$ and triangular flow $v_3$ up to $p_T=4$ GeV/c for central and mid-central collisions, and for the 40--80% class up to $p_T=2.5$ GeV/c. The model also yields the experimentally observed centrality dependence: the $v_2$ peak moves to lower $p_T$ as collisions become more peripheral, and the flow magnitude grows with eccentricity. The paper further claims the same setup reproduces number-of-constituent-quark scaling in $v_2/n_q$, $v_3/n_q^{3/2}$, and $v_4/n_q^2$ up to about $p_T=1.5$ GeV/c, and produces mass ordering at low $p_T$ and baryon--meson grouping in the integrated flow. Against the DUKE, SUBATECH, TAMU, and AMPT calculations, it claims the most accurate description of heavy-flavor anisotropic flow up to $p_T=4$ GeV/c.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the centrality-dependent anisotropy parameters in the freeze-out parameterization were chosen appropriately and are shared by all charm hadrons; the paper does not report their values, so if they were tuned to match the $D^0$ data, the agreement would be a fit rather than an independent validation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's claim holds, HYDJET++ can serve as a fast generator for heavy-flavor flow predictions at RHIC energy, complementing future measurements.
  • The NCQ scaling of $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ up to $p_T \approx 1.5$ GeV/c would confirm that charm hadrons inherit their flow from partonic degrees of freedom in a deconfined medium.
  • The centrality-dependent peak shift implies radial flow is the controlling variable, so future measurements of $D^\pm$ and $\Lambda_c$ flow should show the same shift and magnitude pattern.
  • The high-$p_T$ discrepancy attributed to non-flow jet effects marks a concrete limitation to be addressed by including mini-jet production or similar mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the agreement could be a tune rather than a prediction, because the centrality-dependent parameter values are not reported; publishing them would let readers test whether the same parameters predict a species or centrality not used in the comparison.
  • The same centrality-dependent parameterization should extend to bottom-flavored mesons at RHIC energies, giving a testable prediction of $B$-meson $v_2$ without additional tuning.
  • A sharper falsifier is the predicted breakdown of NCQ scaling around $p_T \approx 1.5$ GeV/c in $v_3$ and $v_4$; if measured data show scaling persisting well beyond that point, the freeze-out parameterization would need revision.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the HYDJET++ event generator with a centrality-dependent parameterization of freeze-out anisotropy parameters, Eqs. (3)-(5), to compute the elliptic, triangular, and quadrangular flow of D0, D±, and Lambda_c hadrons in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV. The model results for D0 v2 and v3 are compared with the STAR Run 2014, Run 2016, and combined data sets; the paper also studies number-of-constituent-quark scaling, mass ordering, baryon-meson grouping, and compares with DUKE, SUBATECH, TAMU, and AMPT. Predictions for D± and Lambda_c are presented for several centrality classes.

Significance. If the anisotropy parameters are fixed a priori and reported transparently, this paper offers a compact, falsifiable test of HYDJET++ for heavy-flavor flow at RHIC and provides concrete predictions for D± and Lambda_c that can be checked against future STAR data. The authors are candid about the discrepancies at high pT and in peripheral collisions, and they make use of three STAR data sets rather than a single one. However, the significance is currently limited by the fact that the five centrality-dependent input parameters that directly control v2-v4 are not reported, so the reader cannot tell whether the agreement with STAR is an independent validation or a tuned description.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (3)-(5); Section 3.1.1, Figs. 1-2] The five centrality-dependent parameters δ(b), ε(b), ε3(b), ρ3u(b), and ρ4u(b) are never listed, and the manuscript does not state whether they were fixed from earlier HYDJET++ calibrations or tuned to reproduce the STAR D0 v2/v3 data. Since Eq. (3) makes v2 essentially a function of δ and ε, and Eqs. (4)-(5) generate v3 and v4 through ε3, ρ3u, and ρ4u, the agreement shown in Figs. 1-2 can be a fit rather than an independent validation. Please report the numerical values of all five parameters for each centrality class, state their provenance, and provide a sensitivity study (e.g., how v2 changes if δ and ε are varied by a few percent). Without this information, the central claim in the Abstract and Section 3.1.1 that the model is 'consistent' with STAR up to pT = 4 GeV/c cannot be assessed.
  2. [Section 3.1.1, Fig. 2; Abstract] The Abstract claims consistency with STAR up to pT = 4 GeV/c, but Section 3.1.1 restricts this to the 0-10% and 10-40% centrality intervals, and states that for 40-80% the model matches data only up to pT = 2.5 GeV/c with overprediction at higher pT. The comparison is made visually without any quantitative measure such as chi-squared per degree of freedom or mean residual, and the model points in all figures have no error bars. Please state the pT range of agreement separately for each centrality class and quantify the level of agreement, or revise the Abstract to match the actual text.
  3. [Section 3.2, Fig. 4(a)] The statement that HYDJET++ 'provides the best description' and later 'provides a more accurate description' of heavy-flavor anisotropic flow than DUKE, SUBATECH, TAMU, and AMPT is based on a visual comparison of curves that do not share a common treatment of centralities or uncertainties: the HYDJET++/STAR panel is for 0-80%, while the comparison models are taken from published results with different centrality selections. No goodness-of-fit metric is given. Please specify the exact centrality selection used for each curve and provide a quantitative comparison over a common pT range before drawing this comparative conclusion.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figs. 5-7; Section 4] The D± and Lambda_c results are presented as predictions, which is legitimate, but the summary in Section 4 states that the results 'align with experimental measurements' without noting that no STAR data for Lambda_c flow are shown, that the D± comparison involves only preliminary v2 data at pT > 2 GeV/c mentioned in the Introduction, and that v4 has no experimental comparison at all. Please clearly label which panels are predictions and which are compared with data, and adjust the summary statement accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [All figures] The model points are shown without statistical uncertainties; please include error bars or state explicitly that the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the symbol size.
  2. [Abstract; Fig. 7 caption] There is a typo in the Abstract ('heavy hadron s'), and the caption of Fig. 7 labels both panels as '(a)'; please correct these presentation errors.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] Eq. (3) is written as a proportionality without defining the normalization or how the resulting v2 corresponds to the measured quantity (e.g., v2{2} versus v2{4}); please specify the normalization and the event-plane averaging procedure.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The sampling of the random angle ψRP_3 in Eq. (4) is not described; please clarify whether it is sampled event-by-event and how the event-plane averaging is performed in the HYDJET++ calculation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Agreement with STAR is controlled by five unreported anisotropy parameters that directly produce v2–v4; without evidence they were fixed a priori, the validation can reduce to a fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Eqs. (3)–(5); validation claims in Section 3.1.1 and predictions in Section 3.3.1]
    "To describe the second harmonic v2, the model employs two coefficients, δ(b) and ε(b) ... In hydrodynamic approach [54] (used in HYDJET++), elliptic flow can be defined as [18]: v2 ∝ 2(δ − ε)/((1 − δ²)(1 − ε²)) ... Significantly, this modulation does not influence the elliptic flow coefficient v2, which was previously fitted using the parameters δ(b) and ε(b) [18]."

    Eq. (3) defines v2 as a function solely of the adjustable parameters δ(b) and ε(b), while Eq. (5) injects v3 and v4 through ρ3u(b) and ρ4u(b). Section 2 says these 'can either be adjusted independently for each centrality class' and that v2 'was previously fitted using the parameters δ(b) and ε(b)'. The paper does not report the numerical values used, nor does it state that they were fixed before comparing with the STAR D0 flow data in Figs. 1–2. Therefore the headline agreement 'consistent with STAR experimental results up to pT = 4 GeV/c' is, as reported, indistinguishable from a refit of the same harmonics: matching v2/v3 is built into the model if the parameters were tuned to those data.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is that HYDJET++ reproduces the STAR D0 v2 and v3 data and then predicts v2–v4 for D± and Λc. In HYDJET++, these harmonics are not emergent from an independent dynamical calculation: Eq. (3) makes v2 a direct function of the two fittable coefficients δ(b) and ε(b), and Eqs. (4)–(5) generate v3 and v4 from ε3(b), ρ3u(b), and ρ4u(b). The paper explicitly notes that these parameters 'can either be adjusted independently for each centrality class' and that v2 'was previously fitted' with δ and ε. Because the actual parameter values are not tabulated and no statement establishes that they were chosen before seeing the STAR D0 flow data, the reported consistency with STAR cannot be distinguished from a refit of the same observables. This is a genuine but partial circularity: the baryon–meson ordering, NCQ scaling, and species dependence are not directly encoded in the anisotropy parameters, so those comparisons retain some independent content. However, the core validation and the model-vs-model superiority claim rest on the tuned flow parameters, warranting a score of 6 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on HYDJET++'s parametric freeze-out description, in which the flow harmonics are controlled by input anisotropy parameters. The paper adds no new physics entities, but it relies on a large set of model parameters from prior literature and on centrality-dependent choices for the anisotropy parameters that are not enumerated.

free parameters (5)
  • Flow anisotropy parameter delta(b) = not reported
    Centrality-dependent parameter controlling v2 in Eq. (3); chosen per centrality class in Section 2, not listed in the paper.
  • Spatial anisotropy parameter epsilon(b) = not reported
    Centrality-dependent freeze-out ellipticity used in Eqs. (3)-(4); its value determines the magnitude and pT shape of the modeled elliptic flow.
  • Triangular spatial anisotropy parameter epsilon_3(b) = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (4) to modulate the freeze-out hypersurface for v3; can be set per centrality or tied to initial ellipticity, but the chosen values are not given.
  • Third-order flow velocity modulation rho_3u(b) = not reported
    Modulates the maximum transverse flow velocity in Eq. (5) to generate higher harmonics; centrality-dependent and unspecified.
  • Fourth-order flow velocity modulation rho_4u(b) = not reported
    Same as rho_3u but for v4 in Eq. (5); value not specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-component soft+hard decomposition of HYDJET++ describes bulk and jet production at RHIC energies.
    Adopted from the HYDJET++ model [18,51] in Section 2; the paper does not test this decomposition.
  • domain assumption Charm quarks, once produced, thermalize in the QGP and hadronize statistically.
    Invoked in Sections 1 and 3.3 and supported by citations [52,53]; this is the physical premise that makes the soft-component treatment of charm hadrons meaningful.
  • domain assumption The anisotropic flow of all hadron species can be generated from the same parametric freeze-out surface modulations (Eqs. (3)-(5)).
    Central to the calculation in Section 2; it is an input parameterization from HYDJET++, not derived from hydrodynamics.
  • domain assumption The centrality-dependent anisotropy parameters are species-independent, so D± and Lambda_c inherit the D0 flow field.
    Required for the predictions in Section 3.3; no explicit validation that charm baryons share exactly the same flow parameters is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of anisotropic flow of heavy hadrons in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 200 GeV using HYDJET++ framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZICTN6AY

@misc{pith2026250612373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of anisotropic flow of heavy hadrons in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrts_NN =$ 200 GeV using HYDJET++ framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZICTN6AY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12373}
}
abstract

A comprehensive study of the anisotropic flow of heavy hadrons ($D^{0}$, $D^{\pm}$, and $\Lambda_{c}$) in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV using the HYDJET++ model is presented. This study aims to explore the collective behavior and thermalization of charm hadrons at RHIC energy. The modeling of anisotropic flow is performed using a centrality-dependent parameterization of anisotropic parameters. Our model results are consistent with STAR experimental results up to $p_{T} = 4$ GeV/c. It captures the centrality-dependent shifts of the flow peak towards lower $p_{T}$ as collisions become more peripheral. This shift is attributed to the weaker radial flow in peripheral collisions. The model also reproduces important features such as the number-of-constituent-quark scaling, mass ordering, and baryon-meson grouping, all consistent with experimental observations. Furthermore, we present comparisons with other models, like DUKE, SUBATECH, TAMU, and AMPT. Overall, our results highlight the efficacy of HYDJET++ in describing the collective dynamics of heavy-flavor hadrons in the quark-gluon plasma medium.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    : Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus- nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collabora- tion

    Adcox, K., et al. : Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus- nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collabora- tion. Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184–283 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086 arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Gale, C., Jeon, S., Schenke, B., Tribedy, P., Venugopalan, R.: Event-by-event anisotropic flow in heavy-ion collisions from combined Yang-Mills and viscous fluid dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110(1), 012302 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.012302 arXiv:1209.6330 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Cacciari, M., Nason, P., Vogt, R.: QCD pre- dictions for charm and bottom production at RHIC. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122001 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.122001 arXiv:hep-ph/0502203

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Rapp, R., Hees, H.: Heavy Quark Diffusion as a Probe of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (2008) arXiv:0803.0901 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Ollitrault, J.-Y.: Anisotropy as a sig- nature of transverse collective flow. Phys. Rev. D 46, 229–245 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.229

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.229 1992

  6. [6]

    Landolt-Bornstein 23, 293–333 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7 10 arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex]

    Voloshin, S.A., Poskanzer, A.M., Snellings, R.: Collective phenom- ena in non-central nuclear collisions. Landolt-Bornstein 23, 293–333 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7 10 arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Voloshin, S., Zhang, Y.: Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of Azimuthal particle distribu- tions. Z. Phys. C 70, 665–672 (1996) https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007 / s002880050141 arXiv:hep-ph/9407282

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A.: Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions. Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671–1678 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671 arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

    arXiv 1998

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Zabrodin, E.E., Fuchs, C., Bravina, L.V., Faessler, A.: Transverse momentum dependence of directed particle flow at 160A-GeV. Phys. Rev. C 63, 034902 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.63.034902 11 arXiv:nucl-th/0006056

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kolb, P.F.: v(4): A Small, but sensi- tive observable for heavy ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C 68, 031902 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.031902 arXiv:nucl-th/0306081

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    : Measurement of D0 Azimuthal Anisotropy at Midrapidity in Au+Au Collisions at √ sN N=200 GeV

    Adamczyk, L., et al. : Measurement of D0 Azimuthal Anisotropy at Midrapidity in Au+Au Collisions at √ sN N=200 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(21), 212301 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.212301 arXiv:1701.06060 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    [STAR], M.R.L.: Measurement of Charmed Meson Azimuthal Anisotropy in Au + Au Collisions at √ sN N = 200 GeV at RHIC. ProQuest Dissertations And Theses; Publication Number: AAT 10305626; ISBN: 9781369489552; Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 78-06(E), Sectio...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Doctoral dissertation; Ohi- oLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, Kent State University, Ohio (2023)

    [STAR], Y.L.: D0-meson Elliptic, Triangular Flows and Event-Shape-Engineering Study in Au + Au Collisions at √ sN N = 200 GeV from STAR. Doctoral dissertation; Ohi- oLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, Kent State University, Ohio (2023). http://rave.ohiolink.edu/e...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Cao, S., Qin, G.-Y., Bass, S.A.: Energy loss, hadronization and hadronic interactions of heavy flavors in relativistic heavy-ion col- lisions. Phys. Rev. C 92(2), 024907 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.024907 arXiv:1505.01413 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ozvenchuk, V., Torres-Rincon, J.M., Gossiaux, P.B., Tolos, L., Aichelin, J.: D-meson propagation in hadronic mat- ter and consequences for heavy-flavor observables in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. C 90, 054909 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.0549...

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nahrgang, M., Aichelin, J., Bass, S., Gossi- aux, P.B., Werner, K.: Elliptic and triangular flow of heavy flavor in heavy-ion colli- sions. Phys. Rev. C 91(1), 014904 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.014904 arXiv:1410.5396 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    He, M., Fries, R.J., Rapp, R.: Heavy-Quark Diffusion and Hadronization in Quark-Gluon Plasma. Phys. Rev. C 86, 014903 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014903 arXiv:1106.6006 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Com- put

    Lokhtin, I.P., Malinina, L.V., Petrushanko, S.V., Snigirev, A.M., Arsene, I., Tywo- niuk, K.: Heavy ion event generator HYD- JET++ (HYDrodynamics plus JETs). Com- put. Phys. Commun. 180, 779–799 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2008.11.015 arXiv:0809.2708 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Combridge, B.L.: Associated Produc- tion of Heavy Flavor States in p p and anti-p p Interactions: Some QCD Esti- mates. Nucl. Phys. B 151, 429–456 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(79)90449-8

    1979 doi

  12. [20]

    Lai, H.L., Huston, J., Kuhlmann, S., Morfin, J., Olness, F.I., Owens, J.F., Pumplin, J., Tung, W.K.: Global QCD analysis of parton structure of the nucleon: CTEQ5 parton distributions. Eur. Phys. J. C 12, 375–392 (2000) https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007 / s100529900196 arXiv:he...

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    JHEP 04, 065 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/065 arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph]

    Eskola, K.J., Paukkunen, H., Salgado, C.A.: EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribu- tion Functions. JHEP 04, 065 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/065 arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Qiu, Z., Shen, C., Heinz, U.: Hydro- dynamic elliptic and triangular flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √ s = 2 .76ATeV. Phys. Lett. B 707, 151–155 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.041 arXiv:1110.3033 [nucl-th] 12

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cao, S., Qin, G.-Y., Bass, S.A.: Heavy- quark dynamics and hadronization in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions: Collisional versus radiative energy loss. Phys. Rev. C 88, 044907 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044907 arXiv:1308.0617 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    : Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions

    Bass, S.A., et al. : Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41, 255–369 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6410(98)00058-1 arXiv:nucl-th/9803035

    1998 arXiv

  17. [25]

    JHEP 05, 007 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1998/05/007 arXiv:hep-ph/9803400

    Cacciari, M., Greco, M., Nason, P.: The pT spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction. JHEP 05, 007 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1998/05/007 arXiv:hep-ph/9803400

    1998 arXiv

  18. [26]

    JHEP 03, 006 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2001/03/006 arXiv:hep-ph/0102134

    Cacciari, M., Frixione, S., Nason, P.: The p(T) spectrum in heavy flavor pho- toproduction. JHEP 03, 006 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2001/03/006 arXiv:hep-ph/0102134

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    JHEP 10, 137 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)137 arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

    Cacciari, M., Frixione, S., Houdeau, N., Mangano, M.L., Nason, P., Ridolfi, G.: The- oretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC. JHEP 10, 137 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)137 arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Nadolsky, P.M., Lai, H.-L., Cao, Q.- H., Huston, J., Pumplin, J., Stump, D., Tung, W.-K., Yuan, C.-P.: Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observ- ables. Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004 arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Werner, K., Karpenko, I., Pierog, T., Ble- icher, M., Mikhailov, K.: Event-by-Event Simulation of the Three-Dimensional Hydro- dynamic Evolution from Flux Tube Initial Conditions in Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions. Phys. Rev. C 82, 044904 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1103/...

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gossiaux, P.B., Aichelin, J., Gous- set, T., Guiho, V.: Competition of Heavy Quark Radiative and Colli- sional Energy Loss in Deconfined Matter. J. Phys. G 37, 094019 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/37/9/094019 arXiv:1001.4166 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Riek, F., Rapp, R.: Quarkonia and Heavy- Quark Relaxation Times in the Quark-Gluon Plasma. Phys. Rev. C 82, 035201 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.035201 arXiv:1005.0769 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Riek, F., Rapp, R.: Selfconsistent Evaluation of Charm and Charmo- nium in the Quark-Gluon Plasma. New J. Phys. 13, 045007 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/4/045007 arXiv:1012.0019 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kolb, P.F., Sollfrank, J., Heinz, U.W.: Anisotropic transverse flow and the quark hadron phase transi- tion. Phys. Rev. C 62, 054909 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.62.054909 arXiv:hep-ph/0006129

    2000 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kolb, P.F., Heinz, U.W.: Hydrodynamic description of ultrarelativistic heavy ion colli- sions, 634–714 (2003) arXiv:nucl-th/0305084

    2003 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ravagli, L., Rapp, R.: Quark Coales- cence based on a Transport Equation. Phys. Lett. B 655, 126–131 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.07.043 arXiv:0705.0021 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lin, Z.-W., Ko, C.M., Li, B.-A., Zhang, B., Pal, S.: A Multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion colli- sions. Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064901 arXiv:nucl-th/0411110

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Com- put

    Gyulassy, M., Wang, X.-N.: HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high-energy hadronic and nuclear collisions. Com- put. Phys. Commun. 83, 307 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(94)90057-4 arXiv:nucl-th/9502021

    1994 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Com- put

    Zhang, B.: ZPC 1.0.1: A Parton cascade for 13 ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions. Com- put. Phys. Commun. 109, 193–206 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00010-1 arXiv:nucl-th/9709009

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Andersson, B.: The Lund Model vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1998). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009401296

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    Lin, Z.-W., Ko, C.M.: Partonic effects on the elliptic flow at RHIC. Phys. Rev. C 65, 034904 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.65.034904 arXiv:nucl-th/0108039

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Li, B., Sustich, A.T., Zhang, B., Ko, C.M.: Studies of superdense hadronic matter in a relativistic transport model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 10, 267–352 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301301000575

    2001 doi

  34. [42]

    Amelin, N.S., Lednicky, R., Pocheptsov, T.A., Lokhtin, I.P., Malinina, L.V., Sni- girev, A.M., Karpenko, I.A., Sinyukov, Y.M.: A Fast hadron freeze-out gener- ator. Phys. Rev. C 74, 064901 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.064901 arXiv:nucl-th/0608057

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Amelin, N.S., Lednicky, R., Lokhtin, I.P., Malinina, L.V., Snigirev, A.M., Karpenko, I.A., Sinyukov, Y.M., Arsene, I., Bravina, L.: Fast hadron freeze-out generator. Part II. Noncentral colli- sions. Phys. Rev. C 77, 014903 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.014903 arX...

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lokhtin, I.P., Snigirev, A.M.: A Model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-p(T) hadron spectra at RHIC. Eur. Phys. J. C 45, 211–217 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3 arXiv:hep-ph/0506189

    2006 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Torrieri, G., Steinke, S., Broniowski, W., Florkowski, W., Letessier, J., Rafelski, J.: SHARE: Statistical hadronization with resonances. Comput. Phys. Commun. 167, 229–251 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2005.01.004 arXiv:nucl-th/0404083

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Singh, A., Srivastava, P.K., Chaturvedi, O.S.K., Ahmad, S., Singh, B.K.: Trans- verse Momentum Distribution and Elliptic Flow of Charged Hadrons in U +U collisions at √ sN N = 193 GeV using HYD- JET++. Eur. Phys. J. C 78(5), 419 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5...

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pandey, S., Tiwari, S.K., Singh, B.K.: Pseudorapidity density, transverse momentum spectra, and elliptic flow studies in Xe-Xe collision systems at √ sN N =5.44TeV using the HYDJET++ model. Phys. Rev. C 103(1), 014903 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014903 arXiv:250...

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Devi, G., Singh, A., Pandey, S., Singh, B.K.: Higher flow harmonics of strange hadrons in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV and Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV with HYDJET++ model. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138(10), 921 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04544-7 arXi...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Lokhtin, I.P., Belyaev, A.V., Ponimatkin, G., Pronina, E.Y., Eiyubova, G.K.: On the possibility of thermalization of heavy mesons in ultrarelativistic nuclear collisions. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 124(2), 244–250 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063776117010149

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Saxena, S., Gupta, R., Devi, G., Kumar, A.: Study of Heavy Hadron Production in Au + Au Collisions at a Center-of-Mass Energy of √ sN N = 200 GeV (2025) arXiv:2505.03264 [hep-ph]

    2025

  43. [51]

    Bravina, L.V., Brusheim Johansson, B.H., Eyyubova, G.K., Korotkikh, V.L., Lokhtin, I.P., Malinina, L.V., Petrushanko, S.V., Snigirev, A.M., Zabrodin, E.E.: Higher harmonics of azimuthal anisotropy in rela- tivistic heavy ion collisions in HYDJET++ model. Eur. Phys. J. C 74(3),...

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Andronic, A., Braun-Munzinger, P., Redlich, K., Stachel, J.: Statistical hadronization of charm in heavy ion collisions at SPS, RHIC and LHC. Phys. Lett. B 571, 36–44 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.07.066 arXiv:nucl-th/0303036

    2003 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Andronic, A., Braun-Munzinger, P., Redlich, K., Stachel, J.: Statistical hadronization of heavy quarks in ultra- relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions. Nucl. Phys. A 789, 334–356 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.02.013 arXiv:nucl-th/0611023

    2007 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Wiedemann, U.A.: Two particle interfer- ometry for noncentral heavy ion colli- sions. Phys. Rev. C 57, 266–279 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.57.266 arXiv:nucl-th/9707046

    1998 arXiv

  47. [55]

    PoS LHC07, 003 (2007) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.045.0003 arXiv:0706.0665 [hep-ph]

    Lokhtin, I.P., Petrushanko, S.V., Snigirev, A.M., Teplov, C.Y.: Simulation of jet quenching and high-pT particle production at RHIC and LHC. PoS LHC07, 003 (2007) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.045.0003 arXiv:0706.0665 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    JHEP 05, 026 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026 arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

    Sjostrand, T., Mrenna, S., Skands, P.Z.: PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual. JHEP 05, 026 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026 arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

    2006 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Loizides, C., Kamin, J., d’Enterria, D.: Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions at present and future nuclear collid- ers. Phys. Rev. C 97(5), 054910 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054910 arXiv:1710.07098 [nucl-ex]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 99, 019901 (2019)]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Tywoniuk, K., Arsene, I., Bravina, L., Kaidalov, A., Zabrodin, E.: Gluon shad- owing in the Glauber-Gribov model at HERA. Phys. Lett. B 657, 170–175 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.065 arXiv:0705.1596 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  51. [59]

    : Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of D0-meson production at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV

    Adam, J., et al. : Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of D0-meson production at mid-rapidity in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. Phys. Rev. C 99(3), 034908 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.034908 arXiv:1812.10224 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    PoS PANIC2021, 247 (2022) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.380.0247

    Vanek, J.: Measurements of D± meson pro- duction and total charm quark produc- tion yield at midrapidity in Au+Au colli- sions at √ sN N = 200 GeV by the STAR experiment. PoS PANIC2021, 247 (2022) https://doi.org/10.22323/1.380.0247

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    : First measurement of Λ c baryon production in Au+Au col- lisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    Adam, J., et al. : First measurement of Λ c baryon production in Au+Au col- lisions at √sNN = 200 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(17), 172301 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.172301 arXiv:1910.14628 [nucl-ex]

    2020

  54. [62]

    Hong, J.: Heavy-quark suppression and anisotropic flow at intermediate momen- tum. Phys. Rev. C 111(4), 044910 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.111.044910 arXiv:2501.01600 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    : Particle type depen- dence of azimuthal anisotropy and nuclear modification of particle production in Au + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200- GeV

    Adams, J., et al. : Particle type depen- dence of azimuthal anisotropy and nuclear modification of particle production in Au + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200- GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 052302 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.052302 arXiv:nucl-ex/0306007

    2004 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Jia, J., Zhang, C.: Quark number scal- ing of v(2) in transverse kinetic energy and it’s implications for coalescence mod- els. Phys. Rev. C 75, 031901 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.75.031901 arXiv:hep-ph/0608187

    2007 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Lacey, R.: PHENIX Measurements of Higher-order Flow Harmonics in Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 200 GeV. J. Phys. G 38, 124048 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/38/12/124048 arXiv:1108.0457 [nucl-ex] 15

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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