Efficient calculation of thermodynamic properties of baryon-rich QCD matter from heavy-ion transport models

Lipei Du

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Efficient calculation of thermodynamic properties of baryon-rich QCD matter from heavy-ion transport models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Clustered super-particles reproduce heavy-ion flow fields at a fraction of the cost.

desk verdict Useful engineering for a real bottleneck, but the headline claim that representative particles preserve the energy-momentum tensor is only shown for the energy/baryon sector, not for spatial stress. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19766 v1 pith:KRW4KBSE submitted 2025-06-24 physics.comp-ph

Lipei Du This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.comp-ph PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Nq

keywords heavy-ioncollisionsQCDmatterhighbaryondensitytransportmodelsenergy-momentumtensorparticleclusteringrepresentativeparticlessmearingkernels

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 introduces MATRICS, a modular workflow that turns the discrete particle lists produced by transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions into continuous space-time fields of energy, momentum, and baryon number. Its central claim is that replacing a cluster of nearby particles with a single representative particle that carries the cluster's summed four-momentum and an energy-weighted average position reproduces the smeared energy-momentum tensor and baryon current, provided the particles are grouped into space-time boxes. In particular, the "Box cluster (dyn) + Smear" variant is reported to agree with the baseline no-clustering smeared calculation while dropping the smearing cost from scaling with the number of particles to scaling with the much smaller number of clusters. If this holds, heavy-ion simulations at high baryon density can compute thermodynamic backgrounds for photon or dilepton emission and hydrodynamic initial conditions with far less computing time and memory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the representative particle: for each space-time cluster, one particle whose four-momentum is the sum of the cluster's four-momenta, $p_{\rm rep}^{\mu} = \sum_i p_i^{\mu}$, and whose position is the energy-weighted space-time average, $x_{\rm rep}^{\mu} = \sum_i p_i^0 x_i^{\mu} / \sum_i p_i^0$. This object carries the argument because it reduces the smearing sum from $O(N_{\rm particles} \times M_{\rm grid})$ to $O(K_{\rm rep} \times M_{\rm grid})$, with $K_{\rm rep} \ll N_{\rm particles}$, and because the paper claims the continuous fields built from these super-particles coincide with those built from the original particles. The supporting machinery consists of a hash-map-based dynamical box clustering that scales as $O(N_{\rm particles})$, the smearing kernel $K(t, \mathbf{r}; t_i, \mathbf{r}_i)$ in Eq. (3) that turns discrete particle contributions into continuous tensors, and the Landau matching procedure that converts $T^{\mu\nu}$ and $J^{\mu}$ into energy density, baryon density, and flow velocity.

What would settle it

Compare the full local tensor $T^{\mu\nu}(t, \mathbf{r})$ and its spatial gradients from "No cluster + Smear" and "Box cluster (dyn) + Smear" on identical SMASH events, looking for point-wise differences larger than the statistical uncertainty. A concrete version: compare the off-midplane components and the gradient $\nabla T^{00}$ at grid cells away from $z = 0$, or compute thermal photon and dilepton spectra from the two tensors; if the spectra differ by more than a few percent, the representative-particle equivalence breaks down precisely where gradients feed emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a cluster of $N$ particles can be replaced by a single representative particle with four-momentum $p_{\rm rep}^{\mu} = \sum_i p_i^{\mu}$ and space-time position $x_{\rm rep}^{\mu} = \sum_i p_i^0 x_i^{\mu}/\sum_i p_i^0$, and that this replacement, when combined with a smearing kernel, preserves the physics of the original particle ensemble. Because the tensor formula $T^{\mu\nu} = p^{\mu}p^{\nu}/p^0$ is quadratic in momentum, summing tensors of individual particles differs in principle from evaluating the tensor of the summed momenta; the paper argues that this nonlinearity is inconsequential for the averaged thermodynamic quantities and geometric anisotropies it examines. The quantitative evidence comes from SMASH events at a fixed collision energy and impact-parameter range, comparing six combinations of clustering and tensor-calculation methods against the "No cluster + Smear" baseline for energy density, baryon density, transverse flow, eccentricity, and triangularity at $z = 0$. The headline result is that box clustering on a dynamically generated grid followed by smearing ("Box cluster (dyn) + Smear") is reported to agree with the baseline while being substantially cheaper than the unclustered calculation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that a single representative particle with summed four-momentum and energy-weighted coordinates reproduces the smeared energy-momentum tensor and baryon current at every space-time grid point, but the paper validates this only on weighted averages over the transverse plane at $z = 0$; because Eq. (3) is not linear in momentum, the equivalence is approximate rather than exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The "Box cluster (dyn) + Smear" method claims to reproduce the baseline smeared tensor while dropping the smearing cost from $O(N_{\rm particles} \times M_{\rm grid})$ to $O(K_{\rm rep} \times M_{\rm grid})$, a large speedup for events with millions of particles.
The five averaged observables tested at $z = 0$ — energy density, baryon density, transverse flow, eccentricity, and triangularity — are reported to match the no-clustering baseline, so event-averaged thermodynamic backgrounds can be built from clustered particles.
Because the workflow supports both regular grids (needed for hydrodynamic initial conditions) and adaptive grids (for thermal emission and isotropization studies), the same clustered-particle machinery serves both standard applications.
Memory use drops as well, since the dynamical box clustering stores only non-empty grid cells through hash maps.
The paper's proposed follow-up — an adaptive smearing grid built from representative-particle density — would further reduce the grid count in sparse regions and lower the smearing cost even more.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's validation is limited to transverse-plane averages at $z = 0$; whether representative particles also preserve the local tensor structure and gradients that feed photon emission and gradient-driven observables remains untested, and a full 3D comparison would settle it.
The same clustering logic could be applied across events, collapsing super-particles from different events into larger clusters; this would trade event-by-event fluctuation information for additional speed.
If the representative-particle equivalence holds locally, the method should transfer directly to other conserved currents and derived fields, such as strangeness current, electromagnetic fields, or vorticity, with the same box-clustering procedure.
A natural stress test is to push the box size up until deviations from the baseline appear; the point where the approximation fails would define a resolution criterion for future users.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful piece of computational tooling, and I'd like to see it in CPC after revision. But the paper overstates what the validation shows. The two-particle example in the stress-test is exactly right: with momenta +p and -p, the original cluster has T^xx = 2 p_x^2/E, the representative has zero. Eq. (3) is quadratic in momentum, so replacing a cluster by its summed four-momentum throws away exactly the momentum-space variance that becomes pressure and shear stress. The paper admits the nonlinearity in Sec. 4.1.3 but then validates the representative-particle idea only through transverse-plane weighted averages of e, n_B, u_r, epsilon_2, epsilon_3 at z=0. Those are dominated by T^00, T^0i, and the energy-density geometry; they do not constrain T^ij. So "perfect agreement with the baseline" in Sec. 4.3 is not established for the full tensor, and the method is not ready for hydrodynamic initialization or any observable that depends on pressure gradients.

Where the paper earns its keep: the dynamical box cluster with hash maps is a real algorithmic improvement over iterative k-means and regular-box clustering; O(N_particles) clustering plus K_rep << N is the right way to attack the bottleneck. The modular workflow (parallel SMASH, global grid, parallel TensorCalc) is sensible, and the benchmark numbers show substantial speedups. The comparison of smearing vs coarse-graining is useful, and the discussion of why smearing increases epsilon_2 and reduces epsilon_3 is a nice physical touch.

Soft spots beyond T^ij: the validation is one collision energy, one centrality class, z=0 only; error bars are explicitly not shown; "perfect agreement" is visual, not quantitative; no code release; the adaptive grid described in Sec. 3.1.2 is never tested (Sec. 4 uses a uniform grid). These are fixable. If the author releases the code and adds a quantitative comparison of T^xx, T^xy, etc. for at least one or two energies, the core claim becomes defensible. If not, the abstract and Sec. 4.3 need to be rewritten to claim accuracy only for the energy/baryon sector.

Bottom line: worth a serious referee. I'd accept it for review with the expectation of major revision. The engineering is solid; the physics claims need to be matched to what was actually computed.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes MATRICS, a workflow for computing space-time distributions of the energy-momentum tensor and baryon current from SMASH transport-model output. The workflow parallelizes SMASH event generation, constructs global regular or adaptive grids, groups particles into representative particles using box or k-means clustering, and then calculates tensors and currents via Gaussian smearing or coarse-graining. The central claim is that dynamic box clustering combined with smearing reproduces the no-cluster smearing baseline to 'perfect agreement' while significantly reducing computational cost, making the framework suitable for event-averaged thermodynamic properties and, potentially, hydrodynamic initialization or thermal emission calculations at high baryon density.

Significance. The framework addresses a genuine computational bottleneck: converting millions of transport-model particles into continuous fields for thousands of events. Its strengths include a clean modular workflow, a hash-map-based dynamic box clustering algorithm with O(N) scaling, and explicit parallelization. If the accuracy claims were fully established, the code would be a useful community tool for event-averaged backgrounds at BES energies. However, the reported validation tests only a restricted set of observables and does not establish preservation of the full energy-momentum tensor, which is required for the hydrodynamics and photon-emission applications advertised. The central claim is therefore currently too strong.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.2.3, 3.3, and 4.3] The representative-particle construction defined by Eqs. (1)-(2) does not preserve the spatial stress components of Eq. (3). Since the tensor is quadratic in momentum, with T^{ij} = sum_i p_i^j p_i^k / p_i^0, summing four-momenta first and then evaluating the tensor drops the intra-cluster momentum variance. For example, two identical particles at the same space-time point with momenta (+p,0,0) and (-p,0,0) give T^{xx} = 2p^2/E in the original cluster, while the representative particle with P = (2E,0,0,0) gives T^{xx} = 0. In a locally thermalized system this missing variance is precisely the pressure and shear stress. The validations in Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 3 use weighted averages of energy density, baryon density, transverse flow, and eccentricities at z=0, which are dominated by T^{00}, T^{0i}, and energy-density geometry; they do not test T^{ij}. Thus the Sec. 4.3 statement that 'Box cluster (dyn) + Smear' achieves 'perfect agreement' with the baseline is not established for the full energy-momentum tensor, and the method cannot yet be advertised as safe for hydrodynamic initialization or pressure-gradient-sensitive observables.
[Sec. 4.1 and Fig. 3] The quantitative validation is too thin to support the paper's accuracy claims. The comparison covers a single collision energy and an unspecified impact-parameter range; Sec. 4.1.1 explicitly omits numerical parameters ('we omit exhaustive details here'). Fig. 3 shows only weighted averages at z=0, with no standard deviations (their omission is acknowledged in Sec. 4.1.2) and no numerical agreement metric; phrases such as 'visually indistinguishable' and 'perfect agreement' are not quantified. The paper should report, at minimum, a component-wise comparison of T^{mu nu} and J^mu over the full three-dimensional grid between the baseline and each clustered case, including off-diagonal spatial components, together with a sensitivity study over the box size, smearing width, grid spacing, and k. Without these, the central claim that clustering preserves physical accuracy is not supported.
[Sec. 4.2.2 and Fig. 4] Some reported complexities are algorithm-choice dependent and are not benchmarked. The O(N_particles x M_grid) cost quoted for 'No cluster + Coarse' reflects checking every particle against every grid point; a standard cell-list binning approach is O(N_particles + M_grid). The timing comparison in Fig. 4 includes only three of the six evaluated cases, so it does not substantiate the efficiency ordering among all clustering variants. Please report separate timings for clustering and smearing, and include the two box-clustering variants, so the efficiency claims are matched to the accuracy claims.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.2.2 and Algorithm 2] The text says k-means clusters particles based on 'spatial and momentum distributions', but Algorithm 2 takes only 3D spatial points and energies; it is unclear whether momentum coordinates enter the distance metric. Please clarify and discuss the dependence on the random initialization of centroids.
[Sec. 3.2.3, Eq. (2)] The energy-weighted coordinate definition in Eq. (2) is frame dependent; please state explicitly that representative coordinates are defined in the computational frame, and that only the four-momentum sum in Eq. (1) is Lorentz covariant.
[Sec. 4.1.1] Please include a table with all numerical settings: collision energy, impact parameter selection, number of events, grid spacing and size, smearing width, box sizes, k, max_iters, and thread count. This is essential for reproducibility in a Computer Physics Communications paper.
[Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 4.1.4] The phrase 'perfect agreement' in Sec. 4.3 is inconsistent with 'almost identical' in Sec. 4.1.4; please use a single quantified wording throughout.
[Sec. 4.1.2] The statement that the unsmeared cases have 'much larger standard deviations which are not shown' makes it impossible to judge whether differences between cases are significant; please show the standard deviations or provide an error analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central accuracy claim is benchmarked against an independent baseline and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The central accuracy claim is not derived by construction. Representative particles are defined by Eq. (1) as the summed four-momentum and by Eq. (2) as energy-weighted coordinates, while the tensor T^mu^nu in Eq. (3) is quadratic in momentum, so replacing a cluster of particles by one representative is explicitly non-tautological. The paper itself acknowledges this in Sec. 4.1.3, stating that the two cases are 'not exactly equivalent due to the nonlinearity of the tensor calculation,' and then tests the approximation against the independent 'No cluster + Smear' baseline. No parameter is fitted to that benchmark, and the comparison uses the same grid, smearing, and averaging procedure for all cases. The author's prior publications appear only as background or application context and are not load-bearing for the method's validity. The 'perfect agreement' claim is narrower than the full energy-momentum tensor because validation uses transverse-plane weighted averages at z=0, but that is a scope and accuracy concern, not circular reasoning.

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

The method relies on a small set of algorithmic parameters (grid spacing, kernel width, cluster size, k-means k) rather than physical constants fitted to data. The physical assumptions are domain-specific but not exotic: clustering is justified by collective flow, and Landau matching is a standard bridge to thermodynamics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Grid spacing dt, dx, dy, dz = not specified (user-defined)
The resolution of the space-time grid controls the cost and accuracy of tensor smearing; different values would change the comparisons.
Smearing kernel width = not specified
The Gaussian-like kernel K in Eqs. (3)-(4) has width parameters that determine smoothing scale; these are chosen by hand and affect all results.
Cluster box sizes = same as grid spacing in tests
In box clustering, particles are grouped into cells of size dt, dx, dy, dz; this parameter controls the trade-off between speed and accuracy.
Number of clusters k (k-means) = not specified
The dynamical clustering uses k-means with a user-chosen k; this is a free parameter affecting accuracy and speed.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Representative particle position is the energy-weighted average of cluster particle positions.
Eq. (2) defines the position; this is an arbitrary but plausible choice, acknowledged as one of several relativistic generalizations (Ref. [38]).
domain assumption Particles in the same space-time box have correlated momenta and can be replaced by one particle.
Sec. 3.2 states this is physically justified by collective hydrodynamic behavior, but no evidence is provided in this paper.
domain assumption The no-cluster plus smearing baseline is the most physics-motivated reference.
Sec. 4.1.1 chooses this as baseline because it is the most widely employed approach, but it is still a modeling choice.
domain assumption Landau matching yields the thermodynamic quantities from T and J.
Sec. 4.1.1 applies Landau matching to extract energy density, baryon density and flow; this assumes the standard fluid-dynamic interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient calculation of thermodynamic properties of baryon-rich QCD matter from heavy-ion transport models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRW4KBSE

@misc{pith2026250619766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient calculation of thermodynamic properties of baryon-rich QCD matter from heavy-ion transport models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRW4KBSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19766}
}

read the original abstract

This study presents the MATRICS framework (Modeling Aggregated Tensors for Relativistic Ion Collision Simulations) that implements modular workflows to enable parallel execution of particle generation, grid construction, and tensor calculations for heavy-ion collisions. It introduces an efficient approach to calculating the space-time distribution of the energy-momentum tensor and charge currents from discrete particles generated by transport models. By dynamically adjusting grid resolution based on particle density and clustering particles into representative super-particles, MATRICS optimizes computational efficiency while maintaining high physical accuracy. The framework can also provide a thermodynamic background for electromagnetic thermal emission calculations or serve as initial conditions for hydrodynamic evolution. It offers a powerful tool for exploring the thermodynamic properties of QCD matter at high baryon densities, making it well-suited for large-scale simulations in heavy-ion collision studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19766 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Flow chart of the MATRICS framework, including parallel SMASH execution, global grid determination, and energy-momentum tensor calculation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Comparison of T 00 at z = 0 fm for different evaluation cases: (a) “No cluster + Smear”, (b) “No cluster + Coarse”, (c) “Box cluster + Smear”, and (d) “Dyn cluster + Smear”. The case “Box cluster (reg) + No smear” (not shown) is visually indistinguishable from (b), while the results for “Box cluster (reg) + Smear” and “Box cluster (dyn) + Smear” are visually identical to (c). See the text of Sec. 4.1.1 for detailed … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of key physical quantities at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Execution time scalability comparison for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

Braun-Munzinger, J

P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Wambach, The Phase Diagram of Strongly- Interacting Matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 1031–1050. arXiv: 0801.4256, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1031

arXiv 2009
[2]

Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy- ion collisions, Prog

A. Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy- ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134 (2024) 104080. arXiv:2301. 13253, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080

arXiv 2024
[3]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, E. V . Shuryak, Signatures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4816–4819. arXiv:hep-ph/ 9806219, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4816

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.4816 1998
[4]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, E. V . Shuryak, Event-by-event fluctua- tions in heavy ion collisions and the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114028. arXiv:hep-ph/9903292, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 60.114028

arXiv 1999
[5]

Bzdak, S

A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V . Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, N. Xu, Map- ping the Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics with Beam Energy Scan, 10 Phys. Rept. 853 (2020) 1–87. arXiv:1906.00936, doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2020.01.005

arXiv 2020
[6]

L. Du, A. Sorensen, M. Stephanov, The QCD phase diagram and Beam Energy Scan physics: a theory overview, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33 (07) (2024) 2430008. arXiv:2402.10183, doi:10.1142/ S021830132430008X

arXiv 2024
[7]

An, et al., The BEST framework for the search for the QCD critical point and the chiral magnetic effect, Nucl

X. An, et al., The BEST framework for the search for the QCD critical point and the chiral magnetic effect, Nucl. Phys. A 1017 (2022) 122343. arXiv:2108.13867, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122343

arXiv 2022
[8]

M. A. Stephanov, Non-Gaussian fluctuations near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 032301. arXiv:0809.3450, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.102.032301

arXiv 2009

Show all 45 references

[9]

M. A. Stephanov, On the sign of kurtosis near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 052301. arXiv:1104.1627, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.107.052301

2011 arXiv
[10]

M. S. Abdallah, et al., Disappearance of partonic collectivity in √sNN = 3GeV Au +Au collisions at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 137003. arXiv:2108.00908, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137003

2022
[11]

J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, Bayesian estimation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark–gluon plasma, Nature Phys. 15 (11) (2019) 1113–1117. doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0611-8

2019 doi
[12]

Everett, et al., Phenomenological constraints on the transport prop- erties of QCD matter with data-driven model averaging, Phys

D. Everett, et al., Phenomenological constraints on the transport prop- erties of QCD matter with data-driven model averaging, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (24) (2021) 242301. arXiv:2010.03928, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.242301

2021 arXiv
[13]

G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G ¨ursoy, R. Snellings, Transverse Momen- tum Di fferential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (20) (2021) 202301. arXiv:2010.15130, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.202301

2021 arXiv
[14]

C. Shen, B. Schenke, Dynamical initial state model for relativistic heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2) (2018) 024907. arXiv:1710.00881, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.024907

2018 arXiv
[15]

L. Du, U. Heinz, G. Vujanovic, Hybrid model with dynamical sources for heavy-ion collisions at BES energies, Nucl. Phys. A982 (2019) 407–410. arXiv:1807.04721, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.09.015

2019 arXiv
[16]

C. Shen, G. Denicol, C. Gale, S. Jeon, A. Monnai, B. Schenke, A hy- brid approach to relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the RHIC BES en- ergies, Nucl. Phys. A 967 (2017) 796–799. arXiv:1704.04109, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.06.008

2017 arXiv
[17]

L. Du, U. Heinz, (3 +1)-dimensional dissipative relativistic fluid dynam- ics at non-zero net baryon density, Comput. Phys. Commun. 251 (2020) 107090. arXiv:1906.11181, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.107090

2020 arXiv
[18]

C. Shen, B. Schenke, Longitudinal dynamics and particle production in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 105 (6) (2022) 064905. arXiv:2203.04685, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.064905

2022 arXiv
[19]

Petersen, J

H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher, H. St ¨ocker, A Fully Integrated Transport Approach to Heavy Ion Reactions with an Interme- diate Hydrodynamic Stage, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 044901. arXiv: 0806.1695, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.044901

2008 arXiv
[20]

I. A. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, H. Petersen, M. Bleicher, Estimation of the shear viscosity at finite net-baryon density from A + A collision data at√sNN = 7.7− 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 91 (6) (2015) 064901. arXiv: 1502.01978, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.064901

2015 arXiv
[21]

Bleicher, E

M. Bleicher, E. Bratkovskaya, Modelling relativistic heavy-ion collisions with dynamical transport approaches, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 122 (2022) 103920. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103920

2022
[22]

Wolter, et al., Transport model comparison studies of intermediate- energy heavy-ion collisions, Prog

H. Wolter, et al., Transport model comparison studies of intermediate- energy heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125 (2022) 103962. arXiv:2202.06672, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103962

2022
[23]

Oliinychenko, H

D. Oliinychenko, H. Petersen, Deviations of the Energy-Momentum Ten- sor from Equilibrium in the Initial State for Hydrodynamics from Trans- port Approaches, Phys. Rev. C 93 (3) (2016) 034905. arXiv:1508. 04378, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034905

2016 doi
[24]

Inghirami, H

G. Inghirami, H. Elfner, The applicability of hydrodynamics in heavy ion collisions at √sNN = 2.4–7.7 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (9) (2022) 796. arXiv:2201.05934, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10718-x

2022 arXiv
[25]

Weil, et al., Particle production and equilibrium properties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy-ion collisions, Phys

J. Weil, et al., Particle production and equilibrium properties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 94 (5) (2016) 054905. arXiv:1606.06642, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 94.054905

2016 arXiv
[26]

Wergieluk, J

A. Wergieluk, J. Weil, J. Tindall, V . Steinberg, J. Staudenmaier, A. Sorensen, A. Sciarra, A. Sch ¨afer, R. Sattler, S. Ryu, et. al, smash- transport/smash: Smash-3.1 (Feb. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo. 10707746. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10707746

2024 doi
[27]

iEBE-MUSIC is a comprehensive and fully-integrated numerical frame- work designed to streamline hybrid simulations for the study of rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions: https://github.com/chunshen1987/ iEBE-MUSIC
[28]

Oliinychenko, P

D. Oliinychenko, P. Huovinen, H. Petersen, Systematic Investigation of Negative Cooper-Frye Contributions in Heavy Ion Collisions Using Coarse-grained Molecular Dynamics, Phys. Rev. C 91 (2) (2015) 024906. arXiv:1411.3912, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.024906

2015 arXiv
[29]

Inghirami, P

G. Inghirami, P. Hillmann, B. Tom ´aˇsik, M. Bleicher, Temperatures and chemical potentials at kinetic freeze-out in relativistic heavy ion colli- sions from coarse grained transport simulations, J. Phys. G 47 (2) (2020) 025104. arXiv:1909.00643, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab53f4

2020 arXiv
[30]

Endres, H

S. Endres, H. van Hees, J. Weil, M. Bleicher, Dilepton production and reaction dynamics in heavy-ion collisions at SIS energies from coarse-grained transport simulations, Phys. Rev. C 92 (1) (2015) 014911. arXiv:1505.06131, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.014911

2015 arXiv
[31]

Savchuk, A

O. Savchuk, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V . V ovchenko, M. Bleicher, M. Gorenstein, T. Galatyuk, Enhanced dilepton emission from a phase transition in dense matter, J. Phys. G 50 (12) (2023) 125104. arXiv: 2209.05267, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/acfccf

2023 arXiv
[32]

Du, Multimessenger study of baryon-charged QCD matter in heavy- ion collisions, Phys

L. Du, Multimessenger study of baryon-charged QCD matter in heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139270. arXiv:2408.08501, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139270

2025 arXiv
[33]

Du, Bulk medium properties of heavy-ion collisions from the beam energy scan with a multistage hydrodynamic model, Phys

L. Du, Bulk medium properties of heavy-ion collisions from the beam energy scan with a multistage hydrodynamic model, Phys. Rev. C 110 (1) (2024) 014904. arXiv:2401.00596, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110. 014904

2024 arXiv
[34]

L. Du, H. Gao, S. Jeon, C. Gale, Rapidity scan with multistage hydrody- namic and statistical thermal models, Phys. Rev. C 109 (1) (2024) 014907. arXiv:2302.13852, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014907

2024 arXiv
[35]

J. Li, L. Du, S. Shi, Rapidity scan approach for net-baryon cumulants with a statistical thermal model, Phys. Rev. C 109 (3) (2024) 034906. arXiv:2311.11374, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.034906

2024 arXiv
[36]

Hash Tables and Associative Arrays, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 81–98. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77978-0_4 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77978-0_4

2008 doi
[37]

Likas, N

A. Likas, N. Vlassis, J. J. Verbeek, The global k-means clustering algo- rithm, Pattern recognition 36 (2) (2003) 451–461

2003
[38]

M. H. L. Pryce, The Mass center in the restricted theory of relativity and its connection with the quantum theory of elementary particles, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 195 (1948) 62–81. doi:10.1098/rspa.1948.0103

1948
[39]

Landau, E

L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics: V olume 6, no. v. 6, Pergamon, 2013. URL https://books.google.com/books?id=CeBbAwAAQBAJ

2013
[40]

Z. Qiu, C. Shen, U. Heinz, Hydrodynamic elliptic and triangular flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √s = 2.76ATeV, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 151–155. arXiv:1110.3033, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.041

2012 arXiv
[41]

All revisions were carefully reviewed to ensure that the in- tended meaning and scientific content remained unchanged

Although the journal’s policy does not require disclosure of grammar and spelling correction tools, we note that AI-assisted tools (e.g., Grammarly and ChatGPT) were used to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. All revisions were carefully reviewed to ensure ...
[42]

URL http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73

Ohio Supercomputer Center (1987). URL http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73

1987
[43]

C. Shen, U. W. Heinz, J.-F. Paquet, C. Gale, Thermal photons as a quark-gluon plasma thermometer reexamined, Phys. Rev. C 89 (4) (2014) 044910. arXiv:1308.2440, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044910

2014 arXiv
[44]

Churchill, L

J. Churchill, L. Du, C. Gale, G. Jackson, S. Jeon, Virtual Photons Shed Light on the Early Temperature of Dense QCD Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (17) (2024) 172301. arXiv:2311.06951, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.172301

2024 arXiv
[45]

Churchill, L

J. Churchill, L. Du, C. Gale, G. Jackson, S. Jeon, Dilepton production at next-to-leading order and intermediate invariant-mass observables, Phys. Rev. C 109 (4) (2024) 044915. arXiv:2311.06675, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.109.044915. 11

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Braun-Munzinger, J

P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Wambach, The Phase Diagram of Strongly- Interacting Matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 1031–1050. arXiv: 0801.4256, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1031

arXiv 2009

[2] [2]

Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy- ion collisions, Prog

A. Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy- ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134 (2024) 104080. arXiv:2301. 13253, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, E. V . Shuryak, Signatures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4816–4819. arXiv:hep-ph/ 9806219, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4816

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.4816 1998

[4] [4]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, E. V . Shuryak, Event-by-event fluctua- tions in heavy ion collisions and the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114028. arXiv:hep-ph/9903292, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 60.114028

arXiv 1999

[5] [5]

Bzdak, S

A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V . Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, N. Xu, Map- ping the Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics with Beam Energy Scan, 10 Phys. Rept. 853 (2020) 1–87. arXiv:1906.00936, doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2020.01.005

arXiv 2020

[6] [6]

L. Du, A. Sorensen, M. Stephanov, The QCD phase diagram and Beam Energy Scan physics: a theory overview, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33 (07) (2024) 2430008. arXiv:2402.10183, doi:10.1142/ S021830132430008X

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

An, et al., The BEST framework for the search for the QCD critical point and the chiral magnetic effect, Nucl

X. An, et al., The BEST framework for the search for the QCD critical point and the chiral magnetic effect, Nucl. Phys. A 1017 (2022) 122343. arXiv:2108.13867, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122343

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

M. A. Stephanov, Non-Gaussian fluctuations near the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 032301. arXiv:0809.3450, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.102.032301

arXiv 2009