Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Initial conditions and bulk viscosity effects on $\Lambda$ polarization in high-energy heavy ion collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Λ polarization's sign at LHC energies flips when bulk viscosity is included, and RHIC data pick out the initial-flow model.

desk verdict A compact sensitivity study of Λ polarization to bulk viscosity and initial-state longitudinal flow; the RHIC part is solid, but the LHC sign claim is asserted without showing the ALICE data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19463 v1 pith:JH5IX445 submitted 2025-07-25 hep-ph nucl-th

Andrea Palermo This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords Lambdahyperonpolarizationheavy-ioncollisionsbulkviscosityinitialconditionsquark-gluonplasmaspinhydrodynamicmodelfeed-downcorrections
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 argues that the local, azimuthally resolved spin polarization of $\Lambda$ hyperons can act as a precision probe of two poorly known ingredients of heavy-ion collisions: the temperature-dependent bulk viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma and the initial longitudinal flow imposed by the initial state. Its central claim is that including bulk viscosity flips the sign of the local longitudinal polarization in Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, and that this flip is required to match the sign observed at LHC energies. A second claim is that the azimuthal shape of the transverse polarization separates two initial-state models, with the RHIC data favouring the model that starts with zero initial longitudinal flow. If both hold, $\Lambda$ polarization becomes a practical tuning observable for hydrodynamic simulations, complementing standard spectra and flow harmonics.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the statistical-hydrodynamic formula for spin polarization, which computes the mean spin vector of $\Lambda$ from thermal vorticity and thermal shear, i.e. from gradients of temperature and four-velocity on the particlization hypersurface. These gradients come from a 3+1D viscous hydrodynamic evolution with a hadronic afterburner, starting from two initial-state models: superMC, whose free parameter $f$ sets initial longitudinal flow through $T^{\tau\tau}$ and $T^{\tau\eta}$, and a 3D GLISSANDO that effectively sets $f=0$. Bulk viscosity enters through three published temperature-dependent parametrizations of $\zeta/s$ (param I, II, III), and feed-down corrections are built from the polarization of the mother resonances $\Sigma^*$ and $\Sigma^0$. The paper's key move is to compare the azimuthal-angle dependence of the polarization components, not just their centrality-averaged values.

What would settle it

Measure the azimuthal dependence of $\langle P_z \rangle(\phi)$ for $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in Pb--Pb at 5.02 TeV with finer $\phi$ bins and full feed-down corrections; if the measured modulation keeps the sign of the $\zeta/s = 0$ calculation rather than flipping, or if a hydrodynamic model with a different $\zeta/s(T)$ reproduces all bulk observables without the flip, the paper's central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that local polarization is a sensitive functional of hydrodynamic inputs rather than a minor correction to the global signal. In Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV, the longitudinal component $\langle S_z \rangle(\phi)$ computed with vanishing bulk viscosity has one sign, while each of the three adopted temperature-dependent $\zeta/s$ parametrizations shifts it to the opposite sign, reproducing the experimental trend at LHC energies; at RHIC energies the same change is smaller. The azimuthal dependence of the transverse polarization $\langle P_J \rangle(\phi)$ in Au--Au at 200 GeV differs markedly between the superMC and GLISSANDO initial states, and the data favour GLISSANDO, with the difference traced to the initial longitudinal-flow parameter $f$ in superMC. Feed-down from $\Sigma^*$ and $\Sigma^0$ decays changes the polarization by only 3--10\%, so neither conclusion depends on that correction.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that bulk viscosity sets the sign of LHC longitudinal polarization assumes that the three adopted $\zeta/s(T)$ parametrizations are representative of the true temperature dependence of the quark-gluon plasma's bulk viscosity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Longitudinal polarization at LHC energies becomes a qualitative discriminator: with vanishing bulk viscosity the sign is wrong, so any successful model must include a temperature-dependent $\zeta/s$.
  • Azimuthally differential transverse polarization can constrain initial-state models, because superMC and GLISSANDO give visibly different $\langle P_J \rangle(\phi)$, and the RHIC data side with the $f=0$ (GLISSANDO) case.
  • Shear viscosity has little effect on the polarization for $\eta/s$ between 0 and 0.16, so spin measurements add information that flow harmonics alone do not provide.
  • Feed-down from $\Sigma^*$ and $\Sigma^0$ is a 3--10\% correction, leaving the sign flip and initial-state sensitivity intact after realistic resonance decays.
  • The same initial-state sensitivity appears in Pb--Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, suggesting that local polarization can probe longitudinal flow across collision energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: since all three $\zeta/s$ curves produce the same sign flip, the sign may be robust to the exact shape of $\zeta/s(T)$; the natural next test is to use the size of the azimuthal modulation at several beam energies to map where $\zeta/s$ peaks in temperature.
  • Editorial inference: the equivalence between GLISSANDO and superMC with $f=0$ suggests the transverse-polarization pattern is controlled by initial longitudinal flow rather than by collision geometry; continuously varying $f$ in one model against high-statistics $\phi$-binned STAR data would isolate that dependence.
  • Editorial inference: the paper does not vary $\zeta/s$ and initial conditions jointly, so a combined statistical fit could reveal degeneracies between bulk viscosity and initial longitudinal flow that the separate comparisons leave open.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies Lambda spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC (AuAu 200 GeV) and LHC (PbPb 5020 GeV) energies using a vHLLE+SMASH hybrid model with two initial-state models (superMC and GLISSANDO), different shear and bulk viscosity settings, and feed-down corrections. The central claims are that (i) the azimuthal dependence of transverse polarization differs between the two initial-state models and can constrain initial longitudinal flow, and (ii) the presence of bulk viscosity changes the sign of local longitudinal polarization at LHC energies, which the authors state is needed to reproduce the experimental sign. The paper presents results for the RHIC comparison in detail and shows LHC longitudinal-polarization curves for different bulk-viscosity parametrizations, but it does not display any ALICE data.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would establish local spin polarization as a sensitive probe of both initial-state longitudinal flow and the temperature dependence of bulk viscosity, which are difficult to access through standard observables. Strengths of the work include a forward-modeling framework whose transport parameters are tuned to non-polarization observables, explicit inclusion of feed-down corrections, and a quantitative comparison with STAR data at RHIC. However, the headline LHC sign-flip claim is not demonstrated in the manuscript because no experimental data are shown at LHC energies, and several model details are deferred to missing or external references. The significance of the claimed constraints is therefore currently hard to assess.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The central LHC sign-flip claim is not supported by any visible experimental comparison. The right panel of Fig. 2 shows only theoretical curves for zeta/s = 0 and parametrizations I-III, with no ALICE data points, and reference [6], which contains the ALICE beam-direction polarization data, is cited but never plotted. In the present form, the reader cannot verify that zeta/s = 0 gives the wrong sign, that the zeta/s != 0 curves have the correct sign, or that the agreement survives realistic binning and cuts; the abstract's claim to demonstrate the correct sign is therefore not substantiated by the evidence shown.
  2. [Section 3] The conclusion that bulk viscosity is 'critical to reproduce the correct sign' rests on three assumed parametrizations of zeta/s(T) from refs. [31-33], with no fitting to polarization data and no joint variation with initial-state parameters or feed-down corrections. As presented, the sign flip could be an artifact of the chosen zeta/s(T) shapes rather than a robust prediction. A concrete test would be to overlay the ALICE data from ref. [6] on Fig. 2 and to test at least one additional zeta/s(T) parametrization to show that the sign change does not depend on the specific functional form.
  3. [Sections 2 and 3] Several load-bearing details are deferred to missing or empty references. The text says 'We refer the reader to [] for further details' (Section 2) and cites an empty bracket for the gradient-analysis conclusion in Section 3. The polarization formula, the parameter values of the initial-state models, and the specific implementation of the shear term are not given in the manuscript. This prevents an independent reader from checking the calculation and forces reliance on the author's prior paper, ref. [16].
  4. [Figures 1-3] No statistical or systematic uncertainties are shown for the model curves. For example, the claim in Section 2 that superMC and GLISSANDO differ 'significantly' in P_J(phi) in Fig. 1 is made without any error bands on the model predictions, and the sign flip in Fig. 2 is shown as a single set of curves with no indication of Monte-Carlo or numerical uncertainty. Without such information, the significance of both the initial-state discrimination and the bulk-viscosity sign flip cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the results are compared with experimental data from STAR and ALICE, but no ALICE data are shown anywhere in the paper; please either add the relevant ALICE data or rephrase the abstract to reflect what is actually presented.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence 'We refer the reader to [] for further details' contains an empty citation that must be completed before publication.
  3. [Section 3] The sentence 'An analysis of independent velocity-gradients contributions to polarization has been performed in [], with the conclusion that angular velocity and acceleration receive larger modifications from bulk viscosity at LHC energies rather than at RHIC' contains an empty citation; this reference needs to be supplied.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'at in AuAu sqrt(s_NN) = 200' should read 'in AuAu sqrt(s_NN) = 200' or similar.
  5. [Section 2] The notation for the longitudinal polarization is inconsistent: Fig. 1 uses <P_z>, Fig. 2 uses <S_z>, and Fig. 3 uses <S_J>; the relation between these quantities should be stated explicitly.
  6. [References] Reference [23] is given as 'the repository will be made available upon publication'; a stable URL or DOI should be provided in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction; conclusions are forward-modeling statements with parameters fixed to non-polarization observables, despite a mild self-citation burden.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a hydrodynamic simulation: initial states (superMC, GLISSANDO) feed vHLLE and SMASH, and polarization is computed from the resulting velocity and temperature gradients using the standard thermal-vorticity and thermal-shear formalism. The initial-state parameters are tuned to hadron spectra and elliptic flow, not to polarization, and the bulk-viscosity parametrizations I-III are imported from independent references [31-33] and compared against zeta/s=0. No parameter is fitted to the polarization data, so the sign-flip comparison in Fig. 2 is a genuine forward-modeling prediction rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The superMC f-parameter study is a controlled variation of the initial T^{tau tau} and T^{tau eta} components; the f=0 limit reproducing the GLISSANDO behavior is a consistency check, not an identity imposed by construction. Self-citations (refs. [9,11,16,30]) supply the spin formalism and the prior detailed study, and the text explicitly says the work is based on ref. [16]; however, the central curves are displayed in this paper, and the conclusions do not reduce to the cited equations by construction. The absence of ALICE data points in Fig. 2 weakens the empirical support for the 'correct sign' claim but is a missing-evidence issue, not circularity. Accordingly, no specific circular step meets the evidentiary bar; the score reflects only the mild self-citation density.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard hybrid hydrodynamics plus transport, with transport coefficients and freeze-out choices imported from previous fits, and on the polarization-vorticity/shear relation from prior literature. No new particles or fields are introduced; the model inputs are the main load-bearing ledger entries.

free parameters (6)
  • superMC initial-state parameters (including f) = not stated; tuned to hadron spectra and elliptic flow
    The parameter f controls the initialization of Tττ and Tτη and is scanned in Figure 3; exact values are not given in this manuscript.
  • GLISSANDO initial-state parameters = not stated; tuned to hadron spectra and elliptic flow
    Used as second initial-state model; its parameters are not enumerated here.
  • Shear viscosity over entropy density eta/s = scanned values: 0, 0.08, 0.16
    Constant eta/s values are tested and found to have small effects on polarization; values are standard phenomenological inputs.
  • Bulk viscosity over entropy density zeta/s parametrizations = temperature-dependent functions from refs. [31-33] (Param I, II, III)
    The sign-flip result depends on these parametrizations; functional forms are not reproduced in this paper.
  • Particlization energy density e_freeze = 0.4 GeV/fm3
    The constant-energy-density freeze-out hypersurface is a model choice not varied here.
  • Feed-down resonance fractions = not stated
    Weights for primary vs feed-down Lambda channels are needed to average polarizations; values are not provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lambda polarization is given by the statistical-hydrodynamic formula built from thermal vorticity and thermal shear.
    Invoked in Section 2 via refs. [7-12], including the author's own papers; this is the entire theoretical basis for the observable.
  • domain assumption The vHLLE 3+1D viscous hydrodynamics plus SMASH hadronic transport chain describes the QGP evolution and freeze-out.
    The calculation uses this hybrid model with the freeze-out hypersurface e=0.4 GeV/fm3; validity of this modeling is assumed.
  • domain assumption Feed-down corrections from Sigma* and Sigma0 decays are sufficient and are computed with the polarization transfer formalism of ref. [27].
    Other resonance channels and hadronic rescattering effects are not systematically considered in the polarization calculation.
  • domain assumption Initial-state parameters can be tuned to hadron spectra and elliptic flow and then used to predict polarization independently.
    This calibration practice keeps polarization as an independent observable, but it assumes the tuned parameters carry over to spin observables.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Initial conditions and bulk viscosity effects on $\Lambda$ polarization in high-energy heavy ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JH5IX445

@misc{pith2026250719463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Initial conditions and bulk viscosity effects on $\Lambda$ polarization in high-energy heavy ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JH5IX445}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19463}
}
abstract

The $\Lambda$ spin polarization is a crucial probe of the gradients of velocity and temperature in the quark-gluon plasma generated in heavy-ion collisions. However, it is still not systematically used to tune hydrodynamic models. In this work, we investigate the influence of different initial conditions and parametrization of the bulk viscosity on $\Lambda$ polarization, showing that they affect the local polarization significantly. These results highlight the impact that the use of local polarization can have on refining theoretical models. Finally, we compare our results, including feed-down corrections, with experimental data from high-energy heavy-ion collisions at STAR and ALICE, and demonstrate the crucial role of bulk viscosity in generating the correct sign of longitudinal polarization at LHC energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Polarization of the Λ particle in AuAu collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. Top-left panel: longitudinal polarization (i.e. along the beam direction) as a function of the azimuthal angle. Top-right panel: polarization along the angular momentum direction (transverse polarization) as a function of the azimuthal angle. Low-central panel: transverse polarization as a function of centrality. Data points are taken from refs. [… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Longitudinal component of the spin vector as a function of the azimuthal angle ϕ at in AuAu √ sNN = 200 collisions (left panel) and PbPb √ sNN = 5020 collisions (right panel) for various bulk viscosity parametrizations. states becomes apparent in the transverse polarization (the projection along the global angular momentum of the QGP). Despite yielding the same longitudinal polarization, the transverse polarization … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. S J component of the Λ particle’s mean spin for different values superMC’s f free parameter, at RHIC and LHC energies in the left and right panels respectively. despite being still more significant than the one of shear viscosity, remains rather contained. It’s hard to single out the reason for this effect. An analysis of independent velocity-gradients contributions to polarization has been performed in [], with the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Palermo, E

    A. Palermo, E. Grossi, I. Karpenko, F. Becattini, Λ polarization in very high energy heavy ion collisions as a probe of the quark–gluon plasma formation and properties, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 920 (2024), 2404.14295. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13229-z

    arXiv 2024

  2. [6]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Polarization of Λ and ¯Λ Hyperons along the Beam Di- rection in Pb-Pb Collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 172005 (2022), 2107.11183. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.172005

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Global Λ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: ev- idence for the most vortical fluid, Nature 548, 62 (2017), 1701.06657. 10.1038/na- ture23004 2The quantitative difference between the two models with f = 0 lies in the fact that other free initial parameters have not been modified

    arXiv 2017

  4. [2]

    Abdulhamid et al

    M.I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Global polarization of Λ and Λ¯ hyperons in Au +Au collisions at sNN=19.6 and 27 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 108, 014910 (2023), 2305.08705. 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014910

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Global polarization of Λ hyperons in Au +Au collisions at√sNN = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 98, 014910 (2018), 1805.04400. 10.1103 /Phys- RevC.98.014910

    arXiv 2018

  6. [4]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Polarization of Λ ( ¯Λ) hyperons along the beam direction in Au +Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 132301 (2019), 1905.11917. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.132301

    arXiv 2019

  7. [5]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Global polarization of Λ ¯Λ hyperons in Pb-Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044611 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)], 1909.01281. 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044611

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Becattini, V

    F. Becattini, V . Chandra, L. Del Zanna, E. Grossi, Relativistic distribution function for particles with spin at local thermodynamical equilibrium, Annals Phys. 338, 32 (2013), 1303.3431. 10.1016/j.aop.2013.07.004

    arXiv 2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    Fang, L.g

    R.h. Fang, L.g. Pang, Q. Wang, X.n. Wang, Polarization of massive fermions in a vorti- cal fluid, Phys. Rev. C94, 024904 (2016), 1604.04036. 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024904

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, A. Palermo, Spin-thermal shear coupling in a relativistic fluid, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136519 (2021), 2103.10917. 10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136519

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    S.Y .F. Liu, Y . Yin, Spin polarization induced by the hydrodynamic gradients, JHEP07, 188 (2021), 2103.09200. 10.1007/JHEP07(2021)188

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, A. Palermo, Local Polarization and Isothermal Local Equilibrium in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 272302 (2021), 2103.14621. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.272302

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Fu, S.Y .F

    B. Fu, S.Y .F. Liu, L. Pang, H. Song, Y . Yin, Shear-Induced Spin Polarization in Heavy- Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 142301 (2021), 2103.10403. 10.1103 /Phys- RevLett.127.142301

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Becattini, M.A

    F. Becattini, M.A. Lisa, Polarization and V orticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 395 (2020), 2003.03640. 10.1146 /annurev-nucl-021920- 095245

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Becattini, Spin and polarization: a new direction in relativistic heavy ion physics, Rept

    F. Becattini, Spin and polarization: a new direction in relativistic heavy ion physics, Rept. Prog. Phys. 85, 122301 (2022), 2204.01144. 10.1088/1361-6633/ac97a9

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.H. Tang, Q. Wang, Spin polarization in relativistic heavy-ion collisions (2024), 2402.04540

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Niida (STAR), Global and local polarization of Λ hyperons in Au +Au col- lisions at 200 GeV from STAR, Nucl

    T. Niida (STAR), Global and local polarization of Λ hyperons in Au +Au col- lisions at 200 GeV from STAR, Nucl. Phys. A 982, 511 (2019), 1808.10482. 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.08.034

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Karpenko, P

    I. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, M. Bleicher, A 3 +1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamic code for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 3016 (2014), 1312.4160. 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.07.010

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Schäfer, I

    A. Schäfer, I. Karpenko, X.Y . Wu, J. Hammelmann, H. Elfner (SMASH), Particle production in a hybrid approach for a beam energy scan of Au +Au/Pb+Pb collisions between √sNN = 4.3 GeV and √sNN = 200.0 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 230 (2022), 2112.08724. 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00872-x

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Oliinychenko, J

    D. Oliinychenko, J. Staudenmaier, V . Steinberg, J. Weil, A. Sciarra, A. Schäfer, H.E. (Petersen), S. Ryu, J. Mohs, G. Inghirami et al., smash-transport /smash: Smash-3.0 (2023), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7870822

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Weil et al

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

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    com/smash-transport/smash-hadron-sampler/releases/tag/ SMASH-hadron-sampler-3.0

    smash-transport /smash-hadron-sampler (2023), https://github. com/smash-transport/smash-hadron-sampler/releases/tag/ SMASH-hadron-sampler-3.0

    2023

  15. [23]

    SMASH-vHLLE hybrid with Python, the repository will be made available upon publi- cation

  16. [24]

    C. Shen, S. Alzhrani, Collision-geometry-based 3D initial condition for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 102, 014909 (2020), 2003.05852. 10.1103/Phys- RevC.102.014909

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Alzhrani, S

    S. Alzhrani, S. Ryu, C. Shen, Λ spin polarization in event-by-event relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014905 (2022), 2203.15718. 10.1103/Phys- RevC.106.014905

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Rybczynski, G

    M. Rybczynski, G. Stefanek, W. Broniowski, P. Bozek, GLISSANDO 2 : GLauber Initial-State Simulation AND mOre. . . , ver. 2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1759 (2014), 1310.5475. 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.016

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Becattini, G

    F. Becattini, G. Cao, E. Speranza, Polarization transfer in hyperon decays and its ef- fect in relativistic nuclear collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 741 (2019), 1905.03123. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7213-6

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Becattini, I

    F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal, S. V oloshin, Global hyperon polarization at local thermodynamic equilibrium with vorticity, magnetic field and feed-down, Phys. Rev. C 95, 054902 (2017), 1610.02506. 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.054902

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X.L. Xia, H. Li, X.G. Huang, H.Z. Huang, Feed-down e ffect on Λ spin polarization, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014913 (2019), 1905.03120. 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.014913

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Palermo, F

    A. Palermo, F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, Local equilibrium and Lambda polarization in high energy heavy ion collisions, EPJ Web Conf. 276, 01026 (2023), 2208.09874. 10.1051/epjconf/202327601026

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ryu, J.F

    S. Ryu, J.F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. Denicol, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, E ffects of bulk viscosity and hadronic rescattering in heavy ion collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034910 ...

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, P. Tribedy, Multi-particle and charge-dependent azimuthal corre- lations in heavy-ion collisions at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044908 (2019), 1901.04378. 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044908

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, P. Tribedy, Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 102, 044905 (2020), 2005.14682. 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044905

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.