Light nuclei elliptic flow at mid-rapidity in $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3.0-3.9$ GeV Au+Au collisions using coalescence model

X.H.He; Y.P.Zhang; Y.Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Light nuclei elliptic flow at mid-rapidity in $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3.0-3.9$ GeV Au+Au collisions using coalescence model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A transport-plus-coalescence calculation reproduces the measured sign change in deuteron elliptic flow at 3.2 GeV and ties it to an azimuthally anisotropic coalescence probability controlled by nuclear-matter stiffness.

desk verdict A sign error in the proposed mechanism inverts the paper's central explanation for the deuteron v2 sign flip, though the transport-model calculation and EoS comparison are serious work. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05944 v1 pith:DPJHS3EY submitted 2025-08-08 nucl-th

Y.Xu , X.H.He , Y.P.Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-th

keywords ellipticflowdeuteroncoalescencemodelAu+Aucollisionsnuclearequationofstatev2signchangelightnucleitransport

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the sign change in deuteron elliptic flow ($v_2$) between 3.0 and 3.2 GeV in Au+Au collisions comes from the azimuthal geometry of nucleon coalescence, not from ordinary mass scaling of proton flow. At 3.0 GeV both protons and deuterons have negative $v_2$; at 3.2 GeV protons stay negative while deuterons turn positive. The authors reproduce the flip in a transport simulation in which deuterons form by coalescence of proton-neutron pairs with $\Delta R < 4.5$ fm and $\Delta P < 0.3$ GeV/c, and they trace it to a coalescence probability that peaks near $\phi = \pi/2$. They further find that the sign change appears with a stiff nuclear equation of state ($\kappa = 380$ MeV) but not with a soft one ($\kappa = 210$ MeV), so a successful reproduction of the data would make deuteron $v_2$ at these energies a probe of dense-matter stiffness.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the azimuthal dependence of the two-nucleon coalescence probability, with the coalescence criteria $\Delta R < 4.5$ fm and $\Delta P < 0.3$ GeV/c. The key ordering is that the mean pair separations decrease with $p_T$, and pairs at $\phi=\pi/2$ have lower average $p_T$; this makes deuterons form preferentially out of plane and produces a sign-changing $v_2$. The equation-of-state stiffness $\kappa$ is the second control knob: it determines at which energy the $\phi=\pi/2$ enhancement appears.

What would settle it

Repeat the coalescence calculation at fixed $\kappa=380$ MeV while varying the cut values around $\Delta R=4.5$ fm and $\Delta P=0.3$ GeV/c: if deuteron $v_2$ at 3.2 GeV changes sign as the cuts are varied, the flip is an artifact of the chosen cuts rather than a robust prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that deuteron elliptic flow at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3.0$--$3.9$ GeV is set by an azimuthally anisotropic two-nucleon coalescence probability. In the model, pairs at azimuthal angle $\phi=\pi/2$ have lower average transverse momentum, and lower-$p_T$ pairs have smaller mean spatial separation $\langle\Delta R\rangle$ and momentum separation $\langle\Delta P\rangle$, so they are more likely to pass the coalescence cuts. That $\phi$-dependent formation rate is what shifts deuteron $v_2$ from negative at 3.0 GeV to positive at 3.2 GeV while the proton $v_2$ stays negative. The same calculation with a stiff equation of state ($\kappa=380$ MeV) reproduces the flip; with a soft equat

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase-space ordering taken from the transport model — pairs at $\phi=\pi/2$ have lower average $p_T$ and therefore smaller $\Delta R$ and $\Delta P$ — faithfully represents the real collision; if the freeze-out pair distribution, the coalescence cuts ($\Delta R<4.5$ fm, $\Delta P<0.3$ GeV/c), or the stiff equation of state change, the sign flip disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If deuteron $v_2$ is fixed by coalescence geometry rather than by $A$-scaling of nucleon flow, the breaking of mass-number scaling seen at these energies is explained without invoking new production mechanisms.
The sign of deuteron $v_2$ at 3.2 GeV becomes an experimental observable that can discriminate between stiff and soft nuclear equations of state at high baryon density.
The mechanism predicts a $dN/d\phi$ for deuterons that peaks at $\phi=\pi/2$ at 3.2 GeV while proton $dN/d\phi$ stays suppressed there; this azimuthal shape is a direct, testable signature.
The same coalescence framework should apply to other light nuclei, with the sign-change energy shifted by their different coalescence-phase-space requirements.

Reading between the lines

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

A sharper test would be to scan deuteron $v_2$ in fine steps between 3.0 and 3.9 GeV: the model's stiffness mechanism implies the sign change is not a one-off accident but a monotonic function of collision energy whose crossover point locates the effective stiffness.
Because the mechanism depends on the ordering of $\langle\Delta R\rangle$ and $\langle\Delta P\rangle$ with $p_T$ at freeze-out, the same argument could apply to other composite objects, such as $\Lambda$--$p$ bound states, where the coalescence cuts are mass-dependent.
If the coalescence cuts themselves are varied, the model predicts the 3.2 GeV sign flip is stable only for cut values that preserve the $p_T$-ordering; measuring the deuteron azimuthal anisotropy at 3.0 and 3.2 GeV could therefore constrain the effective coalescence radius directly from data.

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

Dear colleague,

I read the Xu, He, Zhang paper on light-nucleus v2 at 3.0–3.9 GeV. The headline is a new mechanism for the STAR A-scaling breaking: an azimuthally modulated coalescence probability driven by the pT dependence of nucleon-pair separations in JAM2. That is a genuine new idea, and the EoS-stiffness comparison is a legitimate physics lever. The model is benchmarked against external STAR data, so the result is not defined into existence.

But the paper has a serious internal problem that the reader's report missed. The stress-test note is right. The text near Eq. (2) and Fig. 3 says the coalescence probability P is strongly peaked at phi=pi/2 and that this leads to positive deuteron v2. With the paper's own Eq. (1), positive v2 means a yield maximum at phi=0 (in-plane). A P peaked at pi/2 amplifies the out-of-plane pairs and drives v2 more negative, not positive. I checked the algebra: if the proton distribution has negative v2, its square is even more negative, and multiplying by a P peaked at pi/2 makes the deuteron distribution even more out-of-plane. The stated causal chain cannot produce a sign flip to positive v2. Either the text has a sign typo (P is actually peaked near phi=0) or the mechanism is not what the calculation does. This is not about coalescence cuts or EoS stiffness; it is internal to the paper's own formalism.

There are also secondary weaknesses: no statistical uncertainties on v2 values of order 0.02, the reproduction is shown only for kappa=380 MeV, and no sensitivity scan over Delta R and Delta P cuts. But those are addressable.

The authors have done a real calculation on a topical puzzle, and the idea of a phi-dependent coalescence probability is worth considering if the sign is sorted out. As written, though, the central claim is internally inconsistent. I would not publish it in this form. I would send it to a referee rather than desk-reject, because the community would benefit from having the sign issue forced into the open, and the underlying calculation may be salvageable. If the authors correct the sign or show that their actual P is peaked in-plane, it could be a useful paper.

Bring it to reading group if you want a nice example of a sign error, but I would not cite it yet.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies proton and deuteron elliptic flow v2 in mid-central Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=3.0, 3.2, 3.5, and 3.9 GeV using the JAM2 transport model with a coalescence afterburner. Deuterons are formed from proton-neutron pairs satisfying spatial and momentum separation cuts (Delta R < 4.5 fm, Delta P < 0.3 GeV/c). The central claim is that the model reproduces the STAR observation that deuteron v2 changes sign from negative at 3.0 GeV to positive at 3.2 GeV, and that this sign change is driven by a coalescence probability P(phi) that is strongly peaked at phi = pi/2 because nucleon pairs at lower pT have smaller mean Delta R and Delta P. The paper further claims that the energy dependence of the sign change is controlled by the stiffness of the nuclear equation of state, since kappa = 380 MeV reproduces the flip while kappa = 210 MeV does not.

Significance. If the result held, it would be significant: it would demonstrate that the azimuthal anisotropy of the coalescence probability, rather than simple A scaling of nucleon flow, controls light-nucleus v2 at BES-II energies, and it would connect that observable to the nuclear equation of state. The paper has genuine strengths: it benchmarks against external STAR data, uses an explicit coalescence prescription, and the deuteron v2 is a model output rather than a fitted quantity. However, the central causal mechanism as stated is internally inconsistent with the paper's own sign convention, and the quantitative sign-flip claim is presented without statistical uncertainties. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract's main assertion.

major comments (3)

[Eqs. (1)-(2) and Fig. 5] The proposed mechanism has a sign error. Eq. (1) defines positive v2 as a maximum of dN/dphi at phi=0 and negative v2 as a maximum at phi=pi/2. Eq. (2) gives dN_d/dphi proportional to P(phi)(dN_p/dphi)^2. At 3.2 GeV the proton distribution is peaked at phi=pi/2 (negative v2). The text and Fig. 5 state that P(phi) is also strongly peaked at phi=pi/2. Multiplying two distributions that are both peaked out of plane cannot produce a deuteron distribution peaked in plane; it makes v2_d more negative, not positive. To obtain a positive deuteron v2, P would need a positive cos(2phi) Fourier component large enough to overcome the negative proton-squared term. This is not a convention issue but a direct contradiction of the stated causal chain. The authors must either correct the sign in the text/Fig. 5 or provide a different mechanism for the claimed sign flip.
[Figs. 1 and 8] The decisive result, the sign change of deuteron v2 at 3.2 GeV, has an amplitude of order |v2| ~ 0.02, yet no statistical uncertainties are shown anywhere and no event statistics are reported. Since JAM2 is a stochastic transport model, the sign flip could be a statistical fluctuation of the sampling or of the centrality/rapidity binning. The authors should add statistical errors from independent runs or sub-samples and report the number of events used. Without this, the claim 'successfully reproduce the sign change' is not quantitatively supported.
[Sec. II and Fig. 8] The sign flip is established only for a single set of coalescence cuts (Delta R < 4.5 fm, Delta P < 0.3 GeV/c) and only two EoS values (kappa = 210 and 380 MeV). No sensitivity scan over the cut values is presented, so it is unclear whether the sign of v2_d at 3.2 GeV is a robust physical effect or a consequence of the chosen cuts. Similarly, the claim that EoS stiffness 'plays a crucial role' rests on a single binary comparison; intermediate values of kappa and a physical explanation of how kappa changes the phi-dependence of Delta R and Delta P are needed.

minor comments (5)

[Figs. 2-4] The term 'free proton' should be defined. It presumably means protons that do not form deuterons, but the selection is not stated in the text or captions.
[Fig. 8 and Sec. II] The rapidity window used in Fig. 8 is 0 < y < 0.1, whereas the earlier figures and the mechanism discussion use 0 < y < 0.5. Please clarify which window is used for the final v2 values and whether the sign flip is stable over the full mid-rapidity range.
[Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is written as a simple proportionality but the deuteron and proton distributions are integrated over different pT ranges and rapidity windows. The approximation involved in replacing the two-nucleon phase-space integral by (dN_p/dphi)^2 times P(phi) should be stated explicitly.
[Title] The title says 'Light nuclei elliptic flow' but the paper computes only deuterons. Consider changing the title to 'deuteron elliptic flow' or adding A=3 nuclei if the claim is meant to be general.
[Sec. II] The parameter kappa should be defined precisely (e.g., nuclear incompressibility at saturation density) and its implementation in the JAM2 EoS should be referenced, since the EoS-stiffness conclusion depends on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: deuteron v2 is a computed model output benchmarked against external STAR data, not a restatement of inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked. The paper computes proton and deuteron v2 in JAM2 with a coalescence prescription (ΔR < 4.5 fm, ΔP < 0.3 GeV/c) and compares the outcome to STAR data, so the deuteron v2 is an independent model result rather than a fitted parameter. Equation (2), dNd/dφ ∝ P(φ)(dNp/dφ)^2, is a physical coalescence relation; the claim that P is strongly peaked at φ = π/2 because ⟨ΔR⟩ and ⟨ΔP⟩ decrease with pT and that pairs at φ = π/2 have lower average pT is a genuine mechanism computed from the model, not a definitional restatement of v2. The nuclear EoS stiffness κ = 380 MeV is one of two scanned inputs, not a parameter fitted to the deuteron v2; choosing the stiff EoS because it matches the measured sign change is model discrimination against an external observable, not circular. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. The possible sign inconsistency in the text—whether a peak at φ = π/2 yields positive or negative v2—is a physics/typo concern, not a circularity, and therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, conserved quantities, or dimensions are introduced. The azimuthal modulation of the coalescence probability P(phi) is a computed model output, not a postulated entity: it is read off the JAM2 phase space rather than inserted by hand. The ledger instead tracks three parameter-like inputs the central claim depends on: the two coalescence cuts and the matching EoS incompressibility.

free parameters (3)

coalescence spatial cut Delta R = < 4.5 fm
Fixed cut defining which nucleon pairs form deuterons; the sign-change mechanism depends on which pairs coalesce, and no sensitivity scan over the cut value is reported.
coalescence momentum cut Delta P = < 0.3 GeV/c
Fixed cut on relative momentum of paired nucleons; together with Delta R it defines the phase-space window whose pT dependence drives the azimuthal modulation of the coalescence probability.
nuclear incompressibility kappa (stiff case) = 380 MeV
Scanned over 210, 280 and 380 MeV; the paper's headline constraint, the reproduced sign change at 3.2 GeV, is obtained only for kappa = 380 MeV, so the matching value carries the central claim.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The JAM2 transport model with mean-field potentials gives a faithful nucleon phase space at sqrt(sNN) = 3.0 to 3.9 GeV.
All conclusions are model outputs; the freeze-out pair distributions (Delta R, Delta P) are the raw material of the mechanism. Invoked in the Model section.
domain assumption Deuterons form by instantaneous final-state two-nucleon coalescence with dNd/dphi = P(phi) times (dNp/dphi)^2.
The entire sign-change argument is built on this coalescence ansatz, which is standard in the literature but remains an assumption about deuteron production at these low energies.
domain assumption The STAR v2 measurements (event-plane resolution, acceptance, systematic errors) are a valid external benchmark.
The comparison used to assert successful reproduction rests on the published STAR results, which are taken at face value.
standard math v2 = <cos 2phi> with phi measured relative to the reaction plane.
Standard harmonic decomposition used to convert dN/dphi modulations into the sign and magnitude of v2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light nuclei elliptic flow at mid-rapidity in $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3.0-3.9$ GeV Au+Au collisions using coalescence model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPJHS3EY

@misc{pith2026250805944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light nuclei elliptic flow at mid-rapidity in $\sqrts_NN = 3.0-3.9$ GeV Au+Au collisions using coalescence model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPJHS3EY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05944}
}

abstract

Light nuclei collective flow is an important probe for understanding their production mechanisms in heavy-ion collisions. The STAR collaboration has reported that the atomic mass number ($A$) scaling of light nuclei elliptic flow $v_2$ is broken at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3.0-3.9$ GeV. The observations reveals that, while protons maintain negative $v_2$ values at mid-rapidity at both 3.0 and 3.2 GeV, light nuclei $v_2$ exhibit a sign change from negative at 3.0 GeV to positive at 3.2 GeV. In this study, we investigate $v_2$ of protons and deuterons in mid-central Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 3.0, 3.2, 3.5 and 3.9 GeV using the JAM2 microscopic transport model. Deuterons are formed via nucleon coalescence, with the spatial distance ${\Delta R}$ and momentum difference ${\Delta P}$ between constituent protons and neutrons serving as the coalescence criteria. Our calculations successfully reproduce the sign change in deuteron $v_2$ at 3.2 GeV. We observe a strong dependence of nucleon coalescence probability on the azimuthal angle relative to the reaction plane. This effect is primarily driven by the transverse momentum dependence of the mean spatial $\langle {\Delta R} \rangle$ and momentum $\langle {\Delta P} \rangle$ separations between nucleon pairs, which vary with the nucleon azimuthal angle. Moreover, our analysis demonstrates that the stiffness of the nuclear equation of state plays a crucial role in determining the energy dependence of this sign change in deuteron $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3.2$ GeV.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Herrmann , author J

author author N. Herrmann , author J. P. \ Wessels , \ and\ author T. Wienold ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.581 journal journal Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science \ volume 49 ,\ pages 581 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.581 1999
[2]

Voloshin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01450-1 journal journal Nuclear Physics A \ volume 715 ,\ pages 379c ( year 2003 ) ,\ note Quark Matter 2002 NoStop

author author S. Voloshin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01450-1 journal journal Nuclear Physics A \ volume 715 ,\ pages 379c ( year 2003 ) ,\ note Quark Matter 2002 NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(02)01450-1 2003
[3]

Moln\'ar \ and\ author S

author author D. Moln\'ar \ and\ author S. A. \ Voloshin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.092301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 91 ,\ pages 092301 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.092301 2003
[4]

Adams , author M

author author J. Adams , author M. M. \ Aggarwal , et al. ( collaboration STAR Collaboration ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.122301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 122301 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.122301 2005
[5]

Dong , author S

author author X. Dong , author S. Esumi , author P. Sorensen , author N. Xu , \ and\ author Z. Xu ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.110 journal journal Physics Letters B \ volume 597 ,\ pages 328 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.110 2004
[6]

Adare , author S

author author A. Adare , author S. Afanasiev , et al. ( collaboration PHENIX Collaboration ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064914 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 85 ,\ pages 064914 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.064914 2012
[7]

author author B. B. \ Abelev et al. ( collaboration ALICE ),\ 10.1007/JHEP06(2015)190 journal journal JHEP \ volume 06 ,\ pages 190 ( year 2015 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4632 arXiv:1405.4632 [nucl-ex] NoStop

arXiv 2015
[8]

author author H. H. \ Gutbrod , author A. Sandoval , author P. J. \ Johansen , author A. M. \ Poskanzer , author J. Gosset , author W. G. \ Meyer , author G. D. \ Westfall , \ and\ author R. Stock ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.667 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 37 ,\ pages 667 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.37.667 1976

Show all 21 references

[9]

Liu , author C

author author L. Liu , author C. Hu , author X. He , author S. Shi , \ and\ author G. Xie ,\ @noop journal journal Physics Letters B \ volume 855 ,\ pages 138853 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[10]

Zhu , author C

author author L. Zhu , author C. M. \ Ko , \ and\ author X. Yin ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review C \ volume 92 ,\ pages 064911 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

2015
[11]

Zhao , author L

author author W. Zhao , author L. Zhu , author H. Zheng , author C. M. \ Ko , \ and\ author H. Song ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review C \ volume 98 ,\ pages 054905 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

2018
[12]

Kachelrie , author S

author author M. Kachelrie , author S. Ostapchenko , \ and\ author J. Tjemsland ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review C \ volume 108 ,\ pages 024903 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023
[13]

Sato \ and\ author K

author author H. Sato \ and\ author K. Yazaki ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(81)90976-X journal journal Physics Letters B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 153 ( year 1981 ) NoStop

1981 doi
[14]

Sombun , author K

author author S. Sombun , author K. Tomuang , author A. Limphirat , author P. Hillmann , author C. Herold , author J. Steinheimer , author Y. Yan , \ and\ author M. Bleicher ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014901 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 99 ,\ pages 014901 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

2019 doi
[15]

Adamczyk , author J

author author L. Adamczyk , author J. K. \ Adkins , et al. ( collaboration STAR Collaboration ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034908 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 94 ,\ pages 034908 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

2016 doi
[16]

Abdallah , author B

author author M. Abdallah , author B. Aboona , et al. ( collaboration STAR Collaboration ),\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136941 journal journal Physics Letters B \ volume 827 ,\ pages 136941 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

2022
[17]

\ volume 296 ,\ pages 05014 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

author author Han, C ,\ 10.1051/epjconf/202429605014 journal journal EPJ Web Conf. \ volume 296 ,\ pages 05014 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

2024
[18]

author author Han, C ,\ in\ https://indico.cern.ch/event/1139644/contributions/5503055/attachments/2708497/4703181/ChengdongHan_QM2023_report_ booktitle Quark Matter \ ( address Houston, Texas, USA ,\ year 2023 ) NoStop

2023
[19]

Nara , author N

author author Y. Nara , author N. Otuka , author A. Ohnishi , author K. Niita , \ and\ author S. Chiba ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.61.024901 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 61 ,\ pages 024901 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

1999 doi
[20]

Nara \ and\ author A

author author Y. Nara \ and\ author A. Ohnishi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014911 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 105 ,\ pages 014911 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

2022 doi
[21]

Xu , author X

author author Y. Xu , author X. He , \ and\ author N. Xu ,\ 10.1088/1674-1137/acd3d9 journal journal Chinese Physics C \ volume 47 ,\ pages 074107 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Herrmann , author J

author author N. Herrmann , author J. P. \ Wessels , \ and\ author T. Wienold ,\ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.581 journal journal Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science \ volume 49 ,\ pages 581 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.581 1999

[2] [2]

Voloshin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01450-1 journal journal Nuclear Physics A \ volume 715 ,\ pages 379c ( year 2003 ) ,\ note Quark Matter 2002 NoStop

author author S. Voloshin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01450-1 journal journal Nuclear Physics A \ volume 715 ,\ pages 379c ( year 2003 ) ,\ note Quark Matter 2002 NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(02)01450-1 2003

[3] [3]

Moln\'ar \ and\ author S

author author D. Moln\'ar \ and\ author S. A. \ Voloshin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.092301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 91 ,\ pages 092301 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.092301 2003

[4] [4]

Adams , author M

author author J. Adams , author M. M. \ Aggarwal , et al. ( collaboration STAR Collaboration ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.122301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 122301 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.122301 2005

[5] [5]

Dong , author S

author author X. Dong , author S. Esumi , author P. Sorensen , author N. Xu , \ and\ author Z. Xu ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.110 journal journal Physics Letters B \ volume 597 ,\ pages 328 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.110 2004

[6] [6]

Adare , author S

author author A. Adare , author S. Afanasiev , et al. ( collaboration PHENIX Collaboration ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.064914 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 85 ,\ pages 064914 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.064914 2012

[7] [7]

author author B. B. \ Abelev et al. ( collaboration ALICE ),\ 10.1007/JHEP06(2015)190 journal journal JHEP \ volume 06 ,\ pages 190 ( year 2015 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.4632 arXiv:1405.4632 [nucl-ex] NoStop

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

author author H. H. \ Gutbrod , author A. Sandoval , author P. J. \ Johansen , author A. M. \ Poskanzer , author J. Gosset , author W. G. \ Meyer , author G. D. \ Westfall , \ and\ author R. Stock ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.667 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 37 ,\ pages 667 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.37.667 1976