Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Using FOPI flow and stopping data, the paper constrains the nucleon effective mass and the in-medium elastic cross-section factor to ≤15% uncertainty, while leaving the incompressibility K0 unconstrained.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Bayesian fits to FOPI Au+Au flow and stopping data yield m*/m0 around 0.78-0.88 and F around 0.75-0.88, while K0 remains unconstrained.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Credible Bayesian extraction of m*/m0 and F from FOPI data with honest caveats, but the K0-prior sensitivity check is underreported. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.03406 v1 pith:FV7KX52G submitted 2025-09-03 nucl-th

Bayesian analysis of properties of nuclear matter with the FOPI experimental data

Guojun Wei , Manzi Nan , Pengcheng Li , Yongjia Wang , Qingfeng Li , Gaochan Yong , Fuhu Liu This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords nuclear equation of statenucleon effective massin-medium nucleon-nucleon cross sectionBayesian analysisheavy-ion collisionscollective flownuclear stopping powerUrQMD
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 a small set of flow and stopping observables from gold-gold collisions at two low beam energies can, through Bayesian analysis, tightly pin down two transport-model ingredients: the nucleon effective mass m* and the in-medium correction factor F that scales nucleon-nucleon elastic cross sections relative to free space. Using UrQMD as the simulator and FOPI data on directed flow, elliptic flow, and nuclear stopping, the authors extract m*/m0 = 0.78 (+0.09/-0.10) and F = 0.75 (+0.08/-0.07) at 0.25 GeV/nucleon, rising to m*/m0 = 0.88 (+0.03/-0.03) and F = 0.88 (+0.06/-0.07) at 0.4 GeV/nucleon, each with uncertainty ≤15%. By contrast, the nuclear incompressibility K0 is not tightly constrained; its posterior remains close to its prior, so the paper does not claim a new K0 value. If the extraction holds, these are valuable model-conditioned anchor points for the density and momentum dependence of the effective mass and in-medium cross section near saturation density.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination of the directed-flow slope v11, the mid-rapidity elliptic flow v20, and the nuclear stopping observable vartl for free protons in 197Au+197Au collisions at 0.25 and 0.4 GeV/nucleon carries enough information to separate the nucleon effective mass m* from the constant in-medium correction factor F. After calibrating the UrQMD transport model to these FOPI data through a Gaussian-process emulator and MCMC sampling, the posterior for m*/m0 is 0.78 (+0.09/-0.10) at 0.25 GeV/nucleon and 0.88 (+0.03/-0.03) at 0.4 GeV/nucleon, while F is 0.75 (+0.08/-0.07) and 0.88 (+0.06/-0.07), respectively. The posterior for K0 stays near its Gaussian prior cente

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the UrQMD transport model with a Skyrme-type potential whose momentum dependence is tied to the nucleon effective mass m*, and an in-medium correction factor F = σ_medium^NN/σ_free^NN that multiplies the free-space nucleon-nucleon elastic cross section. A Gaussian-process emulator is trained on 150 UrQMD parameter sets spanning a wide grid in K0, m*, and F, then Markov-chain Monte Carlo sampling converts the mismatch between emulated and experimental observables into posterior distributions for the three parameters. The pivotal move is treating the constant F as an effective parameter that absorbs density and momentum dependence over the probed phase space.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single constant factor F, independent of density and momentum, can represent the in-medium nucleon-nucleon elastic cross section over the phase space probed; the paper itself says this approximation is 'probably not sufficient' and excludes high-transverse-momentum flow data because constant F cannot describe them.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to repeat the same calibration with the same FOPI observables but replace the constant F by a density- and momentum-dependent parametrization of the in-medium cross section; if the recovered m*/m0 shifts by more than the quoted 1σ intervals, the extraction is an artifact of the constant-F assumption. A complementary test is to include the excluded high-transverse-momentum v1 and v2 data and ask whether any single F can still describe them; the paper predicts it cannot.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any UrQMD-type simulation using m*/m0 outside roughly 0.7–0.9 or F outside roughly 0.7–0.9 at these beam energies will not reproduce the FOPI flow and stopping data simultaneously.
  • The positive F–m* correlation and negative F–K0 correlation mean that stopping and integrated flow alone cannot cleanly separate the mean-field momentum dependence from the collision-term strength; the paper identifies v2n as a complementary observable that helps break this degeneracy.
  • The non-constraint of K0 at these energies is itself a message: constraining the incompressibility will require higher-density probes or different observables, not just more statistics on these three quantities.
  • The posterior validation on v2n indicates that the extracted central values generalize to a rapidity-dependent observable that was not part of the calibration.
  • Including transverse-momentum-dependent flow data, which the paper excludes because constant F fails at high transverse momentum, is expected to tighten the constraints once a momentum-dependent F is introduced.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the density region probed by these collisions expands with beam energy, the rise in m*/m0 from 0.78 to 0.88 and F from 0.75 to 0.88 could be read as a first glimpse of the density dependence of these quantities rather than a genuine energy dependence.
  • A decisive extension would be to repeat the same Bayesian calibration at an intermediate energy, say 0.3 GeV/nucleon, or with different collision systems; a smooth trend would support the extraction, while strong system dependence would signal missing physics.
  • Because the paper itself states that constant F is 'probably not sufficient' and cannot describe high-transverse-momentum flow data, the quoted intervals are conditional on that simplification; replacing F with a density- and momentum-dependent parametrization may shift the inferred m*.
  • The K0 non-constraint may reflect the observables chosen rather than any intrinsic insensitivity of heavy-ion collisions: stopping and integrated flow appear to compensate for changes in K0 at these energies, whereas kaon production or higher-energy data could break that compensation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Bayesian calibration of the UrQMD transport model to FOPI data for free protons in 197Au+197Au collisions at 0.25 and 0.4 GeV/nucleon, using the directed-flow slope v11, the mid-rapidity elliptic flow v20, and the stopping observable vartl. The parameters are K0, the nucleon effective mass m*/m0, and a constant in-medium correction factor F multiplying the free-space NN elastic cross section. A Gaussian-process emulator is trained on 150 UrQMD runs and tested on 20 held-out parameter sets. The reported results are m*/m0 = 0.78(+0.09/-0.10), F = 0.75(+0.08/-0.07) at 0.25 GeV/nucleon and m*/m0 = 0.88(+0.03/-0.03), F = 0.88(+0.06/-0.07) at 0.4 GeV/nucleon, with K0 effectively unconstrained. The posteriors are validated against rapidity-dependent v2n data not used in the fit.

Significance. If the reported constraints hold, the paper gives model-conditioned, quantitative bounds on the nucleon effective mass and the in-medium elastic cross-section correction at sub-saturation densities, a useful input for transport modeling and EoS studies. The strengths are the use of a 150-member training set, a held-out validation of the GP emulator (Fig. 7), and an independent validation against v2n data (Figs. 4-5). The internal Bayesian machinery is standard and, as far as presented, correctly executed. However, the headline uncertainty estimates depend on an informative prior for K0 in a way that is not quantitatively documented, and the likelihood contains no model-discrepancy term despite an acknowledged model deficiency. These issues make the central claim as currently stated premature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (5), Figs. 2-3] The paper replaces a uniform K0 prior with a Gaussian(240,60) prior and states that the uniform prior gives 'similar central values' for m* and F, but no numbers, distributions, or quantitative comparison are provided. This is a missing support. Because the posterior of K0 is close to its prior and Figs. 2-3 show a clear negative correlation between F and K0, the informative K0 prior can shrink or shift the joint posterior and thereby shrink or shift the marginalized m* and F intervals. The reported <=15% uncertainties may therefore be partly inherited from the prior rather than from FOPI data. Please report the uniform-prior posterior medians and 68% intervals for all three parameters, and ideally repeat the analysis with different prior widths (e.g., sigma = 40, 60, 80 MeV) to demonstrate robustness.
  2. [Appendix, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The likelihood uses only experimental and emulator variances in Sigma; there is no model-discrepancy term. The model is knowingly incomplete: Sec. I states the constant-F approximation is 'probably not sufficient', and Sec. IV says high-transverse-momentum flow data cannot be reproduced with constant F, which is why those data are excluded. A model with a known, excluded failure mode should not be treated as exact except for emulator noise, or the 68% credible intervals will be overconfident. Please add a model-discrepancy term (e.g., an extra variance parameter learned from the data or set by validation) or at least show how the posterior widths change if an additional 10-20% systematic error is included in the covariance.
  3. [Secs. I and IV] The central claim that m* and F are 'tightly constrained' is model-conditioned on a single density- and momentum-independent F over the selected observables. The paper itself states that this approximation 'is probably not sufficient' and that high-pT flow data are excluded because constant F fails. Under this assumption, the inferred F is an effective average over the probed phase space, and the positive F--m* correlation seen in Figs. 2-3 means that misspecification of F can propagate directly into the m* posterior. Please temper the claim to 'constrained within the UrQMD model family with constant F', and discuss whether a density/momentum-dependent F would change the central values. A concrete test would be to run the same Bayesian analysis with F parametrized as, e.g., F(rho) or F(sqrt(s)), even if only for a subset of observables, to quantify the bias risk.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The likelihood is written as exp[-1/2 (theta - yexp)^T Sigma^-1 (theta - yexp)], but theta is the parameter vector in Eq. (4); the model prediction should be denoted y(theta) or mu(theta). This is a notation error that can confuse readers.
  2. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption is garbled in the text (likely a font-encoding issue during extraction) and does not list which observables are shown. Please regenerate the figure/caption so that the axis labels and the legend are legible and the observables are identified.
  3. [Table I] For the 0.25 GeV/nucleon vartl row, 'b 0 < 0.15' has a spurious space. More importantly, the table would benefit from a column indicating the number of events or statistical uncertainty used in the fit; currently only the experimental values are listed.
  4. [Ref. [76]] Reference [76] is cited as 'to be submitted'. If the exclusion of high-pT data relies on that work, please provide a preprint/DOI or remove the citation; otherwise the statement in Sec. IV is not checkable.
  5. [Fig. 6] The caption says the filled bands are produced by random sampling 'within the stated uncertainty ranges', but it is not clear whether those ranges are 68% or another confidence level. Please state the confidence level used for the literature constraints so that the comparison in Fig. 6 is quantitative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Main inference is data-driven; the v2n validation is partially in-sample, and K0-prior robustness is under-reported.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II (definition of v2n) and Sec. III (validation with v2n)]
    "the quantity v2n defined by v2n = |v20| + |v22| is quite sensitive to the incompressibility K0 and the in-medium nucleon–nucleon elastic cross section, thus v2n is used to validate the inferred results from Bayesian analysis."

    v20 is one of the observables explicitly used in the Bayesian likelihood (Table I lists −v20 for multiple centralities and ut0 cuts). Since v2n = |v20| + |v22|, the validation quantity contains a fitted component: the mid-rapidity elliptic flow v20 is part of the data that constrained m*, F, and K0. Thus the agreement of v2n with FOPI data is partly guaranteed by construction; only the v22 component provides genuinely out-of-sample information. The paper's statement that v2n 'is not used for Bayesian analysis' is therefore true only for the composite observable, not for its dominant component.

full rationale

The central Bayesian extraction of m*, F, and K0 is not circular: the posterior is conditioned on FOPI v11, v20, and vartl data, with uniform priors on m* and F. The reported m*/m0 and F intervals are genuine data-driven inferences within the UrQMD model space, not re-statements of the priors. The K0 Gaussian prior is informative, and the paper reports a uniform-prior check with 'similar central values' but provides no quantitative comparison; this is an under-reported robustness limitation, but it is not circularity. Self-citations to the Huzhou-group UrQMD model are model inputs, not derived results. The only identifiable circular element is the v2n validation, which includes the fitted v20; this partial in-sample check does not affect the main m*/F constraint conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inference rests on UrQMD and the GP emulator as faithful surrogates, on a constant-F approximation the authors themselves call insufficient, on a Gaussian K0 prior selected partly to obtain a well-behaved posterior, and on a likelihood that omits model discrepancy. The three inferred parameters K0, m*, and F are all constrained by FOPI data, but the K0 posterior is essentially a copy of its prior.

free parameters (4)
  • K0 = 234.86(+59.60/-63.56) MeV at 0.25 A GeV; 226.65(+55.65/-50.42) MeV at 0.4 A GeV
    Target parameter of the Bayesian fit. The posterior is close to the Gaussian prior, so K0 is not actually constrained by the data.
  • m*/m0 = 0.78(+0.09/-0.10) at 0.25 A GeV; 0.88(+0.03/-0.03) at 0.4 A GeV
    Nucleon effective mass ratio constrained by flow and stopping observables.
  • F = 0.75(+0.08/-0.07) at 0.25 A GeV; 0.88(+0.06/-0.07) at 0.4 A GeV
    Effective constant in-medium correction to the NN elastic cross section. The authors note this is a simplified approximation and probably not sufficient.
  • K0 prior mean and width = 240 +/- 60 MeV
    Gaussian prior chosen by hand after testing a uniform prior. The paper says this choice was made because current studies tend to favor a soft EoS and because the uniform prior gave a non-Gaussian K0 posterior.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The modified UrQMD transport model accurately describes the dynamics of Au+Au collisions at 0.25 and 0.4 A GeV.
    Used throughout Sec. II and III; model modifications are cited to Refs. [33,62-65], and no model discrepancy term is included in the likelihood.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian process emulator faithfully reproduces UrQMD outputs for the observables used.
    Appendix: trained on 150 UrQMD simulations and tested on 20 random parameter sets with visual agreement in Fig. 7, but no quantitative validation metric is given.
  • ad hoc to paper A single constant F is sufficient to describe the in-medium NN elastic cross-section modification for the selected observables.
    Introduced in Sec. I as "a simple approximation," explicitly called "probably not sufficient," and contradicted by high-pT flow data excluded in Sec. IV.
  • ad hoc to paper The K0 prior is Gaussian with mean 240 MeV and width 60 MeV.
    Chosen in Sec. III after a uniform-prior run produced a non-Gaussian posterior; the paper justifies it by citing existing soft-EoS results.
  • domain assumption The likelihood need only include experimental and emulator errors, with no model discrepancy.
    Appendix, Eqs. (4)-(6): the covariance is a diagonal combination of sigma_exp and sigma_emu only; any UrQMD model error is ignored.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian analysis of properties of nuclear matter with the FOPI experimental data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FV7KX52G

@misc{pith2026250903406,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian analysis of properties of nuclear matter with the FOPI experimental data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FV7KX52G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03406}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Based on the ultra-relativistic quantum molecular dynamics (UrQMD) transport model, combined with experimental data of directed flow, elliptic flow, and nuclear stopping power measured by FOPI in $\rm ^{197}Au+^{197}Au$ collisions at beam energies ($E_{lab}$) of 0.25 and 0.4 GeV/nucleon, the incompressibility of the nuclear equation of state $K_0$, the nucleon effective mass $m^*$, and the in-medium correction factor ($F$, with respect to free-space values) on the nucleon-nucleon elastic cross sections are studied by Bayesian analysis. It is found that both $m^*$ and $F$ can be tightly constrained with the uncertainty $\le$ 15\%, however, $K_0$ cannot be constrained tightly. We deduce $m^*/m_0 = 0.78^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$ and $F = 0.75^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ with experimental data at $E_{lab}$ = 0.25 GeV/nucleon, and the obtained values increased to $m^*/m_0 = 0.88^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ and $F = 0.88^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ at $E_{lab}$ = 0.4 GeV/nucleon. The obtained results are further verified with rapidity-dependent flow data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03406 by Fuhu Liu, Gaochan Yong, Guojun Wei, Manzi Nan, Pengcheng Li, Qingfeng Li, Yongjia Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of UrQMD model data with experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distributions for the EoS parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In the work of Bao-an Li et al. [45], both K0 and F were constrained; while in the work of J. M. Wang et al. [50] and Yongjia Wang et al. [18], only K0 was constrained. It can be seen that there are significant differences. The reasons for those differences might be: (1) These studies employ different observables, and different observables may reflect different density intervals of the EoS. (2) Different t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The v2n of free protons produced from 197Au+197Au collisions with different centralities at Elab = 0.25 GeV/nucleon are shown as a function for K0, m∗ and F. In each panel, the shaded bands indicate the FOPI experimental data and full circles denote the UrQMD calculations using different parameter sets. Each dot represents result of UrQMD calculated with a grid of values. The color of dots denote the magni… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The same as Fig. 4 but for the results at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the m∗ /m0-K0 (a and d), F-K0 (b and e), and F-m∗ /m0 (c and f) correlations obtained from the present work and literature [45, 47, 50]. The filled bands of Bao-An Li and M. D. Cozma are produced through random sampling within the stated uncertainty ranges. In the works of A. Le Fevre et al. and J. M. Wang et al., the free nucleon-nucleon cross section was used, thus F = 1. In the work of Ba… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Emulated vs computed for all observables considered. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Effects of light-cluster degrees of freedom on collective flows in heavy-ion collisions at FOPI energies

    nucl-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    Explicitly propagating light clusters in a Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model substantially modifies predicted proton v1-v4 flows at low FOPI energies (120-400 A MeV) but not above 600 A MeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 27 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. W. Holt, C. Wellenhofer, Chiral Effective Field Theory and the High-Density Nuclear Equation of State, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 403–432. arXiv:2101.01709, doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-102419-041903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Transport approaches for the Description of Intermediate-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions

    J. Xu, Transport approaches for the description of intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106 (2019) 312–359. arXiv:1904.00131, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.009. 7

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    B. Li, L. Chen, C. M. Ko, Recent Progress and New Challenges in Isospin Physics with Heavy-Ion Reactions, Phys. Rept. 464 (2008) 113–281.arXiv:0804.3580, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2008.04.005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Huth, et al., Constraining Neutron-Star Matter with Microscopic and Macroscopic Collisions, Nature 606 (2022) 276–280

    S. Huth, et al., Constraining Neutron-Star Matter with Microscopic and Macroscopic Collisions, Nature 606 (2022) 276–280. arXiv:2107.06229, doi:10.1038/ s41586-022-04750-w

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    C. Y. Tsang, et al., Constraining nucleon effective masses with flow and stopping observables from the S πRIT experiment, Phys. Lett. B 853 (2024) 138661. arXiv: 2312.06678, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138661

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, R. Kumar, C. J. Horowitz, Determination of the equation of state from nuclear experiments and neutron star observations, Nature Astron. 8 (3) (2024) 328–336.arXiv:2310.11588, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02161-z

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, W. G. Lynch, Determination of the equation of state of dense matter, Science 298 (5598) (2002) 1592–1596. arXiv:https://www. science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1078070, doi:10.1126/science.1078070. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.1078070

    doi:10.1126/science.1078070 2002

  9. [9]

    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

    arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    U. Garg, G. Colò, The compression-mode giant resonances and nuclear incompressibility, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 101 (2018) 55–95.arXiv:1801.03672, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.03.001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    J. Xu, Z. Zhang, B.-A. Li, Bayesian uncertainty quantification for nuclear matter incompressibility, Phys. Rev. C 104 (5) (2021) 054324.arXiv:2107.10962, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.054324

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Z.Z.Li, Y.F.Niu, G.Colò, TowardaUnifiedDescription of Isoscalar Giant Monopole Resonances in a Self- Consistent Quasiparticle-Vibration Coupling Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (8) (2023) 082501. arXiv:2211. 01264, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.082501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.082501 2023

  13. [13]

    Probing the Nuclear Symmetry Energy with Heavy Ion Collisions

    M. Di Toro, V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, Probing the Nuclear Symmetry Energy with Heavy Ion Collisions, J. Phys. G 37 (2010) 083101. arXiv:1003.2957, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/8/083101

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Hartnack, H

    C. Hartnack, H. Oeschler, J. Aichelin, Hadronic matter is soft, Physical review letters 96 (1) (2006) 012302.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.012302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.012302 2006

  15. [15]

    C.T.Sturm, etal., Evidenceforasoftnuclearequationof state from kaon production in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 39–42. arXiv:nucl-ex/0011001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.39

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    Probing the nuclear equation of state by $K^+$ production in heavy ion collisions

    C. Fuchs, A. Faessler, E. Zabrodin, Y.-M. Zheng, Probing the nuclear equation of state by K+ production in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 1974–1977. arXiv:nucl-th/0011102, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.86.1974

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    Le Fèvre, Y

    A. Le Fèvre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, C. Hartnack, Constraining the nuclear matter equation of state around twice saturation density, Nucl. Phys. A 945 (2016) 112–133. arXiv:1501.05246, doi:10.1016/ j.nuclphysa.2015.09.015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Y. Wang, C. Guo, Q. Li, A. Le Fèvre, Y. Leifels, W. Trautmann, Determination of the nuclear incom- pressibility from the rapidity-dependent elliptic flow in heavy-ion collisions at beam energies 0.4 A –1.0 A GeV, Phys. Lett. B 778 (2018) 207–212. arXiv:1804.04293, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Hempel, T. Klähn, S. Typel, Equations of state for supernovae and compact stars, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 (1) (2017) 015007. arXiv:1610.03361, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    P. T. H. Pang, et al., An updated nuclear-physics and multi-messenger astrophysics framework for binary neu- tron star mergers, Nature Commun. 14 (1) (2023) 8352. arXiv:2205.08513, doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43932-6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Koehn, et al., From existing and new nuclear and astrophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter (2 2024)

    H. Koehn, et al., From existing and new nuclear and astrophysical constraints to stringent limits on the equation of state of neutron-rich dense matter (2 2024). arXiv:2402.04172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Impact of the nuclear equation of state on the formation of twin stars

    N.-B. Zhang, B.-A. Li, Impact of the nuclear equation of state on the formation of twin stars (6 2024).arXiv: 2406.07396

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Chatziioannou, H

    K. Chatziioannou, H. T. Cromartie, S. Gandolfi, I. Tews, D. Radice, A. W. Steiner, A. L. Watts, Neutron stars and the dense matter equation of state: from microscopic theory to macroscopic observations (7 2024). arXiv: 2407.11153

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    A. C. Semposki, C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, D. R. Phillips, From chiral EFT to perturbative QCD: a Bayesian model mixing approach to symmetric nuclear matter (4 2024).arXiv:2404.06323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    General features of the stellar matter equation of state from microscopic theory, new maximum-mass constraints, and causality

    F. Sammarruca, T. Ajagbonna, General features of the stellar matter equation of state from microscopic theory, new maximum-mass constraints, and causality (12 2024). arXiv:2501.00668

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Symmetry energy investigation with pion production from Sn+Sn systems

    G. Jhang, et al., Symmetry energy investigation with pion production from Sn+Sn systems, Phys. Lett. B 813 (2021) 136016. arXiv:2012.06976, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2020.136016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Understanding transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions at 100 and 400 AMeV: Comparison of heavy ion transport codes under controlled conditions

    J. Xu, et al., Understanding transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions at 100A and 400A MeV: Comparison of heavy-ion transport codes under controlled conditions, Phys. Rev. C 93 (4) (2016) 044609.arXiv:1603.08149, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.044609

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Comparison of heavy-ion transport simulations: Collision integral in a box

    Y.-X. Zhang, et al., Comparison of heavy-ion transport simulations: Collision integral in a box, Phys. Rev. C 97 (3) (2018) 034625.arXiv:1711.05950, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.97.034625

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Comparison of heavy-ion transport simulations: Collision integral with pions and $\Delta$ resonances in a box

    A. Ono, et al., Comparison of heavy-ion transport simulations: Collision integral with pions and ∆ resonances in a box, Phys. Rev. C 100 (4) (2019) 044617. arXiv:1904.02888, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 100.044617

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Comparison of Heavy-Ion Transport Simulations: Mean-field Dynamics in a Box

    M. Colonna, et al., Comparison of heavy-ion transport simulations: Mean-field dynamics in a box, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2) (2021) 024603. arXiv:2106.12287, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.104.024603

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    B. Gao, Y. Wang, Z. Gao, Q. Li, Elliptic flow in heavy- ion collisions at intermediate energy: The role of impact parameter, meanfieldpotential, andcollisionterm, Phys. Lett. B 838 (2023) 137685.arXiv:2210.08213, doi:10. 1016/j.physletb.2023.137685. 8

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Y. Wang, B. Gao, G. Wei, P. Li, Q. Li, Time evolution of elliptic flow and medium density in heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energies, Phys. Rev. C 110 (4) (2024) 044606. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.044606

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.044606 2024

  33. [33]

    Liu, J.-P

    Y.-Y. Liu, J.-P. Yang, Y.-J. Wang, Q.-F. Li, Z.-X. Li, C.-J. Xia, Y.-X. Zhang, A perspective on describing nucleonic flow and pionic observables within the ultra- relativistic quantum molecular dynamics model, Nuclear Science and Techniques 36 (3) (2025) 45.doi:10.1007/ s41365-024-01607-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-024-01607-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01607-x 2025

  34. [34]

    Andronic, J

    A. Andronic, J. Lukasik, W. Reisdorf, W. Trautmann, Systematics of Stopping and Flow in Au+Au Collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 30 (2006) 31–46. arXiv:nucl-ex/ 0608015, doi:10.1140/epja/i2006-10101-2

    doi:10.1140/epja/i2006-10101-2 2006

  35. [35]

    Adamczewski-Musch, et al., Charged-pion production in Au + Au collisions at √sNN = 2 .4 GeV: HADES Collaboration, Eur.Phys.J.A56(10)(2020)259

    J. Adamczewski-Musch, et al., Charged-pion production in Au + Au collisions at √sNN = 2 .4 GeV: HADES Collaboration, Eur.Phys.J.A56(10)(2020)259. arXiv: 2005.08774, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00237-2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Analysis Note: Directed flow $v_1$ of protons in the Xe+Cs(I) collisions at 3.8 AGeV

    M. Mamamev, A. Taranenko, A. Demanov, P. Parfenov, V. Troshin, Analysis Note: Directed flowv1 of protons in the Xe+Cs(I) collisions at 3.8 AGeV (12 2024).arXiv: 2412.08570

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    S. R. Sharma, First-Order Event Plane Correlated Di- rected and Triangular Flow from Fixed-Target Energies at RHIC-STAR, Universe 10 (3) (2024) 118. arXiv: 2312.02666, doi:10.3390/universe10030118

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Dynamics of clusters and fragments in heavy-ion collisions

    A. Ono, Dynamics of clusters and fragments in heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 105 (2019) 139–179. arXiv:1903.00608, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.11.001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Bleicher, E

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    B.Li, B.Cai, L.Chen, J.Xu, NucleonEffectiveMassesin Neutron-Rich Matter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 99 (2018) 29–119. arXiv:1801.01213, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018. 01.001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    S. C. Han, X. L. Shang, W. Zuo, G. C. Yong, Y. Gao, In- medium nucleon-nucleon cross section in nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C 106 (6) (2022) 064332. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.106.064332

    2022

  42. [42]

    Y. Cui, Y. Zhang, Z. Li, In-medium NN → N∆ cross section and its dependence on effective Lagrange parameters in isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter, Chin. Phys. C 43 (2) (2019) 024105.arXiv:1801.05960, doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/43/2/024105

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Y. D. Song, R. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y. G. Ma, In-medium nucleon-nucleon cross sections from characteristics of nuclear giant resonances and nuclear stopping power, Phys. Rev. C 108 (6) (2023) 064603. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.108.064603

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    B. Li, W. Xie, Bayesian inference of in-medium baryon- baryonscatteringcrosssectionsfromHADESprotonflow data, Nucl. Phys. A 1039 (2023) 122726. arXiv:2303. 10474, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122726

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Evolutions of in-medium baryon-baryon scattering cross sections and stiffness of dense nuclear matter from Bayesian analyses of FOPI proton flow excitation functions

    B.-A. Li, W.-J. Xie, Evolution of in-medium baryon- baryon scattering cross sections and stiffness of dense nuclear matter from Bayesian analyses of FOPI proton- flow excitation functions, Phys. Rev. C 111 (5) (2025) 054602. arXiv:2501.02579, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 111.054602

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Y. Gal, P. Koumoutsakos, F. Lanusse, G. Louppe, C. Papadimitriou, Bayesian uncertainty quantification for machine-learned models in physics, Nature Re- views Physics 4 (9) (2022) 573–577. doi:10.1038/ s42254-022-00498-4

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    M. D. Cozma, Equation of state of nuclear matter from collective flows and stopping in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) 064911. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.064911

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.064911 2024

  48. [48]

    Omana Kuttan, J

    M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, H. Stoecker, QCD Equation of State of Dense Nuclear Matter from a Bayesian Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collision Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (20) (2023) 202303. arXiv:2211.11670, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.202303

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    J. E. Bernhard, Bayesian parameter estimation for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Ph.D. thesis, Duke U. (4 2018). arXiv:1804.06469

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    J. M. Wang, X. G. Deng, W. J. Xie, B. A. Li, Y. G. Ma, Bayesian inference of nuclear incompressibility from proton elliptic flow in central Au+Au collisions at 400 MeV/nucleon (6 2024).arXiv:2406.07051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Reisdorf, H

    W. Reisdorf, H. Ritter, Collective flow in heavy-ion collisions, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 47 (1) (1997) 663–709.doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.47. 1.663

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.47 1997

  52. [52]

    Herrmann, J

    N. Herrmann, J. P. Wessels, T. Wienold, Collective flow in heavy-ion collisions, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 49 (1) (1999) 581–632. doi:10.1146/ annurev.nucl.47.1.663

    work page 1999

  53. [53]

    Heinz, R

    U. Heinz, R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123–151.arXiv:1301.2826, doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-102212-170540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Lan, S.-S

    S.-W. Lan, S.-S. Shi, Anisotropic flow in high baryon density region, Nuclear Science and Techniques 33 (2) (2022) 21

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Elfner, B

    H. Elfner, B. Müller, The exploration of hot and dense nuclear matter: introduction to relativistic heavy-ion physics, J. Phys. G 50 (10) (2023) 103001. arXiv: 2210.12056, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ace824

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Y. Wang, Q. Li, Y. Leifels, A. Le Fèvre, Study of the nuclear symmetry energy from the rapidity-dependent elliptic flow in heavy-ion collisions around 1 GeV/nucleon regime, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135249.doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2020.135249

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Reisdorf, et al., Systematics of azimuthal asymme- tries in heavy ion collisions in the 1 A GeV regime, Nucl

    W. Reisdorf, et al., Systematics of azimuthal asymme- tries in heavy ion collisions in the 1 A GeV regime, Nucl. Phys. A 876 (2012) 1–60.arXiv:1112.3180, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2011.12.006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    Reisdorf, A

    W. Reisdorf, A. Andronic, A. Gobbi, O. N. Hartmann, N. Herrmann, K. D. Hildenbrand, Y. J. Kim, M. Kirejczyk, P. Koczoń, T. Kress, Y. Leifels, A. Schüttauf, Z. Tymiński, Z. G. Xiao, J. P. Alard, V. Barret, Z. Basrak, N. Bastid, M. L. Benabderrahmane, R. Čaplar, P. Crochet, P. Dupieux, M. Dželalija, Z. Fodor, Y. Grishkin, B. Hong, J. Kecskemeti, M. Korolija...

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    Lehaut, et al., Study of Nuclear Stopping in Central Collisions at Intermediate Energies, Phys

    G. Lehaut, et al., Study of Nuclear Stopping in Central Collisions at Intermediate Energies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 232701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.232701

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.232701 2010

  60. [60]

    In-medium effects for nuclear matter in the Fermi energy domain

    O. Lopez, et al., In-medium effects for nuclear matter in the Fermi energy domain, Phys. Rev. C 90 (6) (2014) 064602, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 069903 (2014)]. arXiv:1409.0735, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.064602

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Reisdorf, et al., Systematics of central heavy ion collisions in the 1A GeV regime, Nucl

    W. Reisdorf, et al., Systematics of central heavy ion collisions in the 1A GeV regime, Nucl. Phys. A 848 (2010) 366–427. arXiv:1005.3418, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa. 2010.09.008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    Q. Li, C. Shen, C. Guo, Y. Wang, Z. Li, J. Lukasik, W. Trautmann, Nonequilibrium dynamics in heavy- ion collisions at low energies available at the GSI Schwerionen Synchrotron, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044617. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.044617

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.044617 2011

  63. [63]

    Y. Wang, C. Guo, Q. Li, H. Zhang, Z. Li, W. Trautmann, Collective flows of light particles in the Au+Au collisions at intermediate energies, Phys. Rev. C 89 (3) (2014) 034606. arXiv:1305.4730, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89. 034606

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    Y. Wang, Q. Li, Application of microscopic transport model in the study of nuclear equation of state from heavy ion collisions at intermediate energies, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 15 (4) (2020) 44302. doi:10.1007/ s11467-020-0964-6

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    P. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li, C. Guo, H. Zhang, Effects of the in-medium nucleon-nucleon cross section on collective flow and nuclear stopping in heavy-ion collisions in the Fermi-energy domain, Phys. Rev. C 97 (4) (2018) 044620. arXiv:1804.04288, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044620

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Determination of the Mean-Field Momentum-Dependence using Elliptic Flow

    P. Danielewicz, Determination of the mean field momentum dependence using elliptic flow, Nucl. Phys. A 673 (2000) 375–410. arXiv:nucl-th/9912027, doi: 10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00083-X

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  67. [67]

    P. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li, H. Zhang, Accessing the in- medium effects on nucleon-nucleon elastic cross section with collective flows and nuclear stopping, Phys. Lett. B 828 (2022) 137019. arXiv:2203.05855, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2022.137019

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Hartnack, H

    C. Hartnack, H. Oeschler, Y. Leifels, E. L. Bratkovskaya, J. Aichelin, Strangeness Production close to Threshold in Proton-Nucleus and Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rept. 510 (2012) 119–200. arXiv:1106.2083, doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2011.08.004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  69. [69]

    Le Fèvre, Y

    A. Le Fèvre, Y. Leifels, C. Hartnack, J. Aichelin, Origin ofellipticflowanditsdependenceontheequationofstate in heavy ion reactions at intermediate energies, Phys. Rev. C 98 (3) (2018) 034901. arXiv:1611.07500, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Directed and elliptic flows of protons and deuterons in HADES Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.4$ GeV

    H. Du, G.-F. Wei, G.-C. Yong, Directed and elliptic flows of protons and deuterons in HADES Au+Au collisions at sNN=2.4 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137823.arXiv: 2302.07037, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137823

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Kireyeu, V

    V. Kireyeu, V. Voronyuk, M. Winn, S. Gläßel, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, J. Zhao, Constraints on the equation-of-state from low energy heavy-ion collisions within the PHQMD microscopic approach with momentum-dependent potential (11 2024). arXiv:2411.04969

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    P. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li, H. Zhang, Collective flow and nuclear stopping in heavy ion collisions in Fermi energy domain, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 29 (12) (2018) 177. doi:10. 1007/s41365-018-0510-1

    work page 2018

  73. [73]

    X. Deng, D. Fang, Y. Ma, Shear viscosity of nucleonic matter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 136 (2024) 104095. arXiv:2401.02293, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104095

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    M. Isse, A. Ohnishi, N. Otuka, P. K. Sahu, Y. Nara, Mean-field effects on collective flows in high-energy heavy-ion collisions from AGS to SPS energies, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064908.arXiv:nucl-th/0502058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064908

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  75. [75]

    Directed flow in Au+Au, Xe+CsI and Ni+Ni collisions and the nuclear equation of state

    A. Andronic, et al., Directed flow in Au + Au, Xe + CsI and Ni + Ni collisions and the nuclear equation of state, Phys.Rev.C67(2003)034907. arXiv:nucl-ex/0301009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.67.034907

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  76. [76]

    Wei, et al., to be submitted

    G. Wei, et al., to be submitted

    work page

  77. [77]

    Yang, et al., Bayesian analysis on interactions of exotic nuclear systems, Phys

    L. Yang, et al., Bayesian analysis on interactions of exotic nuclear systems, Phys. Lett. B 807 (2020) 135540.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135540

    work page arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Mäntysaari, B

    H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, W. Zhao, Bayesian inference of the fluctuating proton shape, Phys. Lett. B 833 (2022) 137348. arXiv:2202.01998, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2022.137348

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Everett, et al., Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of QCD matter, Phys

    D. Everett, et al., Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of QCD matter, Phys. Rev. C 103(5)(2021)054904. arXiv:2011.01430, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.103.054904

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Y. Wang, Q. Li, Machine learning transforms the inference of the nuclear equation of state, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 18 (6) (2023) 64402.arXiv:2305.16686, doi: 10.1007/s11467-023-1313-3

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.