Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that measuring two triangular-flow cumulants in ultra-central uranium-238 collisions can separately extract the mean and variance of the octupole deformation, distinguishing a rigid pear shape from a soft vibration.

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 ↗

T0 review

2026-08-04 19:10 UTC pith:HJOAFJMV

load-bearing objection Useful extension of the cumulant–deformation framework to octupole moments, but the unquantified nucleon-fluctuation baseline in c3{4} is the load-bearing soft spot. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.09376 v2 pith:HJOAFJMV submitted 2025-09-11 nucl-th nucl-ex

Scaling approach to rigid and soft nuclear deformation through flow fluctuations in high-energy nuclear collisions

Lumeng Liu , Chunjian Zhang , Jinhui Chen , Jiangyong Jia , Xu-Guang Huang , Yu-Gang Ma This is my paper
classification nucl-th nucl-ex
keywords octupole deformationnuclear shape fluctuationstriangular flowmulti-particle cumulantsultra-central heavy-ion collisionsuranium-238deformed nucleirelativistic nuclear collisions
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.

Two-particle flow tells you the average squared octupole deformation; the paper shows that the four-particle cumulant adds independent information. The central claim is a scaling law: in ultra-central 238U+238U collisions, the fourth-order cumulant of triangular flow, and its ratio to the squared second-order cumulant, grow linearly with the fourth moment of the octupole deformation while the second-order moment is held fixed. A rigid static deformation has a small fourth moment relative to its squared second moment, while a soft vibrational deformation has a large one, so the two measurements together fix both the mean and the variance of the pear-shaped deformation. The paper derives this relation analytically and confirms it with Monte Carlo initial-condition simulations spanning the rigid and soft limits. If correct, this turns a heavy-ion collision experiment into a direct probe of whether octupole collectivity in uranium is static or dynamic.

Core claim

The central discovery is a clean separation of scales in the fourth-order eccentricity cumulant. For a nucleus with a small octupole deformation, c_{3,epsilon}{4} splits into a background term from spherical nucleon fluctuations and a deformation-induced term proportional to <beta^4_3> minus a compensation term proportional to <beta^2_3>^2. The paper argues — and its simulations confirm — that for triangular flow in ultra-central U+U collisions the background term is subdominant, so the cumulant and its ratio to c^2_{3,epsilon}{2} follow a linear trajectory in <beta^4_3> at fixed <beta^2_3> = 0.01. The two- and four-particle cumulants then give two equations in the two unknowns <beta^2> and

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (4), which decomposes the fourth-order eccentricity cumulant c_{n,epsilon}{4} = <epsilon^4> - 2<epsilon^2>^2 into a spherical-nucleon-fluctuation term and a deformation-induced term involving <beta^4> and <beta^2>^2. The companion relation Eq. (3) pins down <beta^2> from the two-particle cumulant. The normalized ratio c_{3,epsilon}{4}/c^2_{3,epsilon}{2} and the U+U-to-Au+Au double ratio cancel the hydrodynamic response coefficient and final-state effects, leaving a nuclear-structure-only observable. A Monte Carlo initial-condition model scanning from soft (variance-dominated) to rigid (mean-dominated) octupole deformation at fixed <beta^2> validates the linea

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spherical-nucleon-fluctuation contribution to the fourth-order triangular-flow cumulant is subdominant for ultra-central uranium collisions; the paper states this after Eq. (4) without a numerical estimate, and if it is wrong the linear scaling with <beta^4> would be contaminated.

What would settle it

Set the octupole deformation to zero in the paper's initial-condition model and compute |c_{3,epsilon}{4}| at 0-2% centrality; if this background is comparable in magnitude to the deformation-induced values plotted in Fig. 3(a), the claimed linear scaling and the extraction of <beta^4> would fail. A second, complementary check is to vary <beta^2_3> away from 0.01 and test whether the slope of |c_{3,epsilon}{4}| versus <beta^4_3> remains independent of <beta^2_3>, as Eq. (4) requires.

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

If this is right

  • A measurement of v3{2} and v3{4}/v3{2} in 238U+238U collisions would give both the mean and variance of the octupole deformation, directly answering whether the pear shape is static or vibrating.
  • The clean separation at fixed <beta^2> means the same two- and four-particle cumulant pair can be used for other deformed nuclei and other multipole orders, as the analytical relations are written for general n.
  • Higher-order cumulants c{6} and c{8} extend the hierarchy to <beta^6> and <beta^8>, offering a route to the skewness and kurtosis of nuclear shape fluctuations.
  • The ratio between U+U and Au+Au collisions cancels final-state hydrodynamic effects, so the extracted deformation moments should be robust even without full viscous-hydrodynamic calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the decisive test of the method is the size of the spherical-nucleon-fluctuation term in Eq. (4); a direct comparison of c_{3,epsilon}{4} in beta_3=0 simulations or in Au+Au data at the same centrality would show whether the claimed subdominance holds.
  • Editorial inference: if the scaling survives full hydrodynamic simulations, the method effectively turns the event-by-event flow distribution into a shape-distribution spectrometer, mapping moments of beta up to eighth order onto cumulants of the flow.
  • Editorial inference: because the Gaussian assumption for beta fluctuations is only approximate, the extraction of mean and variance will need systematic checks against non-Gaussian shapes; the higher-order cumulant formulas in the paper provide the natural consistency test.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an analytical scaling relation connecting the fourth-order cumulant of the triangular-flow initial eccentricity, c_{3,\varepsilon}{4}, to the fourth-order moment of the octupole deformation parameter, \langle\beta^4_{3}\rangle, at fixed second-order moment \langle\beta^2_3\rangle. The derivation starts from a leading-order expansion of the eccentricity vector in the deformation parameter, and the key result is Eq. (4), which decomposes c_{3,\varepsilon}{4} into a spherical nucleon-fluctuation baseline plus a deformation-induced term. The authors argue that the spherical baseline is subdominant for n=3. They validate the linear dependence with TRENTo initial-condition simulations for seven (\bar{\beta}_3,\sigma_{\beta_3}) combinations in U+U collisions at fixed \langle\beta^2_{3,U}\rangle=0.01, and also present ratios with Au+Au collisions. They then propose to extract \langle\beta^2_{3,U}\rangle from v_3{2} and \langle\beta^4_{3,U}\rangle from v_3{4}/v_3{2}, and to obtain \bar{\beta}_3 and \sigma_{\beta_3} via Eq. (5) under a Gaussian assumption. Higher-order cumulants (c_{n,\varepsilon}{6}, c_{n,\varepsilon}{8}) are also written down for future non-Gaussian studies.

Significance. The physics question addressed—whether octupole collectivity in 238U is rigid or soft—is important and timely. The proposed observable, the normalized fourth-order cumulant ratio, is a clever and potentially direct discriminator because two-particle cumulants only probe the second moment of the deformation distribution. The analytic relation of Eq. (4) is clean under the stated independence assumptions, and the TRENTo scans over seven carefully chosen cases provide a concrete consistency check. The extension to higher-order cumulants gives a roadmap for measuring non-Gaussian shape fluctuations. If the linear relation survives full hydrodynamic evolution and the spherical baseline is truly subdominant, this would be a valuable new tool that goes beyond existing measurements. The paper is transparent about its model parameters and prior constraints, and it explicitly identifies the Gaussian assumption as a limitation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4) and following text] The assertion that the spherical nucleon-fluctuation term \langle\varepsilon^4_{3,0}\rangle - 2\langle\varepsilon^2_{3,0}\rangle^2 is 'subdominant' for triangular flow is load-bearing for the entire extraction scheme, but no quantitative estimate is provided. Since \varepsilon_{3,0} arises only from nucleon fluctuations, this term is precisely the \beta_3=0 baseline of c_{3,\varepsilon}{4}; from Fig. 1(a), \langle\varepsilon^2_{3,0}\rangle ~ 1.5–2×10^{-2}, so the baseline magnitude is of order 10^{-4}, comparable to the whole scanned range of \langle\beta^4_{3,U}\rangle (1–3×10^{-4} in Table I). If this baseline is not small, the linear fits in Fig. 3(a) carry a substantial offset, and Eq. (5) would give a biased estimate of \langle\beta^4_{3,U}\rangle unless the offset is independently subtracted. The U/Au ratio in Fig. 4(b) does not remove this problem because the Au baseline is a sepa
  2. [Figs. 3–4 and Eqs. (8)–(9)] The central experimental proposal is to measure v_3{4}/v_3{2} in the final state, but all validation is performed on initial-state eccentricity cumulants. The mapping of the initial-state ratio to the final-state ratio relies on the linear response assumption v_n = \kappa \varepsilon_n, stated in Eq. (8), and the claim in Eq. (9) that the response coefficient cancels in the normalized ratio. This is a nontrivial step: \kappa for n=3 in ultra-central collisions has a centrality dependence and may have nonlinear corrections. The reference to Ref. [60] concerns ratios of flow observables in isobar collisions, which is not the same as the ratio v_3{4}/v_3{2} in a single system. The authors should validate the ratio with a full hydrodynamic calculation (or a viscous transport model) for at least the 0–2% and 0–5% centralities, or provide a quantitative argument that nonlinearities in the v_3
  3. [Eq. (4)] The derivation of Eq. (4) is presented without explicitly listing which cross terms are dropped. Expanding (\varepsilon_{n,0}+p_n\beta_n)^4 generates terms such as \langle \varepsilon^2_{n,0}\rangle \langle p_n^2\rangle \langle\beta_n^2\rangle and \langle \varepsilon_{n,0} p_n^3\rangle \langle\beta_n^3\rangle. Under the stated assumptions of independent \varepsilon_{n,0}, p_n, and \beta_n, and isotropic phases for \varepsilon_{n,0} and p_n, many of these terms vanish, but the manuscript does not say so explicitly. A short derivation or a statement of the vanishing moments would remove ambiguity about the validity of Eq. (4).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The formulas for \bar{\beta}_3 and \sigma_{\beta_3} are corrupted in the manuscript text (e.g., '4 ⌟roo⟪⟪op'), making the intended expressions unreadable. They should be typeset cleanly; from the text they appear to be \bar{\beta}_3 = [(3\langle\beta^2\rangle^2 - \langle\beta^4\rangle)/2]^{1/4} and \sigma_{\beta_3} = \sqrt{\langle\beta^2\rangle - \bar{\beta}_3^2}, but this needs verification with correct notation.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and OCR artifacts: 'constrait' should be 'constraint', 'flucuation' should be 'fluctuation', 'T RENTo' spacing is irregular, and the y-axis labels in the figures (e.g., '0 2c3, {4} ×10 5' in Fig. 1(b)) are ambiguous—please clarify whether absolute values are plotted and whether the factor 2 is part of the label.
  3. [Results and discussions] The statement 'We have verified that 96Zr+96Zr and 96Ru+96Ru collisions yield qualitatively identical results' is not supported by any figure or table. Either include this verification or remove the claim.
  4. [Introduction and Summary] Reference [26] is described as 'a previous RHIC-STAR measurement,' but the reference is a preprint (arXiv:2504.15245) and not a published STAR measurement at the time of writing. Please clarify the status of this reference or make the wording precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the ⟨β^4⟩ scaling is derived analytically and model-checked; self-cited ⟨β^2⟩ input is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that |c_{3,ε}{4}| and the normalized ratio scale linearly with ⟨β^4_{3,U}⟩ at fixed ⟨β^2_{3,U}⟩. This follows algebraically from Eq. (4), which is a leading-order Taylor expansion (Eq. 2) of the eccentricity vector in the deformation parameter; the appearance of ⟨β^4⟩ in the fourth-order cumulant is a derived term, not a definition of the observable. The TRENTo simulations (Figs. 1–4) are a consistency check of the derived functional form, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The ratio to Au+Au is linear only because the Au denominator is approximately constant in the scan, and the paper presents this as an isolation procedure rather than a new independent law. The only self-cited external input is ⟨β^2_{3,U}⟩≈0.01 from the authors' prior work [22,26], used to fix the scan constraint; the new observable targets the independent fourth moment ⟨β^4_{3,U}⟩, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The unquantified assertion just after Eq. (4) that the spherical nucleon-fluctuation term is subdominant is a genuine systematic risk for an unbiased extraction, but it is an assumption about background magnitude, not a reduction of the target observable to an input. Hence no circular step is present; the derivation is self-contained apart from a normal, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The cost of the method is a set of modeling assumptions: linear response, uncorrelated fluctuations, subdominance of the spherical fourth cumulant, Gaussian axial octupole fluctuations, and fixed geometry inputs. These assumptions, especially the subdominance claim and the Gaussian ansatz, are the terms a user must accept before trusting the extracted variance.

free parameters (3)
  • Fixed second-order octupole moment <beta^2_{3,U}> = 0.01
    Taken from prior measurements and analyses in Refs. 22 and 26, and held fixed across all TRENTo cases. The extraction scheme treats this as a known input.
  • TRENTo parameters (p, w, n_c, d_min) = p=0, w=0.5 fm, n_c=1, d_min=0.9 fm
    Standard choices adopted without a sensitivity scan, so the robustness of the linear scaling slopes to these settings is not demonstrated.
  • Nuclear shape inputs for U and Au (R0, a, beta2, beta4) = R0,U=6.81 fm, a_U=0.55 fm, beta2,U=0.28, beta4,U=0.09; Au inputs as in Refs. 20 and 22
    Adopted from previous studies and used in the thickness functions that determine the geometry factors in Eq. (2).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The eccentricity vector admits a leading-order linear expansion in beta_n with independent spherical and deformation contributions.
    Eq. (2) citing Refs. 11, 47, 55; neglects O(beta^2) terms and cross terms between epsilon_0 and beta in the cumulants.
  • domain assumption Event-by-event fluctuations of epsilon_n0, beta_n, and rotation angles are uncorrelated.
    Stated before Eq. (3); needed for factorizing averages such as <epsilon_n0 p_n* beta_n> into separate moments.
  • domain assumption The nucleon-fluctuation contribution <epsilon^4_{3,0}> - 2<epsilon^2_{3,0}>^2 is subdominant for 238U at beta3 approximately 0.1.
    Asserted just after Eq. (4) without a numerical estimate; if false, the linear scaling of c_{3,epsilon}{4} with <beta^4> breaks down.
  • ad hoc to paper Beta3 fluctuations are Gaussian and only the axial m=0 component contributes.
    Introduced before Eq. (5) 'for simplicity'; it permits inversion of the moments to obtain the mean and variance, but is not tested against non-Gaussian or m not equal to 0 cases.
  • domain assumption Final-state flow is proportional to initial eccentricity, v_n = kappa epsilon_n, and ratios of cumulants cancel the response.
    Eqs. (8) and (9) map initial-state eccentricity cumulants to measured flow cumulants, relying on Refs. 48 and 60.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12125 in / 15158 out tokens · 153310 ms · 2026-08-04T19:10:31.417004+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The nature of octupole deformation, whether static or vibrational, remains an open question in nuclear physics. Here, we propose a scaling approach to probe this ambiguity by triangular flow fluctuations using multi-particle cumulants, $c_{3,\varepsilon}\{4\}$, in relativistic $^{238}$U+$^{238}$U collisions. We demonstrate that both $|c_{3,\varepsilon}\{4\}|$ and the ratio $|c_{3,\varepsilon}\{4\}/c^2_{3,\varepsilon}\{2\}|$ scale linearly with the fourth-order moment of octupole deformation, $\langle \beta^4_{3,\mathrm{U}} \rangle$. Combined with the known linear relation of $c_{3,\varepsilon}\{2\}$ to $\langle \beta^2_{3,\mathrm{U}} \rangle$, this new relation provides a direct extraction of both the mean and variance of the octupole deformation fluctuations, finally discriminating between static and dynamic origins. This work establishes a new tool to probe the static and dynamic collective modes in high-energy nuclear collisions, advancing a significant step toward refining the initial conditions of quark-gluon plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09376 by Chunjian Zhang, Jiangyong Jia, Jinhui Chen, Lumeng Liu, Xu-Guang Huang, Yu-Gang Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Centrality dependence of the two-particle cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Dependence of the two-particle cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Dependence of the four-particle cumulant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Yoctosecond imaging of the ground state of $^{129}$Xe at the Large Hadron Collider

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Bayesian global fit to Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb LHC data infers nearly maximal triaxiality for the 129Xe ground state and extracts two- and three-particle correlations.

  2. Nonlinear collective flow reveals the breakdown of quadrupole--hexadecapole scaling in heavy ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    The nonlinear flow coefficient ξ6,222 in simulated U+U collisions separates the four (β2, β4) nuclear topology classes, making the sign of the hexadecapole deformation β4 experimentally accessible.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    History of the concept of nuclear shape,

    David Verney, “History of the concept of nuclear shape,” Eur. Phys. J. A61, 82 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Octupole shapes in nuclei,

    I. Ahmad and P. A. Butler, “Octupole shapes in nuclei,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.43, 71–116 (1993)

    1993

  3. [3]

    Electric dipole moments of atoms, 6 molecules, nuclei, and particles,

    T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. T. Singh, “Electric dipole moments of atoms, 6 molecules, nuclei, and particles,” Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015001 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams,

    L. P. Gaffney, P. A. Butler,et al., “Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams,” Nature497, 199–204 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Octupole collectivity in nuclei,

    P. A. Butler, “Octupole collectivity in nuclei,” J. Phys. G43, 073002 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Reduced Electric-Octupole Transition Probabilities, B(E3:0(1)+ —>3(1)-), for Even-Even Nu- clides throughout the Periodic Table,

    R. H. Spear, “Reduced Electric-Octupole Transition Probabilities, B(E3:0(1)+ —>3(1)-), for Even-Even Nu- clides throughout the Periodic Table,” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.42, 55–104 (1989)

    1989

  7. [7]

    Coulomb excitation of states in 238U,

    F.K. McGowan and W.T. Milner, “Coulomb excitation of states in 238U,” Nuclear Physics A571, 569–587 (1994)

    1994

  8. [8]

    REDUCED ELECTRIC- OCTUPOLE TRANSITION PROBABILITIES, B ( E 3;0 1 +→3 1−)—AN UPDATE,

    T KIB ´EDI and R. H SPEAR, “REDUCED ELECTRIC- OCTUPOLE TRANSITION PROBABILITIES, B ( E 3;0 1 +→3 1−)—AN UPDATE,” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.80, 35–82 (2002)

    2002

  9. [9]

    Octupole defor- mation in the ground states of even-even Z∼96, N∼196 ac- tinides and superheavy nuclei,

    S. E. Agbemava and A. V. Afanasjev, “Octupole defor- mation in the ground states of even-even Z∼96, N∼196 ac- tinides and superheavy nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C96, 024301 (2017), arXiv:1710.03867 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart,

    Jiangyong Jiaet al., “Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart,” Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 220 (2024), arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Probing triaxial deformation of atomic nuclei in high-energy heavy ion collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, “Probing triaxial deformation of atomic nuclei in high-energy heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 105, 044905 (2022), arXiv:2109.00604 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Influence of Nuclear Structure in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions,

    Yu-Gang Ma and Song Zhang, “Influence of Nuclear Structure in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions,” inHand- book of Nuclear Physics, edited by Isao Tanihata, Hi- roshi Toki, and Toshitaka Kajino (2022) pp. 1–30, arXiv:2206.08218 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Separating the Impact of Nuclear Skin and Nuclear De- formation in High-Energy Isobar Collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, Giuliano Giacalone, and Chunjian Zhang, “Separating the Impact of Nuclear Skin and Nuclear De- formation in High-Energy Isobar Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 022301 (2023), arXiv:2206.10449 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Imaging of nuclear deformation in high-energy nuclear collisions,

    Chunjian Zhang and Jiangyong Jia, “Imaging of nuclear deformation in high-energy nuclear collisions,” Sci. Sin. Phys. Mech. Astro.54, 1 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Nuclear Physics Con- fronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars,

    Giuliano Giacaloneet al., “Nuclear Physics Con- fronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars,” (2025), arXiv:2507.01454 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Methods for systematic study of nuclear struc- ture in high-energy collisions,

    Matthew Luzum, Mauricio Hippert, and Jean-Yves Ol- litrault, “Methods for systematic study of nuclear struc- ture in high-energy collisions,” Eur. Phys. J. A59, 110 (2023), arXiv:2302.14026 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Parameterization of De- formed Nuclei for Glauber Modeling in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,

    Q. Y. Shou, Y. G. Ma, P. Sorensen, A. H. Tang, F. Videbæk, and H. Wang, “Parameterization of De- formed Nuclei for Glauber Modeling in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,” Phys. Lett. B749, 215–220 (2015), arXiv:1409.8375 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions,

    Bjoern Schenke, Chun Shen, and Prithwish Tribedy, “Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions,” Phys. Rev. C102, 044905 (2020), arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Impact of Nuclear Deformation on Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: Assessing Consistency in Nuclear Physics across Energy Scales,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Jiangyong Jia, and Chunjian Zhang, “Impact of Nuclear Deformation on Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: Assessing Consistency in Nuclear Physics across Energy Scales,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2105.01638 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions,

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), “Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions,” Nature 635, 67–72 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Beyond axial symmetry: high- energy collisions unveil the ground-state shape of 238U,

    Giuliano Giacalone, “Beyond axial symmetry: high- energy collisions unveil the ground-state shape of 238U,” Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 218 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Imaging nuclear shape through anisotropic and ra- dial flow in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,

    “Imaging nuclear shape through anisotropic and ra- dial flow in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2506.17785 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Pos- sible octupole deformation of 208Pb and the ultracen- tralv 2 tov 3 puzzle,

    Patrick Carzon, Skandaprasad Rao, Matthew Luzum, Matthew Sievert, and Jacquelyn Noronha-Hostler, “Pos- sible octupole deformation of 208Pb and the ultracen- tralv 2 tov 3 puzzle,” Phys. Rev. C102, 054905 (2020), arXiv:2007.00780 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ultrarelativistic Energies,

    Chunjian Zhang and Jiangyong Jia, “Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ultrarelativistic Energies,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 022301 (2022), arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Momentum- dependent flow correlations in deformed nuclei at col- lision energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,

    Rupam Samanta and Piotr Bo˙ zek, “Momentum- dependent flow correlations in deformed nuclei at col- lision energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. C107, 054916 (2023), arXiv:2301.10659 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Probing the octupole deforma- tion of 238U in high-energy nuclear collisions,

    Chunjian Zhang, Jiangyong Jia, Jinhui Chen, Chun Shen, and Lumeng Liu, “Probing the octupole deforma- tion of 238U in high-energy nuclear collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2504.15245 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Deformation probes for light nu- clei in their collisions at relativistic energies,

    Hai-Cheng Wang, Song-Jie Li, Lu-Meng Liu, Jun Xu, and Zhong-Zhou Ren, “Deformation probes for light nu- clei in their collisions at relativistic energies,” Phys. Rev. C110, 034909 (2024), arXiv:2409.02452 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Evidence of Hexadecapole Deformation in Uranium-238 at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,

    Wouter Ryssens, Giuliano Giacalone, Bj¨ orn Schenke, and Chun Shen, “Evidence of Hexadecapole Deformation in Uranium-238 at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 212302 (2023), arXiv:2302.13617 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Hexadecapole Deformation of U238 from Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lisions Using a Nonlinear Response Coefficient,

    Hao-jie Xu, Jie Zhao, and Fuqiang Wang, “Hexadecapole Deformation of U238 from Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lisions Using a Nonlinear Response Coefficient,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 262301 (2024), arXiv:2402.16550 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Systematic investigation of the nuclear multi- pole deformations in U+U collisions with a multi-phase transport model,

    Zaining Wang, Jinhui Chen, Hao-jie Xu, and Jie Zhao, “Systematic investigation of the nuclear multi- pole deformations in U+U collisions with a multi-phase transport model,” Phys. Rev. C110, 034907 (2024), arXiv:2405.09329 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Violent collisions can reveal hexade- capole deformation of nuclei,

    Bj¨ orn Schenke, “Violent collisions can reveal hexade- capole deformation of nuclei,” Nuclear Science and Tech- niques35, 115 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Evidence of the triaxial structure of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Benjamin Bally, Michael Bender, Giuliano Giacalone, and Vittorio Som` a, “Evidence of the triaxial structure of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 082301 (2022), arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Georges Aadet al.(ATLAS), “Correlations between flow and transverse momentum in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb colli- sions at the LHC with the ATLAS detector: A probe of the heavy-ion initial state and nuclear deformation,” Phys. Rev. C107, 054910 (2023), arXiv:2205.00039 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Characterizing the initial conditions of heavy-ion collisions at the LHC with mean transverse momentum and anisotropic flow correlations,

    Shreyasi Acharyaet al.(ALICE), “Characterizing the initial conditions of heavy-ion collisions at the LHC with mean transverse momentum and anisotropic flow correlations,” Phys. Lett. B834, 137393 (2022), arXiv:2111.06106 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Probe nuclear structure using the anisotropic flow at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Zhiyong Lu, Mingrui Zhao, Xiaomei Li, Jiangyong Jia, 7 and You Zhou, “Probe nuclear structure using the anisotropic flow at the Large Hadron Collider,” Eur. Phys. J. A59, 279 (2023), arXiv:2309.09663 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Exploring the Nuclear Shape Phase Transition in Ultra-Relativistic 129Xe+129Xe Collisions at the LHC,

    Shujun Zhao, Hao-jie Xu, You Zhou, Yu-Xin Liu, and Huichao Song, “Exploring the Nuclear Shape Phase Transition in Ultra-Relativistic 129Xe+129Xe Collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 192301 (2024), arXiv:2403.07441 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Determine the neutron skin type by rel- ativistic isobaric collisions,

    Hao-jie Xu, Hanlin Li, Xiaobao Wang, Caiwan Shen, and Fuqiang Wang, “Determine the neutron skin type by rel- ativistic isobaric collisions,” Phys. Lett. B819, 136453 (2021), arXiv:2103.05595 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Scaling approach to nuclear structure in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia and Chunjian Zhang, “Scaling approach to nuclear structure in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C107, L021901 (2023), arXiv:2111.15559 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Determination of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Govert Nijs, and Wilke van der Schee, “Determination of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202302 (2023), arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Neu- tron skin and its effects in heavy-ion collisions,

    Yu-Gang Ma, De-Qing Fang, and Meng-Qi Ding, “Neu- tron skin and its effects in heavy-ion collisions,” Nuclear Science and Techniques35, 211 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies in 16O+16O andγ+Au collisions from STAR,

    Shengli Huang, “Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies in 16O+16O andγ+Au collisions from STAR,” (2023) arXiv:2312.12167 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Measurement of the az- imuthal anisotropy of charged particles in √sNN =5.36 TeV 16O+16O and 20Ne+20Ne collisions with the ATLAS detector,

    Georges Aadet al.(ATLAS), “Measurement of the az- imuthal anisotropy of charged particles in √sNN =5.36 TeV 16O+16O and 20Ne+20Ne collisions with the ATLAS detector,” (2025), arXiv:2509.05171 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and Ne−Ne collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV,

    Ibrahim Jaser Abualrobet al.(ALICE), “Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and Ne−Ne collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV,” (2025), arXiv:2509.06428 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Properties of the QCD matter: re- view of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program,

    Jinhui Chenet al., “Properties of the QCD matter: re- view of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program,” Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Properties of QCD matter: a review of selected results from ALICE experiment,

    Qi-Ye Shouet al., “Properties of QCD matter: a review of selected results from ALICE experiment,” Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 219 (2024), arXiv:2409.17964 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    High-energy collisions of strongly deformed nuclei: An Old idea with a new twist,

    Edward V. Shuryak, “High-energy collisions of strongly deformed nuclei: An Old idea with a new twist,” Phys. Rev. C61, 034905 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9906062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    Shape of atomic nuclei in heavy ion collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, “Shape of atomic nuclei in heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C105, 014905 (2022), arXiv:2106.08768 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Characterizing flow fluctuations with moments,

    Rajeev S. Bhalerao, Jean-Yves Ollitrault, and Subrata Pal, “Characterizing flow fluctuations with moments,” Phys. Lett. B742, 94–98 (2015), arXiv:1411.5160 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Elliptic flow fluctuations in central collisions of spherical and deformed nuclei,

    Giuliano Giacalone, “Elliptic flow fluctuations in central collisions of spherical and deformed nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C99, 024910 (2019), arXiv:1811.03959 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Kurtosis of elliptic flow fluctuations,

    Rajeev S. Bhalerao, Giuliano Giacalone, and Jean-Yves Ollitrault, “Kurtosis of elliptic flow fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. C99, 014907 (2019), arXiv:1811.00837 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Collective nuclear vibrations and ini- tial state shape fluctuations in central Pb+Pb collisions: resolving thev 2 tov 3 puzzle,

    B. G. Zakharov, “Collective nuclear vibrations and ini- tial state shape fluctuations in central Pb+Pb collisions: resolving thev 2 tov 3 puzzle,” JETP Lett.112, 393–398 (2020), arXiv:2008.07304 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Influence of Collective Nuclear Vibra- tions on Initial State Eccentricities in Pb + Pb Col- lisions,

    B. G. Zakharov, “Influence of Collective Nuclear Vibra- tions on Initial State Eccentricities in Pb + Pb Col- lisions,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys.134, 669–681 (2022), arXiv:2112.06066 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    A ”breath- ing

    Hao-jie Xu, Duoduo Xu, Shujun Zhao, Wenbin Zhao, Huichao Song, and Fuqiang Wang, “A ”breath- ing” octupole 208Pb nucleus: resolving the elliptical- to-triangular azimuthal anisotropy puzzle in ultra- central relativistic heavy ion collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2504.19644 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Probing sur- face vibration of spherical nuclei in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,

    Kouichi Hagino and Masakiyo Kitazawa, “Probing sur- face vibration of spherical nuclei in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2508.05125 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Impact of nuclear shape fluctuations in high-energy heavy ion collisions,

    Aman Dimri, Somadutta Bhatta, and Jiangyong Jia, “Impact of nuclear shape fluctuations in high-energy heavy ion collisions,” Eur. Phys. J. A59, 45 (2023), arXiv:2301.03556 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Eccentric- ity fluctuations and elliptic flow at RHIC,

    Rajeev S. Bhalerao and Jean-Yves Ollitrault, “Eccentric- ity fluctuations and elliptic flow at RHIC,” Phys. Lett. B641, 260–264 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0607009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  57. [57]

    Elliptic flow in the Gaussian model of eccentricity fluctuations,

    Sergei A. Voloshin, Arthur M. Poskanzer, Aihong Tang, and Gang Wang, “Elliptic flow in the Gaussian model of eccentricity fluctuations,” Phys. Lett. B659, 537–541 (2008), arXiv:0708.0800 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions,

    J. Scott Moreland, Jonah E. Bernhard, and Steffen A. Bass, “Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions,” Phys. Rev. C92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Accessing the shape of atomic nuclei with relativistic collisions of isobars,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Jiangyong Jia, and Vittorio Som` a, “Accessing the shape of atomic nuclei with relativistic collisions of isobars,” Phys. Rev. C104, L041903 (2021), arXiv:2102.08158 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Ratios of collective flow observables in high-energy iso- bar collisions are insensitive to final-state interactions,

    Chunjian Zhang, Somadutta Bhatta, and Jiangyong Jia, “Ratios of collective flow observables in high-energy iso- bar collisions are insensitive to final-state interactions,” Phys. Rev. C106, L031901 (2022), arXiv:2206.01943 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Flow analysis from multiparticle azimuthal cor- relations,

    Nicolas Borghini, Phuong Mai Dinh, and Jean-Yves Ol- litrault, “Flow analysis from multiparticle azimuthal cor- relations,” Phys. Rev. C64, 054901 (2001), arXiv:nucl- th/0105040

    arXiv 2001

  62. [62]

    Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations,

    Ante Bilandzic, Christian Holm Christensen, Krist- jan Gulbrandsen, Alexander Hansen, and You Zhou, “Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations,” Phys. Rev. C89, 064904 (2014), arXiv:1312.3572 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Flow analysis with cumulants: Direct calculations,

    Ante Bilandzic, Raimond Snellings, and Sergei Voloshin, “Flow analysis with cumulants: Direct calculations,” Phys. Rev. C83, 044913 (2011), arXiv:1010.0233 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    Revealing long-range multiparticle collectivity in small collision systems via subevent cumulants,

    Jiangyong Jia, Mingliang Zhou, and Adam Trzupek, “Revealing long-range multiparticle collectivity in small collision systems via subevent cumulants,” Phys. Rev. C 96, 034906 (2017)

    2017

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.