Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

The reported dependence of the lead-lead cross section on nucleon width is an artifact of geometric inflation; with a self-consistent nuclear density, the cross section is essentially width-independent and probes the nuclear surface.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:53 UTC pith:KEUN5S4E

load-bearing objection The w-independence of σ_AA is partly built in by fixing the folded density, but this is still a useful reframing of the nucleon-size extraction; the unvalidated Woods–Saxon deconvolution ansatz is the main thing to probe. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18683 v2 pith:KEUN5S4E submitted 2026-02-21 nucl-th nucl-ex

Resolution-matched nuclear geometry and the nucleon-size ambiguity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

Hao-jie Xu This is my paper
classification nucl-th nucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q21.10.Gv24.10.Lx
keywords nucleon sizehadronic cross sectionGlauber modelgeometric inflationWeierstrass transformneutron skinnuclear densityheavy-ion 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.

The paper shows that the strong nucleon-width dependence of the hadronic lead-lead cross section reported in previous analyses is not a real observable but a modeling artifact. When point-like nucleon centers are sampled from a Woods-Saxon density and then convolved with a finite-width Gaussian profile, the resulting matter distribution is artificially dilated—what the paper calls geometric inflation. By deconvolving the target density (via an inverse Weierstrass transform) so that the final folded density matches the intended Woods-Saxon shape, the cross section becomes essentially independent of the Gaussian width, settling at about 7.43 barns. This reframes the cross section as a probe of the nuclear surface rather than the sub-nucleon scale, and the current experimental uncertainty then translates into a neutron-skin thickness for lead-208 between 0 and about 0.24 fm. The result matters because it resolves a tension between nucleon-size extractions from hadronic cross sections and from collective flow, and it offers a route to constrain nuclear symmetry energy from high-energy collisions.

Core claim

The central claim is that the previously reported sensitivity of the hadronic nucleus-nucleus cross section σ_AA to the Gaussian nucleon width w is an artifact of an inconsistent modeling procedure. In standard Glauber-type initial-state models, nucleon positions are sampled from a Woods-Saxon distribution of point centers, then each nucleon is assigned a finite spatial profile. Because the convolution with the profile broadens the nuclear surface, increasing w inflates the effective matter distribution despite leaving the sampled centers fixed. The paper demonstrates that if one instead treats the sampling distribution as the inverse Weierstrass transform of the intended Woods-Saxon density

What carries the argument

The central object is the inverse Weierstrass transform applied to the nuclear density: the sampling distribution of nucleon centers f(ξ) is related to the physical density ρ(r; w) by convolution with the Gaussian nucleon kernel K_p(r, ξ). To keep ρ fixed at the Woods-Saxon target, the paper introduces a deconvolved Woods-Saxon with modified parameters (R̃, ã) matched by enforcing equality of the first three radial moments (Eqs. 4–7). This correction counteracts the surface broadening created by the Gaussian smoothing, making σ_AA independent of w. The key mechanism is the analytical approximation for the corrected parameters, ã² ≈ a² − 3w²/π², which subtracts the Gaussian inflation from the

Load-bearing premise

The key assumption is that the deconvolved nucleon-center distribution needed to preserve the Woods-Saxon density is itself a Woods-Saxon with adjusted radius and diffuseness; if the true inverse transform is not of that form, the apparent width-independence of the cross section could be an artifact of the assumed shape.

What would settle it

Compute the exact inverse Weierstrass transform of the target Woods-Saxon density numerically (e.g., by Fourier methods) and recompute σ_AA for a range of w from 0.4 to 0.9 fm; if the spread exceeds the claimed near-flatness (of order 0.02 b), the result is an artifact of the Woods-Saxon ansatz for the deconvolved distribution. Alternatively, a Monte Carlo Glauber simulation that samples nucleon centers from the exact deconvolved density and varies w should reproduce the reported flat curve.

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

If this is right

  • If the corrected treatment is used, σ_AA becomes essentially independent of the nucleon width, resolving the tension between cross-section-based and flow-based nucleon-size extractions.
  • The width-independent σ_AA is sensitive to the nuclear surface diffuseness and radius; with current experimental error it allows a neutron-skin estimate for lead-208 of Δr_np ∈ [0, 0.24] fm.
  • The extracted neutron skin implies a symmetry-energy slope L in [-69, 97] MeV, consistent with global constraints and near the lower edge of the parity-violating electron-scattering measurement.
  • The calculation is robust against the minimum inter-nucleon distance and shows negligible dependence on the inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross section within uncertainties, leaving the functional shape of the nucleon profile (Gaussian vs. monopole/dipole) as the main residual systematic, shifting σ_AA by about 0.2 b.
  • For initial-state models, the paper proposes two strategies: fix w to a known nuclear-structure value and vary the Woods-Saxon parameters, or explicitly separate nuclear geometry from sub-nucleonic smearing via the self-consistent deconvolution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framework implies that any observable depending on the nuclear surface—such as centrality-dependent yields, eccentricity fluctuations, or ultraperipheral collision cross sections—may also require deconvolved sampling; the paper only applies the correction to σ_AA, but the principle is general.
  • One could test the moment-matching ansatz against a full numerical inverse Weierstrass transform of the Woods-Saxon density; the paper's footnote suggests a partial check for other kernels, but a dedicated comparison would quantify the error of the assumed functional form.
  • A direct experimental extension would compare σ_AA in isobar systems with identical mass number but different nuclear skins or deformations; the framework predicts that the corrected σ_AA should track the surface diffuseness rather than the nucleon size.
  • The residual shape dependence of about 0.2 b between Gaussian and monopole profiles suggests that future data on the gluonic nucleon shape (e.g., from electron-ion collisions) could turn σ_AA into a precision neutron-skin probe; until then, the extracted skin carries a systematic attached to the nucleon form factor.

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. This Letter addresses the nucleon-width (w) sensitivity of the 208Pb+208Pb hadronic cross section σ_AA in Glauber/TRENTo-type initial-state models. The author argues that the strong w-dependence reported by Nijs & van der Schee is a 'geometric inflation' artifact: sampling point-nucleon centers from a fixed Woods–Saxon distribution and then folding with finite-width Gaussian profiles broadens the effective nuclear density. To remove this, the center distribution is redefined as a Woods–Saxon with modified parameters (R̃,ã) chosen by matching the first three radial moments of the convolved density to the target (Eqs. 4–6, approximated by Eq. 7), so that the folded density entering the Glauber phase shift is approximately the target Woods–Saxon. The corrected σ_AA is then found to be nearly independent of w (~7.43 b) and consistent with the ALICE measurement within its lower edge. Using this, the paper translates the experimental uncertainty into a neutron-skin interval for 208Pb and, via a linear correlation, a symmetry-energy slope range.

Significance. If the flatness of σ_AA(w) survives an exact deconvolution check, the result is important: it resolves a published tension between flow-based Bayesian preferences for w≈1 fm and σ_AA-based w≈0.4–0.5 fm, and it reframes σ_AA as a probe of the nuclear surface rather than of nucleon size. The analytical moment-matching procedure is simple and portable to other initial-state codes, and the paper honestly identifies the residual ~0.2 b kernel-shape uncertainty (Fig. 4 and Table I), which is a useful systematic for future analyses. The identification of geometric inflation as a modeling artifact is a genuine conceptual contribution, and the proposed density-consistent correction is a constructive step toward precision initial-state modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Self-consistent nuclear density, Eqs. (4)–(7), Fig. 3] The central w-independence claim rests on the ansatz that the inverse Weierstrass transform of the target Woods–Saxon is itself a Woods–Saxon. Matching the first three radial moments does not enforce pointwise equality of the folded density to the target, and σ_AA is a surface observable. The Gaussian kernel is the one used in the w-scan, but footnote 1 validates the WS ansatz only for monopole/dipole kernels against a matrix-based convolution. A direct Fourier deconvolution of the Gaussian kernel is numerically straightforward and should be used to compute the exact center distribution and the resulting σ_AA(w); until this check is shown, the flatness of the blue curve in Fig. 3 could in principle be an artifact of the assumed functional form.
  2. [Central result paragraph after Eq. (7), Fig. 3] Because the correction forces the folded density entering the Glauber phase shift to be approximately the same for all w, the leading-order w-independence is built into the procedure. The nontrivial residual is the w-dependence of σ_gg through Eq. (2). The paper should quantify this decomposition by comparing corrected σ_AA with σ_gg fixed at a reference value against the full σ_gg(w). This would show what the numerical result adds beyond the construction and where residual w-dependence enters.
  3. [Probing the neutron skin thickness] The mapping from total-density parameter changes (a=0.60 fm, R=6.95 fm) to Δr_np values (0.176 fm, 0.359 fm) is not derived or referenced. Since the final Δr_np and L constraints are central to the paper, the two-component decomposition—proton WS from charge data plus neutron WS adjusted to reproduce the total—must be specified. The abstract and text also quote different intervals: abstract [0,0.21] fm, introduction [0,0.24] fm, and the section reports [0,0.176] fm for w=r_ch,p and [0.069,0.243] fm for w=0.5 fm; these need to be reconciled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2] Typo: 'Defalut' should be 'Default'.
  2. [Notation, Table I and Fig. 4] The notation w vs r_p is used inconsistently: Table I gives r_p = sqrt(3)w in the Gaussian limit, but the text uses r_p and w interchangeably in Fig. 4 and the surrounding discussion. Define the relation once and use it consistently.
  3. [Footnote 1] Footnote 1 is easy to misread as validating the Gaussian deconvolution. Clarify that it tests the Woods–Saxon ansatz for monopole/dipole kernels against matrix-based convolution with a Gaussian-convoluted target, not the Gaussian kernel itself.
  4. [MC details] No Monte Carlo event statistics or code/version details are given; the 0.01–0.02 b differences in Fig. 3 would be easier to assess with error bars or a reproducibility statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

σ_AA(w)-flatness after 'correction' is substantially imposed by the moment-matching constraint; absolute value and residual fluctuations remain independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Self-consistent nuclear density, Eqs. (3)–(7) and central result paragraph after Eq. (7)]
    "To recover the target Woods–Saxon density ρ_WS(r), the sampling distribution for nucleon centers, f(ξ), must be modified as a function of w... For a given w, these modified parameters are constrained by matching the first three radial moments of the convolved density to the target distribution: ⟨ρ(r;w)⟩=⟨ρ_WS(r)⟩, ⟨rρ(r;w)⟩=⟨rρ_WS(r)⟩, ⟨r^2ρ(r;w)⟩=⟨r^2ρ_WS(r)⟩... Implementing these corrected sampling parameters yields the central result of this Letter: σ_AA≃7.43 b, which is essentially independent of the nucleon width w."

    The corrected sampling parameters (R̃,ã) are defined by Eqs. (4)–(6) so that the folded density ρ(r;w) matches the fixed target Woods–Saxon density for every w. The Glauber phase shift that determines σ_AA is built from the thickness function, i.e. a projection of this same ρ(r;w). Therefore, after correction, the density-dependent part of σ_AA is w-independent by construction. The paper's headline claim that the w-sensitivity is 'eliminated' restates the constraint used to define the correction rather than being an independent derivation. The genuinely non-circular content is the small residual dependence from event-by-event fluctuations and σ_gg(w), plus the absolute value 7.43 b benchmarked against ALICE.

full rationale

The paper's central w-independence claim is partially built in: it fixes the convolved nuclear density to a w-independent target via moment matching (Eqs. 3–7), and since σ_AA is, to leading order, a functional of that density, its flatness is substantially enforced by construction. This is the reduction I exhibit. However, the paper is not wholly circular: the numerical value σ_AA≈7.43 b is computed from the assumed Woods–Saxon inputs and compared with ALICE data, the residual Monte-Carlo fluctuation/σ_gg dependence is a real calculation, and the neutron-skin extraction is an application rather than a restatement of the w-correction. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears; the cited prior work supplies external methods and experimental anchors, not a uniqueness theorem. The unvalidated Woods–Saxon ansatz for the inverse Weierstrass transform and the unshown two-component Δr_np mapping are correctness/fragility concerns, not circularity. I therefore score 6: partial circularity due to the by-construction w-independence of the corrected density, with independent residual content preventing a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, fields, or conserved quantities are postulated. 'Geometric inflation' is a descriptive label for the well-known broadening of a convolved distribution, not a new entity. The corrected Woods–Saxon parameters (R̃, ã) are derived quantities, not invented entities. The three free parameters listed are the hand-chosen w, the data-tuned diffuseness/radius, and the unstated two-component mapping used for the neutron-skin conversion.

free parameters (3)
  • Nucleon width w (varied by hand; final Δr_np depends on it) = w = 0.494 fm (r_p = r_ch,p) or w = 0.5 fm (gluonic)
    The extracted neutron-skin range changes with the hand-chosen w: [0, 0.176] fm for r_ch,p vs [0.069, 0.243] fm for w = 0.5 fm. The paper states 'the extracted Δr_np retains a dependence on the physical choice of w'.
  • Mass-density WS diffuseness a (or radius R) tuned to ALICE σ_AA = a = 0.60 fm or R = 6.95 fm, reproducing σ_AA ≈ 7.92 b
    The skin extraction is an inversion: a and R are adjusted until the computed σ_AA matches the upper ALICE edge. These are fit values chosen to match data, not predictions.
  • Two-component 208Pb mapping from (a, R) to Δr_np = Δr_np = 0.176 fm (a = 0.60 fm); Δr_np = 0.359 fm (R = 6.95 fm)
    The numbers converting mass-density diffuseness/radius changes into neutron skin appear without derivation; the underlying two-component model is an unstated input to the extraction.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The deconvolved center distribution f(ξ) is a Woods–Saxon with modified parameters (ρ̃0 = ρ0, R̃, ã), matched by the first-three-moment equations (4)–(6) and approximated analytically by Eq. (7).
    Introduced to make the inverse Weierstrass transform tractable; verified only for internal self-consistency (footnote 1), not against the exact deconvolution.
  • domain assumption Charge-distribution Woods–Saxon parameters for 208Pb (R = 6.647 fm, a = 0.523 fm) are the correct target for the total mass density after point-proton subtraction (R_point² = R_ch² − r_ch,p²).
    Standard practice, but load-bearing: an alternative view is that the physical matter distribution should include nucleon smearing, making part of the 'inflation' physical rather than an artifact.
  • domain assumption Gaussian nucleon profile for the main result; dipole/monopole variants via Eq. (8) for systematics; σ_gg fixed by Eq. (2) with σ_NN = 70 mb.
    Standard TRENTO/Glauber modeling. The paper itself shows σ_AA shifts by ~0.2 b across profile shapes, so the profile family is a real assumption affecting the extraction.
  • domain assumption Protons and neutrons share a common effective size w, and the total mass density is a single Woods–Saxon rather than separate proton/neutron profiles.
    Stated in 'Probing the neutron skin thickness'; deviations from Woods–Saxon form would require a numerical solution to Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption All generated inelastic events are summed without a centrality normalization factor; Ref [24]'s free normalization is treated as an artifact.
    Arguing that experimental efficiency corrections justify dropping the free normalization; this modeling choice moves σ_AA by an amount comparable to the discrepancy being explained.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9961 in / 22406 out tokens · 189617 ms · 2026-08-02T21:53:45.518146+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nuclear structure theory provides point-nucleon densities, whereas high-energy nuclear collisions probe nuclei through finite-resolution hadronic interactions. This resolution mismatch becomes a physical ambiguity when point densities are embedded in Monte Carlo initial-state models with a finite transverse nucleon profile. A parameter intended to describe the effective interaction range can then also reshape the nuclear surface, blurring the separation between nuclear structure and collision dynamics. I show that this ambiguity can largely account for the strong nucleon-width dependence of the ${}^{208}$Pb+${}^{208}$Pb hadronic cross section ($\sigma_{\rm AA}$) reported in recent Bayesian analyses. Fixing the folded density that enters the Glauber phase shift removes this ambiguity at the level of nuclear geometry. The corrected cross section becomes nearly insensitive to a Gaussian nucleon width and instead probes the nuclear surface. Within a two-component estimate for ${}^{208}$Pb, the current experimental uncertainty of $\sigma_{\rm AA}$ translates into a broad neutron-skin interval, $\Delta r_{\rm np}\in[0,0.21]$ fm. These results reframe $\sigma_{\rm AA}$ as a surface-sensitive bridge between point-nucleon nuclear structure and finite-resolution high-energy initial conditions, rather than as a standalone nucleon-size observable. This establishes resolution matching as a necessary step for using relativistic heavy-ion collisions as quantitative probes of nuclear structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18683 by Hao-jie Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (Color online). Illustration of geometric inflation. The target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online). (a) Thickness function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 45 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl.Phys.A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Experimental and theo- retical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl.Phys.A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl- ex/0501009 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252302 (2010), arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Shuryak, Physics of Strongly coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.62, 48 (2009), arXiv:0807.3033 [hep-ph]

    E. Shuryak, Physics of Strongly coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys.62, 48 (2009), arXiv:0807.3033 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys.Rev.D46, 229 (1992)

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys.Rev.D46, 229 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. Son, and A. Starinets, Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics, Phys.Rev.Lett.94, 111601 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Viscosity Information from Relativistic Nuclear Collisions: How Perfect is the Fluid Observed at RHIC?, Phys.Rev.Lett.99, 172301 (2007), arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, The iEBE-VISHNU code package for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun.199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    H.-j. Xu, Z. Li, and H. Song, High-order flow harmonics of identified hadrons in 2.76A TeV Pb + Pb collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 064905 (2016), arXiv:1602.02029 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Zhao, H.-j

    W. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, Collective flow in 2.76 A TeV and 5.02 A TeV Pb+Pb collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 645 (2017), arXiv:1703.10792 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C102, 044905 (2020), arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, and U. Heinz, Applying Bayesian parameter estimation to relativistic heavy- ion collisions: simultaneous characterization of the initial state and quark-gluon plasma medium, Phys. Rev. C94, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1605.03954 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, and S. A. Bass, Bayesian esti- mation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark–gluon plasma, Nature Phys.15, 1113 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE), Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of QCD matter, Phys. Rev. C103, 054904 (2021), arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computa- tional framework Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C103, 054909 (2021), arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Wang, H.-j

    J.-f. Wang, H.-j. Xu, and F.-Q. Wang, Impact of initial fluctu- ations and nuclear deformations in isobar collisions, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 108 (2024), arXiv:2305.17114 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Hydrodynamic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Derradi de Souza, T

    R. Derradi de Souza, T. Koide, and T. Kodama, Hydrodynamic Approaches in Relativistic Heavy Ion Reactions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.86, 35 (2016), arXiv:1506.03863 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Noronha-Hostler, L

    J. Noronha-Hostler, L. Yan, F. G. Gardim, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Linear and cubic response to the initial eccentricity in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 014909 (2016), arXiv:1511.03896 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    H. Song, Y. Zhou, and K. Gajdosova, Collective flow and hy- drodynamics in large and small systems at the LHC, Nucl. Sci. Tech.28, 99 (2017), arXiv:1703.00670 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  22. [22]

    Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear colli- sions at the subnucleon level, Phys

    C. Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear colli- sions at the subnucleon level, Phys. Rev. C94, 024914 (2016), arXiv:1603.07375 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. 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

  24. [24]

    Nijs and W

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Hadronic Nucleus-Nucleus Cross Section and the Nucleon Size, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 232301 (2022), arXiv:2206.13522 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), ALICE luminosity determination for Pb−Pb collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02 TeV, JINST19(02), P02039, arXiv:2204.10148 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Tiesinga, P

    E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, CO- DATA recommended values of the fundamental physical con- stants: 2018*, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025010 (2021)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Giacalone, B

    G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Constraining the Nu- cleon Size with Relativistic Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 042301 (2022), arXiv:2111.02908 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Wang, S.-J

    H.-C. Wang, S.-J. Li, J. Xu, and Z.-Z. Ren, Disentangling effects of nucleon size and nucleus structure in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B866, 139516 (2025), arXiv:2504.19082 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Xu et al

    J. Xu et al. (TMEP), Understanding transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions at 100A and 400A MeV: Comparison of heavy-ion transport codes under controlled conditions, Phys. Rev. C93, 044609 (2016), arXiv:1603.08149 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    J. Yang, Y. Zhang, N. Wang, and Z. Li, Influence of the treatment of initialization and mean-field potential on the neutron to proton yield ratios, Phys. Rev. C104, 024605 (2021), arXiv:2103.13132 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Xiang, M

    X. Xiang, M. Nan, P. Li, Y. Wang, L. Liu, and Q. Li, Improved 6 initial colliding nuclei density profile method for QMD-type transport models, (2025), arXiv:2509.19089 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Klos et al., Neutron density distributions from antiprotonic Pb-208 and Bi-209 atoms, Phys

    B. Klos et al., Neutron density distributions from antiprotonic Pb-208 and Bi-209 atoms, Phys. Rev. C76, 014311 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0702016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    L. L. Salcedo, E. Oset, M. J. Vicente-Vacas, and C. Garcia- Recio, Computer Simulation of Inclusive Pion Nuclear Reac- tions, Nucl. Phys. A484, 557 (1988)

    1988

  34. [34]

    E. Oset, P. Fernandez de Cordoba, L. L. Salcedo, and R. Brock- mann, Decay Modes ofΣandΛHypernuclei, Phys. Rept.188, 79 (1990)

    1990

  35. [35]

    H.-j. Xu, H. Li, X. Wang, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Determine the neutron skin type by relativistic isobaric collisions, Phys. Lett. B819, 136453 (2021), arXiv:2103.05595 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Fricke, C

    G. Fricke, C. Bernhardt, K. Heilig, L. A. Schaller, L. Schellen- berg, E. B. Shera, and C. W. de Jager, Nuclear Ground State Charge Radii from Electromagnetic Interactions, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.60, 177 (1995)

    1995

  37. [37]

    Luzum, M

    M. Luzum, M. Hippert, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Methods for sys- tematic study of nuclear structure in high-energy collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 110 (2023), arXiv:2302.14026 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Giacalone, G

    G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, and W. van der Schee, Determination of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Col- lisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202302 (2023), arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Trzcinska, J

    A. Trzcinska, J. Jastrzebski, P. Lubinski, F. J. Hartmann, R. Schmidt, T. von Egidy, and B. Klos, Neutron density dis- tributions deduced from anti-protonic atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 082501 (2001)

    2001

  40. [40]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at√𝑠𝑁 𝑁 =200 GeV by the STAR Collab- oration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C105, 014901 (2022), arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Caldwell and H

    A. Caldwell and H. Kowalski, Investigating the gluonic structure of nuclei via J/psi scattering, Phys. Rev. C81, 025203 (2010)

    2010

  42. [42]

    Roca-Maza, M

    X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, X. Vinas, and M. Warda, Neu- tron skin of 208𝑃𝑏, nuclear symmetry energy, and the par- ity radius experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 252501 (2011), arXiv:1103.1762 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    M. B. Tsang et al., Constraints on the symmetry energy and neutron skins from experiments and theory, Phys. Rev. C86, 015803 (2012), arXiv:1204.0466 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  44. [44]

    Li, B.-J

    B.-A. Li, B.-J. Cai, W.-J. Xie, and N.-B. Zhang, Progress in Constraining Nuclear Symmetry Energy Using Neutron Star Observables Since GW170817, Universe7, 182 (2021), arXiv:2105.04629 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Adhikari et al

    D. Adhikari et al. (PREX), Accurate Determination of the Neutron Skin Thickness of 208Pb through Parity-Violation in Electron Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172502 (2021), arXiv:2102.10767 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz, Implications of PREX-II on the equation of state of neutron-rich matter, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172503 (2021), arXiv:2101.03193 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    T. T. Chou and C.-N. Yang, Model of Elastic High-Energy Scat- tering, Phys. Rev.170, 1591 (1968)

    1968

  48. [48]

    Durand, III and R

    L. Durand, III and R. Lipes, Diffraction model for high-energy p p scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 637 (1968)

    1968

  49. [49]

    Borkowski, G

    F. Borkowski, G. G. Simon, V. H. Walther, and R. D. Wendling, On the determination of the proton RMS-radius from electron scattering data, Z. Phys. A275, 29 (1975)

    1975

  50. [50]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991)

    1991

  51. [51]

    Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur

    M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 639 (2008), arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [52]

    d’Enterria and C

    D. d’Enterria and C. Loizides, Progress in the Glauber Model at Collider Energies, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 315 (2021), arXiv:2011.14909 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detector Con- cepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detector Con- cepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins- det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Hu, H.-j

    J.-Y. Hu, H.-j. Xu, X. Wang, and S. Pu, Probing the tetrahe- dral𝛼clusters in relativistic 16O + 16O collisions, (2025), arXiv:2507.01493 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Skands, S

    P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3024 (2014), arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    Hagino, H

    K. Hagino, H. Sagawa, J. Carbonell, and P. Schuck, Coexistence of BCS and BEC-like pair structures in halo nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 022506 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0611064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  57. [57]

    Kubota et al., Surface localization of the dineutron in 11Li, Phys

    Y. Kubota et al., Surface localization of the dineutron in 11Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 252501 (2020), arXiv:2010.04802 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    D. D. Zhang, Z. X. Ren, P. W. Zhao, D. Vretenar, T. Nik ˇsi´c, and J. Meng, Effects of rotation and valence nucleons in molecular𝛼-chain nuclei, Phys. Rev. C105, 024322 (2022), arXiv:2111.13437 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Q. Zhao, M. Kimura, B. Zhou, and S.-h. Shin, The universal size compression effect of nucleon pair in finite nuclei, (2025), arXiv:2510.19280 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    M ¨antysaari and B

    H. M ¨antysaari and B. Schenke, Revealing proton shape fluctu- ations with incoherent diffraction at high energy, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034042 (2016), arXiv:1607.01711 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    S. Deb, G. Sarwar, D. Thakur, P. Subramani, R. Sahoo, and J.-e. Alam, Glauber model for a small system using the anisotropic and inhomogeneous density profile of a proton, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014004 (2020), arXiv:1909.13509 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020