Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The proper acceleration of quark–gluon plasma in heavy-ion collisions peaks at a few hundred MeV, is strongest at the fireball boundary, and can make Unruh temperatures exceed the local thermodynamic temperature early in the collision.

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

2026-08-04 05:33 UTC pith:GHUD6POH

load-bearing objection Useful systematic map of fluid acceleration from two transport models, but the headline peak values are derivative quantities whose stability against smearing width and density threshold is not demonstrated. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2604.00302 v1 pith:GHUD6POH submitted 2026-03-31 nucl-th

Fluid Acceleration in Heavy-Ion Collisions

Song-Ze Zhong , Xian-Gai Deng , Xu-Guang Huang , Yu-Gang Ma This is my paper
classification nucl-th PACS 25.75.-q
keywords fluid accelerationheavy-ion collisionsquark-gluon plasmarelativistic hydrodynamicsUnruh effecttransport modelspressure gradientsspin polarization
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.

This paper sets out to map the fluid acceleration field inside the hot, dense matter created in heavy-ion collisions, a quantity studied far less than vorticity. Using transport simulations and Gaussian smearing to define a local fluid velocity, it finds that the proper acceleration reaches a few hundred MeV, with the strongest values at the fireball's peripheral boundary rather than in the bulk. The boundary enhancement is explained by the relativistic Euler equation: steep pressure gradients combine with small enthalpy density at the rim. The longitudinal component behaves very differently at low and high collision energies—nuclear stopping decelerates matter early at low energies, while passing nuclei drag the midrapidity plasma at high energies—and the volume-averaged acceleration is nearly independent of centrality. If these fields are physical, the associated Unruh temperature can exceed the thermodynamic temperature in early stages, affecting chiral symmetry restoration, deconfinement, and spin polarization.

Core claim

The paper claims that proper acceleration in heavy-ion fireballs reaches several hundred MeV and follows a^mu = ∇^mu P/(ε+P). Transverse acceleration points outward, peaking at the boundary where pressure gradients are steep and enthalpy density low; this persists at low energies and early times. Longitudinal acceleration is energy-dependent: nuclear stopping decelerates early at low energies, passing nuclei drag midrapidity plasma at high energies, and a dip-peak marks the crossover to transverse expansion. Volume-averaged acceleration is nearly centrality independent, as extremes localize at boundaries. These fields can make Unruh temperatures exceed the thermodynamic temperature early, af

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the relativistic Euler equation a^mu = (1/(ε+P)) ∇^mu P, which isolates acceleration as the pressure gradient divided by enthalpy density. The numerical machinery is Gaussian smearing of particle four-momenta from transport events into an energy-momentum tensor T^{mu nu}; the local fluid four-velocity is the timelike eigenvector of T^{mu nu}, and the 4-acceleration is u^nu ∂_nu u^mu, with proper acceleration a = sqrt(-a_mu a^mu). The boundary enhancement follows from the two-fold effect of a steep pressure drop and a small ε+P at the fireball rim.

Load-bearing premise

The headline peak values depend on treating the Gaussian-smeared particle output of transport models as a genuine local fluid velocity whose gradients are physical accelerations, even during the earliest times when the matter is not thermalized and the fields carry large, possibly unphysical fluctuations.

What would settle it

Extract the same acceleration field from the same transport events with Gaussian widths doubled and halved (σ=1.2 fm and σ=0.3 fm); if the peak proper accelerations change by more than the model-to-model spread, the headline values are smearing artifacts rather than physical fields. A complementary check is to evolve the same initial profile with an ideal hydrodynamic code and see whether a^mu = ∇^mu P/(ε+P) reproduces the extracted boundary field.

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

If this is right

  • If the peak proper acceleration is indeed a few hundred MeV, the Unruh temperature a/(2π) in the early fireball can exceed the local thermodynamic temperature, making acceleration a control parameter for early-time QCD matter.
  • The boundary-localized structure implies that acceleration-driven effects—such as Unruh-like radiation or acceleration contributions to spin polarization—should be strongest near the fireball surface, not in the bulk.
  • The near-centrality independence of the volume-averaged acceleration would make bulk-averaged acceleration-driven observables roughly flat across centrality, distinct from energy-density-driven signals.
  • Strong longitudinal deceleration at low energy and drag pulses at high energy provide a direct kinematic readout of nuclear stopping and passing-nucleus dynamics, which future flow measurements could probe.
  • If acceleration contributes to spin polarization as in the mean-spin formula, the acceleration-induced p×a term would add to the vorticity term and could help explain local polarization measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the peak acceleration sits at the boundary, any Unruh-induced signal should track the fireball surface-to-volume ratio across centralities; testing that scaling would separate acceleration effects from bulk thermodynamic ones.
  • Beyond the paper: comparing the extracted field with a full ideal-hydrodynamic evolution from the same initial profiles would show whether the boundary peaks reflect genuine pressure gradients or smearing artifacts.
  • Beyond the paper: the low-energy longitudinal deceleration from nuclear stopping should correlate with rapidity-dependent directed flow; measuring that correlation could give an independent handle on early-time acceleration magnitudes.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses AMPT and UrQMD transport models, with a Gaussian smearing procedure (Eq. 3.6) to define the local energy-momentum tensor and fluid 4-velocity, and then computes the proper acceleration field of the produced medium in heavy-ion collisions. It reports spatial maps of the acceleration components, their impact-parameter dependence, and their time evolution across beam energies from 3.5 GeV to 2.76 TeV. The central claims are that the peak proper acceleration reaches a few hundred MeV, that transverse acceleration is outward and strongest at the fireball boundary, that longitudinal acceleration is strongly collision-energy dependent (nuclear stopping at low energies, passing-nucleus drag pulses at high energies), and that the volume-averaged acceleration is nearly centrality independent. The authors connect these results to possible Unruh temperatures, chiral restoration, and spin-polarization effects beyond vorticity.

Significance. If the reported acceleration fields are robust, the paper provides a useful first systematic map of a quantity that is usually only discussed qualitatively: the local 4-acceleration of the QGP fireball. The use of two independent transport models over a wide energy range is a genuine strength, as is the explicit recognition, in Sec. IV C, that very early times are model-dependent. The qualitative patterns—outward transverse acceleration, boundary enhancement via steeper pressure gradients and lower enthalpy density, and the longitudinal stopping-versus-drag crossover—are plausible and physically motivated. The quantitative claims, however, are derivative quantities whose magnitude may be controlled by the smearing width and the energy-density threshold. The paper's strongest quantitative conclusion, 'several hundred MeV,' is not yet supported without a systematic sensitivity study and without statistical uncertainties on the event-averaged results. The paper does not provide machine-checkable proofs or code, but it is transparent about the extraction method; the main weakness is the absence of demonstrated robustness of the central numbers.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A and Eq. (3.6)] The peak acceleration values are spatial derivatives of a velocity field obtained from Gaussian smearing with σ⊥=σz=0.6 fm. The paper states that varying these widths by up to 50% leads to only minor changes, but no quantitative sensitivity scan is provided. This is load-bearing because the gradient scale of the smeared field is set by σ; larger σ suppresses gradients and smaller σ amplifies particle-noise fluctuations. The authors should show ⟨a⟩, peak a, and the boundary emphasis for at least σ=0.3, 0.6, 0.9 fm. Without this, the quoted hundreds-of-MeV magnitudes and the boundary-enhancement claim are not established.
  2. [Sec. IV A and Sec. IV C (εc=50 MeV/fm³)] All volume averages and the definition of the fireball boundary use a fixed energy-density threshold εc=50 MeV/fm³. Since the largest accelerations live at the boundary, the threshold choice directly controls which regions enter the peak and volume-averaged values. A scan over εc (e.g., 25, 50, 100 MeV/fm³) is necessary to show that the centrality independence and the 'several hundred MeV' numbers are not threshold artifacts. The early-time caveat in Sec. IV C does not address this, because the high-energy pulse peaks at t≈0.5–1.0 fm/c, just outside the shaded unreliable region.
  3. [Figs. 2–4 and Sec. IV] No statistical uncertainties are reported on any averaged curve. For UrQMD only 200 events per setting are used, and the acceleration is sensitive to rare early-time fluctuations. The finite-event-number effect should be quantified, either as error bars on ⟨a⟩ or as an event-by-event spread. This is particularly important for the small ⟨a_z⟩ signal in central collisions at 7.7 GeV, which the authors themselves suspect may be a numerical artifact (Sec. IV C).
  4. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 2] The impact-parameter comparison uses different time slices for low energies (t at maximum energy density) and high energies (fixed t=2 fm/c), and the paper explicitly says absolute magnitudes cannot be directly compared. Yet the text then uses this figure to conclude that proper acceleration increases with collision energy within each regime and that the volume average is nearly centrality independent. The claim of a smooth energy dependence is therefore not directly supported by the presented comparison. A consistent time selection, or a clear statement that only within-regime trends are being inferred, is needed.
  5. [Sec. II, Eqs. (2.4) and Sec. IV A] The boundary enhancement is interpreted using the ideal-fluid Euler equation a^μ=∇^μP/(ε+P), but the acceleration is not computed from a separately constructed pressure and enthalpy; it is computed from velocity gradients. The interpretation is plausible, but it is not a verification. If the authors wish to claim that pressure gradients and low enthalpy density are the driving mechanism, they should demonstrate this directly by computing ∇P and ε+P from the same smeared T^μν, or at least check the Euler relation approximately for the late-time, near-equilibrium stage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II] There are several typos and stylistic issues: 'borotropic' should be 'barotropic,' 'inivertablly' should be 'inevitably,' 'anologue' should be 'analogue,' and 'The is a relativistic effect' needs rewording. Equation (2.10) writes q^μ_C = -κ(T a^μ - ∇^μT), which conflicts with the usual sign convention; please check the sign convention consistency.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'the same applies to the figures below' is informal and should be replaced with an explicit statement in each caption about the collision system and energy labels.
  3. [Sec. III] The scaling factor K is said to be fit to multiplicities, but since it multiplies all components of T^μν uniformly, it does not affect the eigenvector velocity u^μ. The paper should state this explicitly to avoid any impression that the K fits influence the acceleration results beyond the εc cut.
  4. [Sec. IV C, Fig. 3] The shaded region t<0.5 fm/c is useful, but some curves for low energies peak near or inside this region. It would help to report the peak time for each energy and clarify how much of the 'up to ~500 MeV' claim rests on the shaded, less reliable interval.
  5. [General] The discussion of Unruh temperatures and their implications in Sec. V is somewhat speculative relative to the numerical results. A quantitative estimate of T_U from the reported acceleration values and a comparison with the thermodynamic temperature at the same spacetime points would strengthen the connection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: acceleration is computed from transport-model output, not fitted or defined by the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim - that proper acceleration peaks at several hundred MeV, is boundary-enhanced, and is driven by pressure gradients over enthalpy density - is obtained by numerically differentiating a velocity field extracted from AMPT/UrQMD particle output via Gaussian smearing (Eqs. 3.1-3.6). This is not a fitted input called a prediction: no parameter is tuned to reproduce acceleration, and the K scaling factors multiply the entire energy-momentum tensor uniformly, leaving the energy-flow velocity eigenvector (and hence the acceleration) scale-invariant. The Euler equation a^mu = grad^mu P/(epsilon+P) (Eq. 2.4) is used only to explain why boundary enhancement is expected, not to construct the numerical result. The smearing-function methodology cites the authors' prior Refs. [40,47], but the same Gaussian smearing is also attributed to external hydrodynamic references [100,101], and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing conclusion is imported from self-citation. The threshold epsilon_c = 50 MeV/fm^3 is an analysis cut taken from external Ref. [70]; changing it or the smearing width could alter quantitative peak values, and the claim that 50% width variation yields 'only minor changes' is not quantitatively demonstrated. However, that is a robustness/sensitivity concern, not circularity: there is no step in which the output is equivalent to the input by construction. The derivation is self-contained against the transport-model output and the explicitly stated smearing and threshold definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities; its physical content is extracted from existing transport models. The main inputs the reader must accept are the smearing widths, the K scaling factors, the energy-density threshold, and the decision to treat non-thermalized early-time transport output as a fluid.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian smearing widths sigma_perp, sigma_z = 0.6 fm for both
    Chosen by hand to define the smeared energy-momentum tensor and velocity field; the paper says varying by 50% changes results only mildly, but no quantitative sensitivity plot is shown.
  • Scaling factor K for energy-momentum tensor = K = 1.35, 1.45, 1.6 for AMPT at 62.4, 200, 2760 GeV; K = 1 for UrQMD at <=27 GeV
    Introduced to reproduce observed particle multiplicities (Sec. III). Uniform K leaves the energy-flow velocity nearly invariant, but it can shift the region satisfying epsilon > epsilon_c.
  • Energy density threshold epsilon_c = 50 MeV/fm^3
    Ad hoc cut used to define the fireball volume in all spatial averages (Sec. IV A). No sensitivity scan is reported, even though boundary-localized acceleration conclusions depend on where the boundary is drawn.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Relativistic ideal-fluid decomposition and Euler equation a^mu = grad^mu P/(epsilon+P)
    Used in Sec. II and invoked throughout Sec. IV to interpret boundary enhancement; standard in relativistic hydrodynamics.
  • domain assumption Gaussian-smearing of transport particles yields a meaningful local fluid 4-velocity
    Eqs. (3.1)-(3.5) define T^mu nu and J^mu from AMPT/UrQMD particles; this assumes a fluid picture even where the transported matter is not yet thermalized.
  • ad hoc to paper Only regions with epsilon > epsilon_c = 50 MeV/fm^3 constitute the hot medium
    Imposed after simulation in Sec. IV A; all volume averages and boundary statements depend on this threshold.
  • standard math Unruh relation T_U = a/(2 pi)
    Eq. (1.1) is used to translate computed accelerations into effective temperatures; well-established for constant proper acceleration but applied here to a non-uniform, time-varying accelerating medium.
  • domain assumption Energy-flow (Landau) velocity is the appropriate fluid velocity
    Sec. III chooses velocity of energy current from Eq. (3.4); particle-flow velocity is used only as a check, so the results inherit the Landau-frame choice.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15285 in / 9699 out tokens · 114780 ms · 2026-08-04T05:33:18.552827+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the generation and space-time evolution of fluid acceleration in heavy-ion collisions using AMPT and UrQMD transport models combined with a Gaussian smearing method. The peak proper acceleration reaches several hundred MeV, with mild model dependence. Transverse acceleration points outward and is strongest at the fireball boundary due to steep pressure gradients and low enthalpy density--a persistent feature even at early times and low energies. Longitudinal acceleration shows strong collision-energy dependence: low-energy collisions exhibit early deceleration from nuclear stopping, while ultra-relativistic collisions produce sharp acceleration pulses from passing nuclei. The volume-averaged acceleration is nearly centrality independent, as extreme acceleration localizes at boundaries. These strong acceleration fields may have important implications for QGP physics, including the Unruh effect mimicking a thermal bath, potential influences on the chiral phase transition and deconfinement, and contributions to spin polarization beyond vorticity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.00302 by Song-Ze Zhong, Xian-Gai Deng, Xu-Guang Huang, Yu-Gang Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spatial profiles of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Impact parameter dependence of the proper acceleration averaged over the whole volume of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Time evolution of the proper acceleration averaged over the whole fireball for lower collision [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of different components of the proper acceleration averaged over the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Polyakov-loop potential of accelerated gluonic matter and subtlety in thermodynamics

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Real acceleration strengthens deconfining properties of gluonic matter per the one-loop Polyakov-loop potential minimized in the optical metric, while imaginary acceleration yields a confined phase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 77 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. H. Chen, X. Dong, X. H. He, et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 20 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Q. Y . Shou, Y . G. Ma, S. Zhang, et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 219 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    K.-J. Sun, R. Wang, C. M. Ko, Y .-G. Ma, and C. Shen, Nature Comm.15, 1074 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Bleicher, Nucl

    M. Bleicher, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 129 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Aboona, J

    B. Aboona, J. Adam, L. Adamczyk, and other, Nature Comm.16, 9098 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Y . G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech.37, 51 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Braun-Munzinger, V

    P. Braun-Munzinger, V . Koch, T. Sch¨afer, and J. Stachel, Phys. Rep.76, 76 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Bzdak, S

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V . Koch, et al., Phys. Rep.853, 1 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Hayrapetyan, A

    A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, et al., Phys. Rep.1115, 219 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Skokov, A

    V . Skokov, A. Y . Illarionov, and V . Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5925 (2009), 0907.1396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    V oronyuk, V

    V . V oronyuk, V . D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V . P. Konchakovski, and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C83, 054911 (2011), 1103.4239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V . Skokov, Phys. Lett. B710, 171 (2012), 1111.1949

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C85, 044907 (2012), 1201.5108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Bloczynski, X.-G

    J. Bloczynski, X.-G. Huang, X. Zhang, and J. Liao, Nucl. Phys. A939, 85 (2015), 1311.5451

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    M. I. Abdulhamid, B. E. A. an J. Adam, et al., Phys. Rev. X14, 011028 (2024). 16

    2024

  16. [16]

    J. Zhao, J. H. Chen, X. G. Huang, and Y . G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 20 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    X. G. Huang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 138 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Deng and Y .-G

    X.-G. Deng and Y .-G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech.28, 182 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    X. G. Deng and Y . G. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 204 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Taya, Phys

    H. Taya, Phys. Rev. C112, 024904 (2025), 2501.18171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Bloczynski, X.-G

    J. Bloczynski, X.-G. Huang, X. Zhang, and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B718, 1529 (2013), 1209.6594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    H. Taya, T. Nishimura, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C110, 014901 (2024), 2402.17136

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    A. K. Panda, P. Bagchi, H. Mishra, and V . Roy, Phys. Rev. C110, 024902 (2024), 2404.08431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Hirono, M

    Y . Hirono, M. Hongo, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C90, 021903 (2014), 1211.1114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Lett. B742, 296 (2015), 1411.2733

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Cheng, S

    Y .-L. Cheng, S. Zhang, Y .-G. Ma, J.-H. Chen, and C. Zhong, Phys. Rev. C99, 054906 (2019), 1909.03160

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A803, 227 (2008), 0711.0950

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D78, 074033 (2008), 0808.3382

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    D. T. Son and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D70, 074018 (2004), hep-ph/0405216

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    M. A. Metlitski and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D72, 045011 (2005), hep-ph/0505072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  31. [31]

    Huang and J

    X.-G. Huang and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 232302 (2013), 1303.7192

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Jiang, X.-G

    Y . Jiang, X.-G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D91, 045001 (2015), 1409.6395

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Ma and X.-G

    G.-L. Ma and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C91, 054901 (2015), 1501.03903

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Liu and X.-G

    Y .-C. Liu and X.-G. Huang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.31, 56 (2020), 2003.12482

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Gao, G.-L

    J.-H. Gao, G.-L. Ma, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.31, 90 (2020), 2005.10432

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    D. E. Kharzeev and J. Liao, Nature Rev. Phys.3, 55 (2021), 2102.06623

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    W. Li, Q. Shou, and F. Wang (2025), 2511.07358

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    D. Shen, J. Chen, X.-G. Huang, Y .-G. Ma, A. Tang, and G. Wang, Research8, 0726 (2025), 2512.00739

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    Y . Jiang, Z.-W. Lin, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C94, 044910 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 049904 (2017)], 1602.06580

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C93, 064907 (2016), 1603.06117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Wei, W.-T

    D.-X. Wei, W.-T. Deng, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C99, 014905 (2019), 1810.00151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Becattini, G

    F. Becattini, G. Inghirami, V . Rolando, A. Beraudo, L. Del Zanna, A. De Pace, M. Nardi, G. Pagliara, and V . Chandra, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 406 (2015), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 354 (2018)], 1501.04468

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Teryaev and R

    O. Teryaev and R. Usubov, Phys. Rev. C92, 014906 (2015)

    2015

  44. [44]

    Y . L. Xie, M. Bleicher, H. St ¨ocker, D. J. Wang, and L. P. Csernai, Phys. Rev. C94, 054907 (2016), 1610.08678

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Y . B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, Phys. Rev. C95, 054915 (2017), 1701.01319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    E. E. Kolomeitsev, V . D. Toneev, and V . V oronyuk, Phys. Rev. C97, 064902 (2018), 1801.07610

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Deng, X.-G

    X.-G. Deng, X.-G. Huang, Y .-G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C101, 064908 (2020), 2001.01371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Y . Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C104, L041902 (2021), 2105.13481. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    A. Lei, D. Wang, D.-M. Zhou, B.-H. Sa, and L. P. Csernai, Phys. Rev. C104, 054903 (2021), 2110.13485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Xi, X.-G

    B.-S. Xi, X.-G. Deng, S. Zhang, and Y .-G. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 33 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Becattini and I

    F. Becattini and I. Karpenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 012302 (2018), 1707.07984

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, Z.-B. Tang, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C98, 024905 (2018), 1803.00867

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    B. Betz, M. Gyulassy, and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C76, 044901 (2007), 0708.0035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  54. [54]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 192301 (2016), 1605.04024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Erdmenger, M

    J. Erdmenger, M. Haack, M. Kaminski, and A. Yarom, JHEP01, 055 (2009), 0809.2488

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  56. [56]

    Banerjee, J

    N. Banerjee, J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Dutta, R. Loganayagam, and P. Surowka, JHEP 01, 094 (2011), 0809.2596

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    D. T. Son and P. Surowka, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 191601 (2009), 0906.5044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  58. [58]

    Jiang, X.-G

    Y . Jiang, X.-G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D92, 071501 (2015), 1504.03201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Chen, Z.-T

    J. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y .-G. Ma, and Q. Wang, Science Bulletin68, 874 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Chen, Z.-T

    J.-H. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y .-G. Ma, X.-L. Sheng, and Q. Wang, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechan- ics & Astronomy68, 211001 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Huang, Nucl

    X.-G. Huang, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121752 (2021), 2002.07549

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Becattini and M

    F. Becattini and M. A. Lisa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 395 (2020), 2003.03640

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Huang, J

    X.-G. Huang, J. Liao, Q. Wang, and X.-L. Xia, Lect. Notes Phys.987, 281 (2021), 2010.08937

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    Gao, Z.-T

    J.-H. Gao, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Lect. Notes Phys.987, 195 (2021), 2009.04803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430006 (2024), 2402.04540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Niida and S

    T. Niida and S. A. V oloshin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430010 (2024), 2404.11042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Huang, Nucl

    X.-G. Huang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 208 (2025), 2411.11753

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  69. [69]

    Kharzeev and K

    D. Kharzeev and K. Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. A753, 316 (2005), hep-ph/0501234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  70. [70]

    G. Y . Prokhorov, D. A. Shohonov, O. V . Teryaev, N. S. Tsegelnik, and V . I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. C 112, 064907 (2025), 2502.10146

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo, JHEP02, 101 (2021), 2007.08249

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Palermo, M

    A. Palermo, M. Buzzegoli, and F. Becattini, JHEP10, 077 (2021), 2106.08340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    G. Y . Prokhorov, O. V . Teryaev, and V . I. Zakharov, JHEP02, 146 (2019), 1807.03584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    G. Y . Prokhorov, O. V . Teryaev, and V . I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D100, 125009 (2019), 1906.03529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    G. Y . Prokhorov, O. V . Teryaev, and V . I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D99, 071901 (2019), 1903.09697

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    V . E. Ambrus and M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Lett. B855, 138757 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 863, 139344 (2025)], 2308.03225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Ohsaku, Phys

    T. Ohsaku, Phys. Lett. B599, 102 (2004), hep-th/0407067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  78. [78]

    Ebert and V

    D. Ebert and V . C. Zhukovsky, Phys. Lett. B645, 267 (2007), hep-th/0612009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  79. [79]

    Castorina and M

    P. Castorina and M. Finocchiaro, J. Mod. Phys.3, 1703 (2012), 1207.3677. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  80. [80]

    Benic and K

    S. Benic and K. Fukushima (2015), 1503.05790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

Showing first 80 references.