arxiv: 2604.26785 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Effectiveness of nonflow suppression using multi-particle correlators

Chong Ye , Wei-Liang Qian , Yue Cui , Dan Wen , Yutao Xing , Rui-Hong Yue , Takeshi Kodama

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 10:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th

keywords non-flow suppressionmulti-particle correlatorsflow harmonicsheavy-ion collisionstoy modelsparticle decaymomentum conservationcumulants

0 comments

The pith

Multi-particle correlators can increase deviations from true flow harmonics in small systems

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

The paper challenges the assumption that multi-particle correlators suppress non-flow effects more effectively than simpler estimators in flow analyses of heavy-ion collisions. Simulations with two toy models, one mimicking particle decay and the other global momentum conservation, demonstrate that these correlators produce estimates farther from the true input flow values, with the problem worsening in small systems. Analytic calculations explain the specific patterns, such as oscillations in two- and four-particle estimates for the decay case and a distinctive deformation of flow for momentum conservation. Results are also contrasted with the maximum-likelihood estimation method.

Core claim

Using toy models that simulate non-flow effects from particle decay and global momentum conservation, multi-particle correlators yield apparent harmonic coefficients that deviate more from the input flow harmonics than conventional approaches, especially in small systems. Analytic explanations account for oscillations in v2{2} and v2{4} in the decay model and a unique flow deformation introduced by multi-particle cumulants in the momentum conservation model.

What carries the argument

Multi-particle correlators (higher-order cumulants such as the four-particle estimator) intended to suppress non-flow but shown to amplify deviations from input flow in the toy models.

If this is right

In small collision systems, multi-particle correlators may produce less reliable flow estimates than simpler methods.
Oscillations in v2{2} and v2{4} arise specifically from the particle decay non-flow source and can be derived analytically.
Momentum conservation non-flow leads to a deformation in collective flow that is characteristic of multi-particle correlators.
Maximum-likelihood estimation provides a viable alternative that avoids the same amplification of deviations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Analyses of flow in small systems like pp or pA collisions may need to re-evaluate reliance on multi-particle methods for non-flow suppression.
Testing the toy models against full event generators would help assess how well they represent real non-flow sources.
Other non-flow mechanisms such as jets or resonances could be added to the models to check if similar amplification occurs.

Load-bearing premise

The two toy models accurately capture the non-flow contributions from particle decay and global momentum conservation in actual heavy-ion collision events.

What would settle it

Experimental flow measurements in small systems such as proton-proton or proton-nucleus collisions that compare multi-particle correlator estimates against input-like values or alternative estimators and test whether the predicted larger deviations appear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26785 by Chong Ye, Dan Wen, Rui-Hong Yue, Takeshi Kodama, Wei-Liang Qian, Yue Cui, Yutao Xing.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The two toy models employed in the present study. Left: The first scenario represents particle decays. Particle pairs with an opening angle ϕopen are added on top of the background flow generated according to the one-particle distribution in Eq. (1). In the panel, ϕi and ϕj denote the azimuthal angles of the first and second particles forming a pair that models the non-flow contribution arising from partic… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Elliptic flow v2 evaluated using particle correlators, the event-plane method, and MLE. The analysis is performed for 10,000 events, each of which contains a total of 500 particles. The events are generated from the emission of particle pairs with a prescribed opening angle, superimposed on a background collective flow v2 = 0.1 and v3 = 0.06. When applicable, the input elliptic flows are indicated by dashe… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The same as view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The elliptic and triangular flow harmonics using particle correlators v2{4} and v3{4}. The conventions are the same as Figs. 2 and 3, but in the left column, we show the results for different opening angles ϕopen, and in the right column, we present the results for different pair numbers M. The calculations are carried out for the events where the particle pairs are correlated with the symmetry plane. In view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Multiplicity dependence of the cumulants c1{2}, c2{2}, c2{4}, and c3{4} averaged over 100,000 random events without any background harmonic flow but with strict global momentum conservation, generated by the T-generation algorithm. For comparison, the results are shown by filled red squares on a log-log scale and are compared with the fit −nk ln(M −2k)+ const, indicated by the red dashed lines. They are al… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison between the analytic expressions and the numerical results for the elliptic flow harmonics v2{2} and v2{4} as functions of the opening angle ϕopen in toy model I. The upper row corresponds to events in which the emitted pairs are correlated with the symmetry plane, whereas the lower row represents the uncorrelated case. The analytic curves are obtained using Eqs. (23), (30), (12), and (19), resp… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

As flow estimators, multi-particle correlators, particularly the higher-order ones, are generally regarded as effective tools for suppressing non-flow contributions. In this work, however, using two well-known toy models that simulate non-flow effects, we demonstrate that multi-particle correlators can, especially in small systems, yield estimates that deviate even further from the underlying flow harmonics than those obtained from other conventional approaches. The two toy models considered here are designed to mimic non-flow effects arising from particle decay and global momentum conservation, such that the {\it apparent} harmonic coefficients become significantly different from the {\it input} values. We provide an analytic explanation for the observed behavior of flow estimates based on multi-particle correlators. Specifically, in the toy model mimicking particle decay, we elucidate the oscillations observed in $v_2\{2\}$ and $v_2\{4\}$. For the other toy model simulating momentum conservation, we show that multi-particle cumulants introduce a deformation in the collective flow that is unique to multi-particle correlators. Additionally, we compare these results with those obtained using the maximum-likelihood estimation method, a recently proposed flow estimator that serves as a viable alternative to traditional techniques.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Toy models show multi-particle correlators can worsen flow estimates in small systems with analytic explanations, but the models' realism limits how far the warning applies.

read the letter

The main thing to take away is that in these two toy models, multi-particle correlators do not reliably suppress non-flow better than simpler methods and can lead to larger errors in the extracted flow, especially when the system is small. The authors show this with analytic arguments rather than just numerics. What works well is the focused use of established toy models to isolate the effects. For the decay model, they explain the oscillations in the two- and four-particle estimates of v2. For the momentum conservation model, they demonstrate a deformation in the flow that appears only with multi-particle cumulants. The side-by-side comparison with maximum-likelihood estimation helps put the traditional correlators in context and shows where the alternative might be more robust. The analytic explanations are a strength because they make the counter-intuitive results understandable instead of leaving them as black-box observations. This kind of dissection is useful for anyone who has to choose an estimator in practice. The limitation is that everything rests on how well the toy models represent real non-flow. Particle decay and global momentum conservation are important, but they do not include jets, resonance decays with flow coupling, or other correlations that show up in small-system data. The paper does not appear to test against full event generators, so the finding that deviations get worse remains tied to these specific setups. If those models miss key features, the practical warning might not apply as strongly. This paper is aimed at analysts working on anisotropic flow in heavy-ion collisions, particularly those dealing with small systems where non-flow dominates the uncertainty. A reader who has used or is considering multi-particle methods will find the examples and derivations worth looking at. I would recommend sending it to peer review. The question it raises is concrete and relevant, even if the toy-model basis means the conclusions are not yet definitive for experimental practice.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that multi-particle correlators, generally viewed as effective for non-flow suppression in flow measurements, can instead produce estimates of flow harmonics that deviate more from the true input values than conventional approaches, particularly in small systems. This is demonstrated using two toy models simulating non-flow from particle decays and global momentum conservation. Analytic explanations are provided for oscillations in v2{2} and v2{4} in the decay model and for a unique flow deformation induced by cumulants in the momentum conservation model. Results are compared to the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) method as an alternative estimator.

Significance. If the behaviors observed in the toy models generalize, the work would be significant for heavy-ion collision physics by highlighting limitations of multi-particle cumulants in small systems (pp, pA) where non-flow dominates. The analytic derivations offer insight into why higher-order correlators can underperform, and the explicit comparison to MLE provides a constructive alternative. This challenges standard practices and could improve analysis techniques if the toy-model insights prove robust.

major comments (2)

[Toy models] Toy models section: The central claim that multi-particle correlators yield larger deviations from input flow harmonics (especially in small systems) is demonstrated exclusively in the two toy models. The assumption that these models isolate the dominant non-flow effects without additional sources (e.g., jets, resonances, or flow-nonflow correlations) is load-bearing for relevance to real data; no comparison to full event generators is described, leaving open whether the larger deviations are generic or model-specific.
[Momentum conservation toy model] Analytic explanations for the momentum conservation model: The claim of a unique flow deformation induced by multi-particle cumulants requires explicit statement of the approximations and their validity range across system sizes, as this underpins the distinction from conventional methods.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: References to the original literature for the 'well-known toy models' simulating decay and momentum conservation would provide better context for readers.
[Introduction] Notation: The symbols v_2{2} and v_2{4} are used without an introductory definition; a brief clarification in the introduction would aid clarity for non-specialists.
[Results] Figures: Captions for result plots should explicitly state the system sizes, particle multiplicities, and input v2 values used to facilitate reproduction and interpretation of the deviations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have addressed each of the major comments in detail below, and we will incorporate appropriate revisions to enhance the paper.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Toy models section: The central claim that multi-particle correlators yield larger deviations from input flow harmonics (especially in small systems) is demonstrated exclusively in the two toy models. The assumption that these models isolate the dominant non-flow effects without additional sources (e.g., jets, resonances, or flow-nonflow correlations) is load-bearing for relevance to real data; no comparison to full event generators is described, leaving open whether the larger deviations are generic or model-specific.

Authors: We agree that the toy models are central to our claims and that comparisons to full event generators would provide additional validation. However, the strength of our approach lies in the ability to derive analytic explanations for the observed behaviors, which would be challenging in complex generators. We will revise the manuscript to include a more explicit discussion of the limitations of the toy models, emphasizing that the results illustrate potential issues in specific non-flow scenarios rather than claiming universality. We also note that the MLE comparison serves as a benchmark independent of the models. This revision will clarify the scope without altering the core findings. revision: partial
Referee: Analytic explanations for the momentum conservation model: The claim of a unique flow deformation induced by multi-particle cumulants requires explicit statement of the approximations and their validity range across system sizes, as this underpins the distinction from conventional methods.

Authors: We appreciate this point and will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised version explicitly listing the approximations used in the momentum conservation toy model, such as the assumption of a large number of particles for the cumulant expansion and the global nature of the momentum constraint without local correlations. We will specify the validity range, noting that the deformation effect is more pronounced in smaller systems where particle number fluctuations are significant, and contrast it with two-particle methods. This will strengthen the analytic section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results from independent toy model tests

full rationale

The paper constructs two explicit toy models with defined input flow harmonics plus non-flow effects (particle decay and global momentum conservation), applies multi-particle correlators to the generated events, and derives analytic explanations for the resulting deviations in v2{2} and v2{4}. These steps are forward simulations from model inputs rather than self-definitional reductions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The comparison to the maximum-likelihood estimator is likewise an external benchmark. No equations or claims reduce by construction to the target result; the derivation remains self-contained against the stated toy-model benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identified. The work relies on standard assumptions in heavy-ion physics regarding flow harmonics and non-flow sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5520 in / 1079 out tokens · 38049 ms · 2026-05-07T10:38:43.701187+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

Blaizot and E

J.-P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rept. 359, 355 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0101103

work page arXiv 2002
[2]

D. H. Rischke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 197 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305030

work page arXiv 2004
[3]

Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl

STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al. , Nucl.Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

work page arXiv 2005
[5]

Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl

PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. , Nucl.Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

work page arXiv 2005
[6]

Back et al

B. Back et al. , Nucl.Phys. A757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022

work page arXiv 2005
[7]

Aamodt et al

ALICE, K. Aamodt et al. , JINST 3, S08002 (2008)

2008
[8]

Aad et al

ATLAS, G. Aad et al. , JINST 3, S08003 (2008)

2008
[9]

Chatrchyan et al

CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al. , JINST 3, S08004 (2008)

2008
[10]

New Developments in Relativistic Viscous Hydrodynamics,

P. Romatschke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E19, 1 (2010), arXiv:0902.3663

work page arXiv 2010
[11]

C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[12]

U. W. Heinz and R. Snellings, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[13]

Hirano, P

T. Hirano, P. Huovinen, K. Murase, and Y. Nara, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 108 (2013), arXiv:1204.5814

work page arXiv 2013
[14]

Kodama, H

T. Kodama, H. Stocker, and N. Xu, J. Phys. G41, 120301 (2014)

2014
[15]

Derradi de Souza, T

R. Derradi de Souza, T. Koide, and T. Kodama, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 86, 35 (2016), arXiv:1506.03863

work page arXiv 2016
[16]

Florkowski, M

W. Florkowski, M. P. Heller, and M. Spalinski, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 046001 (2018), arXiv:1707.02282

work page arXiv 2018
[17]

Adler et al

STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 182301 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0107003

work page arXiv 2001
[18]

Arsene et al

BRAHMS, I. Arsene et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

work page arXiv 2005
[19]

Adcox et al

PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 212301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204005

work page arXiv 2002
[20]

Adams et al

STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al. , Phys. Rev. C72, 014904 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0409033

work page arXiv 2005
[21]

Aamodt et al

ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252302 (2010), arXiv:1011.3914

work page arXiv 2010
[22]

Aad et al

ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. , Phys. Rev. C86, 014907 (2012), arXiv:1203.3087

work page arXiv 2012
[23]

Chatrchyan et al

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 022301 (2012), arXiv:1204.1850

work page arXiv 2012
[24]

Khachatryan et al

CMS, V. Khachatryan et al. , Phys. Lett. B765, 193 (2017), arXiv:1606.06198

work page arXiv 2017
[25]

Aad et al

ATLAS, G. Aad et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 172301 (2016), arXiv:1509.04776

work page arXiv 2016
[26]

J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 211 (2018), arXiv:1801.03477

work page arXiv 2018
[27]

Adamczyk et al

STAR, L. Adamczyk et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 222301 (2015), arXiv:1505.07812

work page arXiv 2015
[28]

Schenke, P

B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C 89, 064908 (2014), arXiv:1403.2232

work page arXiv 2014
[29]

Carzon, S

P. Carzon, S. Rao, M. Luzum, M. Sievert, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054905 (2020), arXiv:2007.00780

work page arXiv 2020
[30]

Samanta and P

R. Samanta and P. Bożek, Phys. Rev. C 107, 054916 (2023), arXiv:2301.10659

work page arXiv 2023
[31]

Mascalhusk et al

H. Mascalhusk et al. , Chin. Phys. C 49, 054110 (2025), arXiv:2408.06249

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

ATLAS, G. Aad et al. , (2025), arXiv:2503.24125

work page arXiv 2025
[33]

Teaney and L

D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C83, 064904 (2011), arXiv:1010.1876

work page arXiv 2011
[34]

Teaney and L

D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C86, 044908 (2012), arXiv:1206.1905

work page arXiv 2012
[35]

F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C85, 024908 (2012), arXiv:1111.6538

work page arXiv 2012
[36]

Niemi, G

H. Niemi, G. Denicol, H. Holopainen, and P. Huovinen, Phys. Rev. C87, 054901 (2012), arXiv:1212.1008

work page arXiv 2012
[37]

Qian et al

W.-L. Qian et al. , J.Phys.G G41, 015103 (2014), arXiv:1305.4673

work page arXiv 2014
[38]

F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, P. Ishida, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C100, 054905 (2019), arXiv:1906.03045

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

Fu, Phys

J. Fu, Phys. Rev. C92, 024904 (2015)

2015
[40]

Andrade, F

R. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, T. Kodama, and W. Qian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 112301 (2008), arXiv:0805.0018

work page arXiv 2008
[41]

Takahashi et al

J. Takahashi et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 242301 (2009), arXiv:0902.4870

work page arXiv 2009
[42]

W.-L. Qian, R. Andrade, F. Gardim, F. Grassi, and Y. Hama, Phys. Rev. C87, 014904 (2013), arXiv:1207.6415

work page arXiv 2013
[43]

W. M. Castilho, W.-L. Qian, F. G. Gardim, Y. Hama, and T. Kodama, Phys. Rev. C95, 064908 (2017), arXiv:1610.04108

work page arXiv 2017
[44]

W. M. Castilho, W.-L. Qian, Y. Hama, and T. Kodama, Phys. Lett. B777, 369 (2018), arXiv:1707.09878

work page arXiv 2018
[45]

Wen et al

D. Wen et al. , J. Phys. G46, 035103 (2019), arXiv:1808.03775

work page arXiv 2019
[46]

Wen et al

D. Wen et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A56, 222 (2020), arXiv:2004.00528

work page arXiv 2020
[47]

Shen et al

S.-F. Shen et al. , Chin. Phys. 49, 084104 (2025), arXiv:2502.05737

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

Voloshin and Y

S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. C70, 665 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9407282

work page arXiv 1996
[49]

A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[50]

Borghini, P

N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C63, 054906 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007063

work page arXiv 2001
[51]

Bilandzic, R

A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C83, 044913 (2011), arXiv:1010.0233

work page arXiv 2011
[52]

J. Jia, M. Zhou, and A. Trzupek, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034906 (2017), arXiv:1701.03830

work page arXiv 2017
[53]

Borghini, P

N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C64, 054901 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0105040. 20

work page arXiv 2001
[54]

R. S. Bhalerao, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C84, 034910 (2011), arXiv:1104.4740

work page arXiv 2011
[55]

R. S. Bhalerao, J.-Y. Ollitrault, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C88, 024909 (2013), arXiv:1307.0980

work page arXiv 2013
[56]

R. S. Bhalerao, N. Borghini, and J. Y. Ollitrault, Nucl. Phys. A 727, 373 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0310016

work page arXiv 2003
[57]

Bastid et al

FOPI, N. Bastid et al. , Phys. Rev. C 72, 011901 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0504002

work page arXiv 2005
[58]

Bilandzic, C

A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Hansen, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C89, 064904 (2014), arXiv:1312.3572

work page arXiv 2014
[59]

R. S. Bhalerao, J.-Y. Ollitrault, and S. Pal, Phys. Lett. B742, 94 (2015), arXiv:1411.5160

work page arXiv 2015
[60]

Di Francesco, M

P. Di Francesco, M. Guilbaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C95, 044911 (2017), arXiv:1612.05634

work page arXiv 2017
[61]

R. S. Bhalerao, J.-Y. Ollitrault, S. Pal, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 152301 (2015), arXiv:1410.7739

work page arXiv 2015
[62]

Ye, W.-L

C. Ye, W.-L. Qian, R.-H. Yue, Y. Hama, and T. Kodama, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024901 (2023), arXiv:2304.00336

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

Ye et al

C. Ye et al. , Phys. Rev. C 111, 034904 (2025), arXiv:2408.14347

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Ye et al

C. Ye et al. , Phys. Rev. C 113, 044912 (2026), arXiv:2508.11113

work page arXiv 2026
[65]

Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference , 1 ed

L. Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference , 1 ed. (Springer, 2003)

2003
[66]

Borghini, P

N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 62, 034902 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0004026

work page arXiv 2000
[67]

Wang and F

Q. Wang and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 81, 064905 (2010), arXiv:0812.1176

work page arXiv 2010
[68]

Ollitrault, A

J.-Y. Ollitrault, A. M. Poskanzer, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C80, 014904 (2009), arXiv:0904.2315

work page arXiv 2009
[69]

Feng and F

Y. Feng and F. Wang, J. Phys. G 52, 013001 (2024)

2024
[70]

Jacobs and X

P. Jacobs and X. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 443534 (2005)

2005
[71]

Wang, Prog

F. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 74, 35 (2014)

2014
[72]

Andersson, G

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. Soderberg, Z. Phys. C 20, 317 (1983)

1983
[73]

M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 357 (2005)

2005
[74]

Asakawa, T

M. Asakawa, T. Csorgo, and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4013 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9810034

work page arXiv 1999
[75]

Borghini, P

N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, J.-Y. Ollitrault, A. M. Poskanzer, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002)

2002
[76]

Borghini, Eur

N. Borghini, Eur. Phys. J. C 30, 381 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302139

work page arXiv 2003
[77]

Chajecki and M

Z. Chajecki and M. Lisa, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034908 (2009), arXiv:0807.3569

work page arXiv 2009
[78]

Borghini, Phys

N. Borghini, Phys. Rev. C 75, 021904 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0612093

work page arXiv 2007
[79]

Bzdak and G.-L

A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 97, 014903 (2018), arXiv:1710.00653

work page arXiv 2018
[80]

Bzdak and G.-L

A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 781, 117 (2018), arXiv:1801.01277

work page arXiv 2018
[81]

Xie, G.-L

M.-T. Xie, G.-L. Ma, and A. Bzdak, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054904 (2022), arXiv:2204.01038

work page arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.