Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 11 cited by

Hydrodynamic attractors, initial state energy and particle production in relativistic nuclear collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a two-thirds-power relation between the initial energy of a relativistic nuclear collision and its final charged-particle multiplicity, and uses it to extract the energy density and shear viscosity of the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful closed-form attractor relation (Eq. 6) with a clever centrality prediction; the main weak point is the local-map promotion in Eq. (12), which needs stronger backing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02866 v3 pith:2EHR6D7X submitted 2019-08-07 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Giuliano Giacalone , Aleksas Mazeliauskas , Sören Schlichting This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords hydrodynamicattractorheavy-ioncollisionsquark-gluonplasmaentropyproductioninitial-stateenergydensitychargedparticlemultiplicityshearviscositypre-equilibriumdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the number of charged particles eventually produced in a high-energy nuclear collision is fixed, to the two-thirds power, by the energy deposited in the initial state, through the universal early-time behavior known as a hydrodynamic attractor. The central formula, Eq. (6), gives the entropy per unit rapidity after equilibration as a known constant times $(e\tau)_0^{2/3}$, where $(e\tau)_0$ is the initial energy per unit rapidity. If correct, this turns the accurately measured particle multiplicities into a direct measurement of the energy density of the far-from-equilibrium quark-gluon plasma before it thermalizes, and a constraint on its shear viscosity. The same relation explains the measured universal centrality dependence of multiplicities across collision systems using only nuclear geometry and pre-equilibrium entropy production.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hydrodynamic attractor for the energy density, the curve $$E(\tilde w)=\frac{e(\tau)\$tau^{{4/3}}$}{e_{\rm hydro}\tau_{\rm hydro}^{4/3}},\qquad \tilde w=\frac{T_{\rm eff}(\tau)\tau}{4\pi\eta/s},$$ which interpolates between $C_\infty^{-1}\tilde w^{4/9}$ at early free-streaming times and $1-2/(3\pi\tilde w)$ near viscous hydrodynamics. Its role is to supply the far-from-equilibrium constitutive relation $P_L/e=f(\tilde w)$, so that Eq. (1) can be integrated without committing to one microscopic theory. The constant $C_\infty$, which encodes how much entropy is produced between free streaming and thermalization, is nearly the same across very different microscopic descriptions, which is why the resulting 2/3-power relation carries over across theories.

What would settle it

Compute the initial energy per unit rapidity $(e\tau)_0$ from a first-principles calculation at one collision energy and compare the multiplicity predicted by Eqs. (6)-(7) with measured $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$ across centrality; if the implied $\eta/s$ varies with centrality or energy, or if the reconstructed $dE_0/d\eta_s$ falls below the measured final-state energy $dE_{\rm final}/dy$ in any centrality bin, the central relation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a quantitative one-to-one relation between the initial-state energy and the final-state entropy in relativistic nuclear collisions. Starting from energy-momentum conservation for a boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous conformal system and using the hydrodynamic-attractor curve $E(\tilde w)$ shared by different microscopic equilibration theories, it derives $$(s\tau)_{\rm hydro} = \frac{4}{3} C_\$infty^{{3/4}}$ \left(4\pi\eta/s\right)^{1/3} \left(\frac{\$pi^{2}$\nu_{\rm eff}}{30}\right)^{1/3} (e\tau)$_0^{{2/3}}$.$$ Because the entropy at freeze-out is proportional to the measured charged-particle multiplicity, this relation lets one read the initial energy per unit rapidity $(e\tau)_0$ backwards from $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$. For central Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV the paper quotes $e_0\approx 270$ GeV/fm$^3$ at $\tau_0=0.1$ fm/c, nearly three orders of magnitude above the QCD crossover energy density. Applied to centrality dependence, the same formula predicts a nontrivial dependence on the nuclear thickness through $\int d^2 x_\perp (T_< \sqrt{T_>})^{2/3}$, which reproduces the measured universal curve once pre-equilibrium entropy production is included.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the early-time plasma in a real collision is close enough to a boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous conformal system that the one-dimensional attractor relation can be applied point by point across the transverse plane; if transverse gradients or three-dimensional memory of the initial state matter before hydrodynamization, the 2/3 exponent and the centrality predictions would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Measured charged-particle multiplicities become an indirect calorimeter for the energy density of the pre-equilibrium quark-gluon plasma; for central Pb-Pb at 2.76 TeV the paper quotes $e_0\approx 270$ GeV/fm$^3$ at $\tau_0=0.1$ fm/c.
  • The centrality dependence of $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$ across Au-Au, Cu-Cu, Pb-Pb, Xe-Xe and U-U collisions follows from pre-equilibrium entropy production combined with color-glass-condensate energy deposition, whereas counting initial gluons alone does not reproduce the data.
  • The reconstructed initial-state energy per unit rapidity exceeds the measured final-state energy by a factor of two to three in central collisions, quantifying the work done against the longitudinal expansion.
  • Large values of $\eta/s$ and $C_\infty$ are excluded because they would make the reconstructed initial energy fall below the measured final energy; assuming full equilibration, the paper obtains an upper limit $\eta/s\lesssim 0.4$.
  • Fluctuations of the initial energy are transmitted to the entropy with a 2/3 exponent, $\delta s_{\rm hydro}/s_{\rm hydro}=\frac{2}{3}\delta e_0/e_0$, which alters the statistics of initial-state fluctuations and helps describe peripheral collisions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 2/3 relation holds event by event, multiplicity fluctuations should carry the imprint of the pre-equilibrium phase; comparing the variance of measured $dN_{\rm ch}/d\eta$ with the variance of modeled $(e\tau)_0$ in a Glauber Monte Carlo would test the exponent without invoking final-state hydrodynamics.
  • Because the extracted initial energy and $\eta/s$ enter only through $(e\tau)_0^{2/3}$ and $(\eta/s)^{1/3}$, an independent first-principles computation of the initial energy would convert measured multiplicities into a direct measurement of $\eta/s$, bypassing flow modeling entirely.
  • Deviations from the predicted centrality curve in smaller systems, such as oxygen-oxygen or proton-nucleus collisions, would delimit where attractor-based entropy production stops being the whole story and where three-dimensional pre-equilibrium dynamics must be included.
  • The difference between reconstructed initial energy and measured final energy could be cross-checked in existing hydrodynamic simulations: the integrated longitudinal work should match the energy lost between the initial and final states, making the work estimate internally testable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a closed relation between the initial-state energy per unit rapidity and the hydrodynamized entropy per unit rapidity, Eq. (6), using the existence of a hydrodynamic attractor for boost-invariant, transversely homogeneous conformal systems. It then promotes this relation to a pointwise local map, Eq. (12), to compute the centrality dependence of charged-particle multiplicities from CGC/Glauber initial conditions, compares the resulting shapes to data at RHIC and LHC, and inverts the relation to estimate the initial energy density dE0/dηs and to discuss constraints on η/s. The central derivation in Eq. (6) is clean and is benchmarked against QCD kinetic theory, Yang-Mills kinetic theory, Boltzmann RTA, and AdS/CFT, with the constant C∞ varying at the 10–20% level across theories. The phenomenological applications, however, rely on two additional steps that are less secure: the local promotion of Eq. (6) and the normalization of the theoretical curves to one centrality bin per system.

Significance. If the central relation Eq. (6) can be justified beyond the idealized homogeneous setup, it is a valuable and falsifiable result: it turns measured multiplicities into a direct probe of the pre-equilibrium energy density and of η/s, with all prefactors explicit and with remarkable insensitivity to the microscopic equilibration mechanism. The paper also provides a transparent derivation that connects attractor theory to a standard heavy-ion observable, and the comparison in Fig. 2 is a clean shape test of the centrality dependence. The main value is in the explicit analytic relation and in the proposal that the early-time entropy production can be quantified by the exponent 2/3 rather than by model-dependent parametric estimates. The significance is reduced, but not eliminated, by the fact that the data comparison uses one fitted normalization per system and that the local-map step is supported only indirectly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Centrality dependence of particle multiplicity, Eq. (12)] The promotion of Eq. (6) to a pointwise local map is the key step that produces the centrality prediction Eq. (12), but the cited justification is insufficient. Ref. [43] validates that the one-dimensional constitutive relation for P_L/e remains approximately valid in the presence of transverse gradients; it does not establish that the entropy per rapidity produced at each transverse point equals the homogeneous-attractor result evaluated at the local energy density. Eq. (13) is a linearized long-wavelength relation, whereas Eq. (12) is a fully nonlinear local map. In peripheral collisions, where transverse gradients are largest, the overprediction of dNch/dη could equally be a symptom of the breakdown of this local map rather than of the neglect of geometrical fluctuations. The authors should test the local map against a 3D kinetic-theory or KøMPøST evolution with transverse structure and show that the local entropy profile, not only P_L/e, follows the attractor relation.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (20) in the supplemental material] The data comparison in Fig. 2 uses one fitted normalization per collision system: the combination in Eq. (20) is matched to data, with values 10.7 and 4.8 for Pb-Pb and Au-Au, and the other systems' data are scaled by arbitrary factors shown in the caption. Consequently, the agreement tests the shape of the centrality curve, not an ab initio prediction of the absolute multiplicity. The abstract's claim of an "ab initio model of energy deposition" is therefore stronger than what is demonstrated, because the normalization constant N_e (or the combination in Eq. (20)) is constrained by experiment. In addition, no systematic uncertainties from the Glauber parameters, the S/Nch range, ν_eff, or the normalization are propagated into the theoretical curves; the authors should either propagate them or explicitly state that the comparison is shape-only.
  3. [Discussion and Eq. (21), Fig. 3] The claimed upper limit η/s ≲ 0.4 is conditional on the assumption of (nearly-)complete equilibration, and the paper itself states that for η/s ≳ 0.4 the estimates need to be revised because the QGP would not equilibrate in peripheral collisions. The bound is therefore derived using the same assumption that it is supposed to constrain, and no quantitative model of the incomplete-equilibration regime is provided to close the loop. Also, the uncertainty bands in Fig. 3 vary only η/s and C∞; the substantial uncertainties in S/Nch (6.7–8.5) and ν_eff enter Eq. (21) with powers 3/2 and −1/2 and are not shown. The η/s constraint should be presented as an illustration of potential sensitivity rather than as a firm constraint.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (18), supplemental material] Eq. (18) appears to have the Jacobian J in the numerator, whereas Eq. (7) has 1/J; since J≈1.1, this is a 10% discrepancy that is absorbed by the fitted normalization N_e, but the two expressions should be made consistent.
  2. [Eq. (14)] The denominator in the (η/s) factor is printed as 2/(4π), which is inconsistent with the values η/s=0.08 and 0.16 quoted in Fig. 3; if the intended reference value is the KSS bound, it should read 1/(4π).
  3. [Fig. 1 and surrounding text] The text states that the variation of C∞ is only at the ~10% level, but the values shown in Fig. 1 span 0.87–1.06, a spread of about 20% around the central value; since C∞ enters Eq. (21) with the power −9/8, this variation induces a ~20–25% uncertainty in dE0/dηs and should be described accordingly.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The multiplicative factors attached to the Xe-Xe, U-U, Au-Au, and Cu-Cu data are not defined in the caption; it should be stated explicitly that these are overall normalization factors used to collapse the data onto a universal curve and whether the same factors are applied to the theory curves.
  5. [Introduction (page 1)] There is a typo in "Relativstic Heavy-Ion Collider" that should be corrected to "Relativistic".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (6) is derived from independent attractor calculations; the data normalization in Fig. 2 is disclosed and the comparison is shape-only.

full rationale

The central relation Eq. (6) is obtained by integrating the attractor evolution Eq. (3) with the asymptotic forms Eq. (4), whose constants C∞ are taken from independent kinetic-theory, Yang-Mills, and AdS/CFT simulations shown in Fig. 1. Neither the exponent 2/3 nor the prefactor is fitted to dNch/dη data. The centrality curves in Fig. 2 are explicitly normalized to one data point ("All curves are normalized to present the same value of multiplicity as ALICE Pb-Pb data in the 10-20% centrality bin"), so the comparison tests the shape of the centrality dependence, not an ab initio absolute multiplicity; this is a disclosed calibration, not a hidden reintroduction of the data into Eq. (6). The extraction of dE0/dηs via Eq. (21) is explicitly presented as an inversion of Eqs. (6) and (7), so using measured dNch/dη there is a legitimate inverse application, not a prediction from first principles. The promotion of the homogeneous relation to the local map Eq. (12) is the least secure step, but it is an assumption supported by external gradient studies, not a reduction of the result to its own inputs. Self-citations to earlier kinetic-theory works are to independent numerical computations whose stated assumptions do not include the target multiplicity relation, so they constitute real evidence rather than circular loading. No step has been exhibited where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or where an equation reduces by construction to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formula rests on the attractor universality and on a chain of standard heavy-ion modeling assumptions; no new entities are introduced. The absolute normalization is a fitted prefactor, while C_infinity, eta/s, and S/Nch are external inputs with stated uncertainty ranges.

free parameters (5)
  • Global normalization prefactor (Eq. 20) = 10.7 (Pb-Pb 2.76 TeV); 4.8 (Au-Au 200 GeV)
    Adjusted to reproduce dNch/deta in the 10-20% centrality class. This is the only free parameter controlling the absolute multiplicity normalization in the centrality comparison.
  • Specific shear viscosity eta/s = 0.08-0.24 (central values 0.08, 0.16)
    Input transport coefficient, not derived here. Appears as (eta/s)^{1/3} in Eq. (6) and (eta/s)^{-1/2} in Eq. (14).
  • Attractor constant C_infinity = 0.80-1.15 (central 0.87)
    Taken from numerical attractor solutions in QCD kinetics, RTA, YM kinetics, and AdS/CFT; its spread defines the shaded bands in Fig. 3.
  • Entropy per charged particle S/Nch = 6.7-8.5 (central 7.5)
    Phenomenological conversion factor from Ref. [32]; directly scales the multiplicity estimate in Eq. (7).
  • Effective degrees of freedom nu_eff = 40
    Choice for the QCD degrees of freedom in T_eff; its uncertainty is not propagated into Eq. (14).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic attractor E(w) exists and is universal across microscopic theories, with free-streaming and viscous asymptotics given by Eq. (4).
    Central relation Eq. (6) integrates this attractor; if the attractor differs for real QCD, the exponents and C_infinity are not universal.
  • domain assumption Pre-equilibrium expansion is boost-invariant and transversely homogeneous, so Eq. (6) can be promoted to a local map over x_perp.
    Introduced when Eq. (12) is derived from Eq. (6); transverse gradients are neglected on the basis of Ref. [43].
  • domain assumption The plasma is conformal with P = e/3 and constant nu_eff during the pre-equilibrium stage.
    Used in Eq. (5) and in the effective temperature definition; real QCD is not conformal, but the effect is assumed small at the relevant times.
  • domain assumption Entropy per unit rapidity is conserved from tau_hydro to freeze-out, and dS/deta_s is proportional to dNch/deta with S/Nch = 6.7-8.5.
    Bridges Eq. (6) to measured multiplicities via Eq. (7); any centrality or system dependence in S/Nch would shift the comparison.
  • domain assumption Initial-state energy deposition follows dilute-dense CGC scaling, (e tau)_0 proportional to T_< sqrt(T_>), with Q_s^2 proportional to T(x_perp).
    Gives Eq. (12) and all centrality curves; the paper concedes other fluctuation models can reproduce the same data, so this scaling is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Nucleus-nucleus centrality can be mapped to impact parameter through the geometric Glauber relation, and nucleon positions follow a two-parameter Fermi distribution.
    Defines T(x_perp), A_perp, and the centrality bins used in Figs. 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption The formation time tau_0 approximately 1/Q_s is about 0.1 fm/c and lies in the regime w << 1 where Eq. (4) applies.
    Required for Eq. (14) to be valid; this time is entered as an input and sets the reported energy density scale.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hydrodynamic attractors, initial state energy and particle production in relativistic nuclear collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2EHR6D7X

@misc{pith2026190802866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hydrodynamic attractors, initial state energy and particle production in relativistic nuclear collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2EHR6D7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02866}
}
read the original abstract

We exploit the concept of hydrodynamic attractors to establish a general relation between the initial state energy and the produced particle multiplicities in high-energy nuclear collisions. When combined with an ab initio model of energy deposition, the entropy production during the pre-equilibrium phase naturally explains the universal centrality dependence of the measured charged particle yields in nucleus-nucleus collisions. We further estimate the energy density of the far-from-equilibrium initial state and discuss how our results can be used to constrain non-equilibrium properties of the quark-gluon plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Hydrodynamic attractor for pre-equilibrium evolu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The effect of pre-equilibrium dynamics on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Estimate of the initial energy per unit space-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. Bremsstrahlung photon contributions to parton energy loss at high virtuality ($Q^2$) : a perturbative calculation at $O(\alpha_{s} \alpha_{em})$

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A first perturbative derivation of medium-induced photon bremsstrahlung kernels at O(alpha_s alpha_em) from high-virtuality quarks, with heavy quark masses and fermion-boson conversion.

  2. Necessary and sufficient conditions of nonlinear causality in viscous anisotropic hydrodynamics

    nucl-th 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The leading-order VAH equations stay causal exactly when the three dimensionless ratios in Eq. (21) satisfy the stated chain inequalities.

  3. Experimentally accessible drive-induced attractor in a Fermi gas near unitarity

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A rapid scattering-length sweep in a near-unitary Fermi gas produces an early-time attractor that is visible only in the joint (E, Π) state space, not in a single-variable curve.

  4. Collective dynamics in heavy and light-ion collisions -- I) Kinetic Theory vs. Hydrodynamics

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Event-by-event simulations show elliptic flow in heavy and light ion collisions follows a universal opacity-dependent response curve; hydrodynamics is accurate only above opacity around 3, and oxygen collisions expose...

  5. Neither weak nor strong entropic Leggett-Garg inequalities can be violated

    quant-ph 2019-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper claims entropic Leggett-Garg inequalities cannot be violated by strong or weak measurements, but the weak-measurement version is contradicted by the paper's own formulas for a specific choice of angles and m...

  6. Entropy production in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    From LHC data on particle spectra and femtoscopic radii, the entropy per unit rapidity is determined for pp and Pb-Pb collisions, and simulations trace about 95% of that entropy to the first fm/c.

  7. Disentangling Initial-State and Evolution Effects in Heavy-Ion Collisions Using EPOS and PHSD

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    By swapping initial conditions and evolution engines between EPOS and PHSD, the authors find that the dynamical evolution stage, not the initial state, dominates final hadron spectra and elliptic flow in 200 GeV Au+Au...

  8. Flow in small systems in the EPOS4 approach for high-energy scatterings

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the EPOS4 framework, a symmetric initial parton distribution cannot reproduce the flat elliptic flow versus multiplicity seen in high-multiplicity pp collisions, whereas a two-center 'dipole' proton shape can.

  9. Effects of sub-nucleonic fluctuations on the longitudinal structure of heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sub-nucleonic hotspots in the initial state increase longitudinal flow decorrelation and reduce baryon stopping in simulated Pb+Pb collisions, but the model still underestimates decorrelation in mid-central events.

  10. Few is different: deciphering many-body dynamics in mesoscopic quantum gases

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A workshop report mapping the size, equilibrium, and interaction frontiers of hydrodynamic behavior in mesoscopic quantum systems, connecting few-atom Fermi gases and high-energy small collision systems.

  11. Effective theories for nuclei at high energies

    hep-ph 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    This paper reviews the Color Glass Condensate effective theory, covering its foundations, its role in deep inelastic scattering, and its use in setting initial conditions for heavy-ion collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

  1. [43]

    Kurkela, W

    A. Kurkela, W. van der Schee, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 102301 (2020), arXiv:1907.08101 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    Sch¨ afer and D

    T. Sch¨ afer and D. Teaney, Rept. Prog. Phys.72, 126001 (2009), arXiv:0904.3107 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [3]

    Adams, L

    A. Adams, L. D. Carr, T. Sch¨ afer, P. Steinberg, and J. E. Thomas, New J. Phys. 14, 115009 (2012), arXiv:1205.5180 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [4]

    Schlichting and D

    S. Schlichting and D. Teaney, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 69, 447 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023825

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023825 2019

  6. [5]

    Adams et al

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

    arXiv 2005

  7. [6]

    Adcox et al

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

    arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

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

    arXiv 2005

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    Arsene et al

    I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS), Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020 [nucl-ex]

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Florkowski, M

    W. Florkowski, M. P. Heller, and M. Spalinski, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 046001 (2018), arXiv:1707.02282 [hep- 6 ph]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Relativistic Fluid Dynamics In and Out of Equilibrium , Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2019) arXiv:1712.05815 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Gyulassy and T

    M. Gyulassy and T. Matsui, Phys. Rev. D29, 419 (1984)

    1984

  5. [12]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D27, 140 (1983)

    1983

  6. [13]

    M. P. Heller, R. A. Janik, and P. Witaszczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 201602 (2012), arXiv:1103.3452 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    M. P. Heller and M. Spalinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 072501 (2015), arXiv:1503.07514 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Romatschke, Phys

    P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 012301 (2018), arXiv:1704.08699 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    M. P. Heller, A. Kurkela, M. Spali´ nski, and V. Svensson, Phys. Rev. D97, 091503 (2018), arXiv:1609.04803 [nucl- th]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Strickland, J

    M. Strickland, J. Noronha, and G. Denicol, Phys. Rev. D97, 036020 (2018), arXiv:1709.06644 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Blaizot and L

    J.-P. Blaizot and L. Yan, Phys. Lett. B780, 283 (2018), arXiv:1712.03856 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Strickland, JHEP 12, 128 (2018), arXiv:1809.01200 [nucl-th]

    M. Strickland, JHEP 12, 128 (2018), arXiv:1809.01200 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Behtash, S

    A. Behtash, S. Kamata, M. Martinez, and H. Shi, Phys. Rev. D99, 116012 (2019), arXiv:1901.08632 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Behtash, C

    A. Behtash, C. N. Cruz-Camacho, and M. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D97, 044041 (2018), arXiv:1711.01745 [hep- th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Behtash, C

    A. Behtash, C. N. Cruz-Camacho, S. Kamata, and M. Martinez, Phys. Lett. B797, 134914 (2019), arXiv:1805.07881 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kurkela and Y

    A. Kurkela and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 182301 (2015), arXiv:1506.06647 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Keegan, A

    L. Keegan, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, W. van der Schee, and Y. Zhu, JHEP 04, 031 (2016), arXiv:1512.05347 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Keegan, A

    L. Keegan, A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, and D. Teaney, JHEP 08, 171 (2016), arXiv:1605.04287 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Kurkela, A

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlicht- ing, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C99, 034910 (2019), arXiv:1805.00961 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Kurkela, A

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlicht- ing, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122302 (2019), arXiv:1805.01604 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Kurkela and A

    A. Kurkela and A. Mazeliauskas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 142301 (2019), arXiv:1811.03040 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kurkela and A

    A. Kurkela and A. Mazeliauskas, Phys. Rev.D99, 054018 (2019), arXiv:1811.03068 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kurkela, U

    A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 965 (2019), arXiv:1905.05139 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    D. A. Teaney, in Quark-gluon plasma 4 , edited by R. C. Hwa and X.-N. Wang (World Scientific, 2010) pp. 207– 266, arXiv:0905.2433 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Hanus, A

    P. Hanus, A. Mazeliauskas, and K. Reygers, Phys. Rev. C100, 064903 (2019), arXiv:1908.02792 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C94, 034903 (2016), arXiv:1603.04775 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Baier, A

    R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff, and D. T. Son, Phys. Lett. B539, 46 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204211 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Baier, A

    R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff, and D. T. Son, (2011), arXiv:1103.1259 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [36]

    van der Schee and B

    W. van der Schee and B. Schenke, Phys. Rev. C92, 064907 (2015), arXiv:1507.08195 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Reygers, N. Tanji, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C95, 054904 (2017), arXiv:1701.05064 [nucl- th]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B790, 35 (2019), arXiv:1805.04432 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 032301 (2011), arXiv:1012.1657 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C93, 024901 (2016), arXiv:1509.06727 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Alver et al

    B. Alver et al. (PHOBOS), Phys. Rev. C83, 024913 (2011), arXiv:1011.1940 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venu- gopalan, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 463 (2010), arXiv:1002.0333 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Dumitru and L

    A. Dumitru and L. D. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A700, 492 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0105268 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Lappi, Phys

    T. Lappi, Phys. Lett. B643, 11 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0606207 [hep-ph]

    2006

  39. [47]

    J. P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, Nucl. Phys. A743, 13 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402256 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Blaizot and Y

    J.-P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Nucl. Phys. A818, 97 (2009), arXiv:0806.1422 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. P. Blaizot, T. Lappi, and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Nucl. Phys. A846, 63 (2010), arXiv:1005.0955 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    We note that explicit comparisons of dilute-dense and dense-dense calculations in Ref. [49] show that in the mo- mentum range pT & Qs, which gives the dominant con- tribution todE/dy, the dilute-densekT factorization cal- culations accurately describe dense-dense Classical Yan...

  43. [51]

    In addition, we provide detailed formulas for calculating the centrality dependence of the averaged charged-particle multiplicity and the initial-state energy per rapidity, i.e

    The supplemental material provides the description of the Monte Carlo Glauber model of nucleus-nucleus colli- sions used to determine the nuclear thickness functions, which are needed for the calculation of the initial-state energy profile. In addition, we provide detailed form...

  44. [52]

    M. Mace, V. V. Skokov, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 052301 (2018), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.123,no.3,039901(2019)], arXiv:1805.09342 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C86, 034908 (2012), arXiv:1206.6805 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. J. Drescher and Y. Nara, Phys. Rev. C75, 034905 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0611017 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Alver, M

    B. Alver, M. Baker, C. Loizides, and P. Steinberg, (2008), arXiv:0805.4411 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 012302 (2013), arXiv:1209.6330 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Niemi, K

    H. Niemi, K. J. Eskola, and R. Paatelainen, Phys. Rev. C93, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C94, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1605.03954 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl- ex/0701025 [nucl-ex]. 7

    2007

  52. [60]

    H.-T. Ding, F. Karsch, and S. Mukherjee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530007 (2015), arXiv:1504.05274 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Lett. B795, 15 (2019), arXiv:1812.08235 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    R. S. Bhalerao, J.-P. Blaizot, N. Borghini, and J.- Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B627, 49 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0508009 [nucl-th]

    2005

  55. [63]

    KøMPøST: linearized kinetic the- ory propagator of initial conditions for heavy ion colli- sions,

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlicht- ing, and D. Teaney, “KøMPøST: linearized kinetic the- ory propagator of initial conditions for heavy ion colli- sions,” https://github.com/KMPST/KoMPoST (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. W. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  57. [65]

    J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 76, 1 (2014), arXiv:1401.4866 [hep-ph]. Supplemental material Below we explain the details of the implementation of the initial state model described in the main text. When referring to the optical Glauber calculations, wh...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.