Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Charged-particle multiplicities in oxygen, neon, xenon, and lead collisions at ~5 TeV follow one wounded-parton law: four partons per nucleon, each depositing entropy via the same negative binomial distribution.

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

2026-08-01 20:49 UTC pith:ELZXWZWE

load-bearing objection A useful calibration of WPM+NB across light and heavy systems, but the statistical framework and the large per-system normalizations keep it from being a clean universality proof. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16485 v1 pith:ELZXWZWE submitted 2026-07-17 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Wounded parton scaling of multiplicities in ultra-relativistic light- and heavy-ion collisions

Rupam Samanta , Piotr Bozek , Wojciech Broniowski This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q24.10.Lx
keywords wounded parton modelmultiplicity distributionsnegative binomial distributionGlauber modellight-ion collisionsheavy-ion collisionscentrality dependenceentropy deposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that the charged-particle multiplicity distributions measured in oxygen, neon, xenon, and lead collisions at roughly five TeV per nucleon pair are all governed by a single wounded-parton scaling law. In the model, each nucleon is made of four partons; any parton that undergoes an inelastic collision becomes 'wounded' and independently deposits a random amount of entropy drawn from a negative binomial distribution with mean one. The total entropy is converted to observed multiplicity by a single multiplicative constant, and the same two fluctuation parameters are used for all four systems. A joint fit of the recorded histograms over centralities 1–80% yields a reduced chi-square of 0.86, with only a per-system normalization factor allowed to differ. If this holds, it gives a common, simple initial-state description for vastly different collision sizes at TeV-scale energies.

Core claim

The central claim is that the full recorded multiplicity histograms for four very different collision systems can be described by a wounded parton model in which each of the Np constituent partons of a nucleon that suffers an inelastic collision independently deposits a random entropy drawn from a negative binomial distribution with mean one and parameter κ. The total entropy is converted to multiplicity by a universal factor β, and the same β and κ fit all systems when a per-system normalization constant is allowed. The best fit uses four partons per nucleon, β=2.51, κ=0.23, with reduced chi-square 0.86 over centralities 1–80%. The description holds for light systems down to 1% centrality;

What carries the argument

The central object is the wounded parton: a constituent parton inside a nucleon that has undergone at least one inelastic collision with a parton from the other nucleus. The nucleon is modeled as a cluster of Np partons distributed with an exponential density, and parton–parton inelastic collisions have a Gaussian profile in impact parameter. Each wounded parton deposits an entropy amount drawn independently from a negative binomial distribution with mean one and variance 1 + 1/κ; summing over wounded partons gives the total entropy S, and final charged multiplicity is Nch = βS. The model's predictive power is that the geometry of the collision (which partons touch) fixes the shape of the mu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every experimental normalization and inefficiency effect can be absorbed by a single multiplicity-independent constant per collision system, so the shape of the recorded histogram matches the model up to that constant; if γ varies with multiplicity, the claimed universality of β and κ could be an artifact.

What would settle it

Measure an absolutely normalized multiplicity distribution for at least two of the systems (e.g., oxygen and lead) at the same energy, with Coulomb contributions and detector efficiency under control, so that γ=1 can be fixed. If a single β and κ no longer describe both distributions, or if the data/model ratio varies with Nch after fixing the normalization, the universality claim fails. Alternatively, fit the current data allowing γ to be a low-order polynomial in Nch; a significant improvement of χ² would show that the constant-γ assumption is insufficient.

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

If this is right

  • If the universality holds, a single wounded-parton scaling law describes bulk particle production across systems differing in mass number by more than an order of magnitude (lead vs oxygen), establishing that entropy deposition per parton is system-independent at a given energy.
  • The model provides a validated initial entropy profile for hydrodynamic calculations in light-ion collisions, where no such benchmark existed before, enabling quantitative studies of collective flow in small systems.
  • The universal β and κ imply that any deviation from wounded-parton scaling in a new collision system or at higher energies is a direct signal of missing physics, such as saturation or a change in the effective number of partons.
  • The procedure of fitting uncorrected recorded histograms with a per-system normalization offers an alternative to experimental centrality calibration, reducing systematic uncertainty in model-data comparisons.
  • The large per-parton fluctuations implied by κ=0.23 give quantitative predictions for event-by-event multiplicity fluctuations and can be checked in other observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper does not test proton–proton or proton–nucleus collisions at the same energy, a natural extension is to apply the same β and κ to p+p and p+Pb data; agreement would strengthen the claim that the wounded parton is a universal emitter.
  • The fitted normalization factors γ (1.27 for xenon, 0.86 for lead) are far from unity; if those offsets are not truly constant in multiplicity, the apparent universality of β and κ could be an artifact. A direct test is to fit with a multiplicity-dependent γ and see if the improvement warrants the extra parameters.
  • The deviation in the most central heavy-ion events is only a few percent of the distributions; one could test whether the same parameter set describes the oxygen and neon data at higher precision (more events) down to 0.1% centrality, sharpening the boundary of the scaling regime.
  • The model's entropy picture is agnostic about the spatial distribution of deposited entropy; combining WPM+NB with a hydrodynamic evolution would predict flow harmonics, which can be compared with measured anisotropic flow coefficients to probe the initial-state geometry.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a wounded parton model (WPM) with negative binomial (NB) fluctuations to describe charged-particle multiplicity distributions measured by ATLAS in O+O, Ne+Ne, Xe+Xe, and Pb+Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) ~ 5 TeV. Using GLISSANDO simulations, the authors perform a global fit to the uncorrected experimental histograms in the 1–80% centrality range, with parameters N_p (partons per nucleon), beta (multiplicity per entropy unit), kappa (NB width), and four per-system normalization factors gamma_AA. The best fit gives N_p=4, beta=2.51, kappa=0.23, gamma_OO=0.999, gamma_NeNe=1.002, gamma_XeXe=1.27, gamma_PbPb=0.86, with a quoted chi^2/DOF=0.86. The authors claim a universal description of all systems down to centralities c ≲ 1%, but acknowledge in the Results that Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb show a systematic overshoot below about 3% centrality.

Significance. If the claimed universality were established, the result would be practically useful as a simple initial-state parametrization for hydrodynamics across very different system sizes. The paper has the virtue of fitting full multiplicity distributions rather than only mean multiplicities, and it openly discusses the use of uncorrected data and the associated normalization issues. However, the central claim is weakened by three load-bearing problems: (i) the reported chi^2/DOF is computed with an inappropriate statistical weight, (ii) the abstract's 'c ≲ 1%' claim conflicts with the visible overshoot at high multiplicity for Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb, and (iii) the 'universal' parameters beta and kappa are obtained only after applying large per-system normalizations (gamma_XeXe=1.27, gamma_PbPb=0.86) whose N_ch-independence is untested. These issues prevent the paper from currently supporting a predictive scaling statement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (6)-(8)] The quantities P_data(N_i) and P_mod(N_i/beta) in Eq. (7) are normalized probabilities, but the quoted weights sigma^2_i,data = N_i and sigma^2_i,mod = N_i/beta are Poisson variances appropriate to raw counts, not to normalized histograms. After the normalization of Eq. (5), the variance of the probability estimate is not N_i; it depends on the total number of events and on the bin probability. The resulting chi^2/DOF=0.86 is therefore not a valid goodness-of-fit statistic. The paper's own footnote 2 concedes that Eq. (8) is not a chi^2 distribution, yet the chi^2/DOF value is used as a central figure of merit. The authors should either use a correct covariance (e.g., multinomial) and re-evaluate the fit, or report the fit quality in a way that is not statistically misleading.
  2. [Abstract and Results (Fig. 1)] The abstract states 'We find a proper model description of multiplicity distributions across all the studied systems for c ≲ 1%', but the Results section and Fig. 1(c,d) show that for Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb the model 'systematically overshoots the data, at large multiplicities, i.e., below ≈3% centrality'. The data-to-model ratio in Fig. 1(c,d) visibly deviates from unity in the high-Nch region. These statements are in direct contradiction. Either the claim in the abstract must be restricted to the range where the model actually agrees (e.g., c > 3% for Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb), or the overshoot must be quantified and included in the assessment of 'proper description'.
  3. [Eq. (6) and Eq. (9)] The universality of beta and kappa is established only after multiplying each experimental histogram by a free, N_ch-independent factor gamma_AA. The fitted values gamma_XeXe=1.27 and gamma_PbPb=0.86 are large (27% and -14%). The paper provides no test of whether these factors are actually constant in N_ch; in fact, the text attributes the high-multiplicity overshoot to 'efficiency correction might be larger at higher multiplicities', which is precisely an N_ch-dependent normalization effect. If gamma_AA varies with N_ch, then the common beta and kappa could be an artifact of the rescaling. To support the universality claim, the authors should perform a control test, e.g., fit beta and kappa on O+O and Ne+Ne alone and then compare Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb without free normalizations, or explicitly check the stability of gamma_AA across N_ch bins.
  4. [Methodology (p. 4)] The paper uses uncorrected recorded data and excludes the most peripheral (lowest N_ch) range from the fit, but does not exclude the high-Nch region where the model overshoots for Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb. The Introduction states that 'the most central collisions may involve a different particle production mechanism', which would justify excluding or testing the most central data; however, the abstract's 'c ≲ 1%' claim contradicts this consideration. The fit range and the interpretation of the most central region need to be reconciled: either the model is expected to fail in the most central collisions (and the abstract should say so), or the overshoot needs to be treated as a model deficiency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The sum of NB-distributed integer variables S_i with mean 1 can produce S=0. The text says such events are discarded, but this changes the distribution; it should be stated how this affects the normalization of P_mod(S) and the mean of S.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The relation N_ch = beta S with S integer implies N_ch takes non-integer values if beta is not integer. The comparison to measured integer N_ch requires a model of binning or interpolation; this is not described and could affect the fit, especially at small N_ch.
  3. [Results (p. 5)] The degrees of freedom for the quoted chi^2/DOF=0.86 are not given. The number of data bins across the four systems and the number of fitted parameters (six) should be reported to allow the reader to interpret the value.
  4. [Results (p. 5)] The statement that N_p=5 gives 'only slightly larger chi^2/DOF' is not quantified. A comparison of the chi^2 values or the resulting fits would be useful, since N_p=4 and N_p=5 are both claimed to work.
  5. [Introduction, Ref. [6]] Reference [6] is cited in the Introduction but is not used directly in the analysis; consider citing it in the context of recorded-data corrections or removing it if irrelevant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the common β and κ are jointly fitted to independent histograms, not predicted from them; the admitted normalization and overshoot issues are robustness concerns, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model-calibration statement, not a prediction. Equations (6)-(8) explicitly define a joint χ² fit of β, κ, and four per-system normalization factors γ_AA to the same ATLAS multiplicity histograms that the model then 'describes'. Because β and κ are global parameters shared by four independent systems while the γ_AA are explicitly labeled as normalization corrections for unknown Coulomb/detector effects, the fact that a single pair (β=2.51, κ=0.23) works across O+O, Ne+Ne, Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb is nontrivial and could have failed; the authors report that Np=3 gives a significantly worse fit. This is exactly the difference between calibration and circularity. Self-citations to GLISSANDO and to wounded-quark scaling are corroborative rather than load-bearing: the present work independently scans Np=3,4,5 and fits external COMPETE/ATLAS data, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The strongest caveats are correctness/robustness issues, not circularity: Eq. (9) requires large system-dependent normalizations (γ_XeXe=1.27, γ_PbPb=0.86), and the Results/Fig. 1 text admits a systematic overshoot below ≈3% centrality for Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb, possibly due to Nch-dependent efficiency corrections. These undermine the abstract's 'c≲1%' wording and make the apparent universality fragile, but no step reduces to its inputs by construction. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard wounded-parton/Glauber implementation plus a global entropy-to-multiplicity proportionality and per-system normalization factors. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The largest burden is the assumption that a single gamma_AA rescaling can absorb all normalization differences; this is an ad hoc modeling choice specific to this paper.

free parameters (7)
  • N_p = 4 (best; 5 compatible, 3 worse)
    Number of constituent partons per nucleon; selected by comparing chi2/DOF, not predicted.
  • beta = 2.51
    Global scale converting deposited entropy S to measured charged multiplicity Nch; fitted jointly to all four systems (Eq. 8).
  • kappa = 0.23
    Negative-binomial fluctuation parameter per wounded parton; fitted jointly.
  • gamma_OO = 0.999
    Per-system normalization fitted to O+O data.
  • gamma_NeNe = 1.002
    Per-system normalization fitted to Ne+Ne data.
  • gamma_XeXe = 1.27
    Per-system normalization fitted to Xe+Xe data; large correction of +27%.
  • gamma_PbPb = 0.86
    Per-system normalization fitted to Pb+Pb data; large correction of -14%.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Final charged multiplicity is proportional to total deposited entropy from wounded partons, Nch = beta*S, with system-independent beta.
    Used in Eq. (6) before the fit; not derived from QCD or hydrodynamics.
  • domain assumption Each wounded parton deposits entropy independently from an NB(1,kappa) distribution; total strength S is the sum over wounded partons.
    Eqs. (3)-(4); independence and identical form are assumed.
  • domain assumption Nuclear matter distributions: Woods-Saxon for Pb and Ne, harmonic-oscillator for O, deformed Woods-Saxon for Xe.
    Methodology section; central nuclear geometries taken from literature.
  • domain assumption Partons are distributed in the nucleon by Eq. (1) and interact with Gaussian profile Eq. (2); r0 and sigma_qq_in fixed by matching COMPETE pp cross sections.
    Model calibration from previous pp data, taken as input; not re-fit here.
  • ad hoc to paper A single multiplicity-independent normalization gamma_AA per system fully corrects for Coulomb and detector normalization effects in the 1-80% range.
    Eq. (6) and fitted values in Eq. (9); large values for Xe/Pb make this a strong assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8560 in / 17545 out tokens · 171991 ms · 2026-08-01T20:49:35.183292+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Multiplicities of charged particles produced in O+O, Ne+Ne, Xe+Xe, and Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} \sim 5$~TeV are studied in a uniform way within a wounded parton Glauber framework with overlaid negative binomial fluctuations. In this model, the nucleon's inelastic interaction is modeled via its constituent partons, whose number is a parameter, with best description obtained with four partons per nucleon. We fit directly the experimental multiplicity distributions (histograms), using {\it the same model parameters} for each reaction. The fit is performed in the c=1--80 $\%$ centrality range. Avoiding the most peripheral events makes the method insensitive to the normalization issues caused by the difficulty in separating the Coulomb interactions, whereas the most central collisions may involve a different particle production mechanism. We find a proper model description of multiplicity distributions across all the studied systems for $c \lesssim 1\%$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16485 by Piotr Bozek, Rupam Samanta, Wojciech Broniowski.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Multiplicity distributions as observed in experiments (red) and obtained by performing the joint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Data to model ratio of the mean multiplicity in cen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ollitrault, Phenomenology of the little bang, J

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phenomenology of the little bang, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.312, 012002 (2011), arXiv:1008.3323 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Florkowski, Phenomenology of ultra-relativistic heavy-and ion collisions (World Scientific, 2010) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/7396

    W. Florkowski, Phenomenology of ultra-relativistic heavy-and ion collisions (World Scientific, 2010) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/7396

    work page doi:10.1142/7396 2010

  5. [5]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Measurement of the az- imuthal anisotropy of charged particles in √sNN = 5.36 TeV 16O+16O and 20Ne+20Ne collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C113, 045205 (2026), arXiv:2509.05171 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Measurements of charged- particle pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dis- tributions in O+O and Ne+Ne collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector, (2026), arXiv:2606.20257 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    I. J. Abualrob et al. (ALICE), Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in O−O and Ne−Ne collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV, (2025), arXiv:2509.06428 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Ali Hassan Abdallah et al

    D. Ali Hassan Abdallah et al. (ALICE), Evidence for parton energy loss in oxygen−oxygen collisions at√sNN =5.36TeV, (2026), arXiv:2606.19967 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Observation of long- range collective flow in OO and NeNe collisions and implications for nuclear structure studies, (2025), arXiv:2510.02580 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Observation of Suppressed Charged-Particle Production in Ultrarelativistic Oxygen- Oxygen Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 162301 (2026), arXiv:2510.09864 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Belyaev et al

    A. Belyaev et al. (CMS), System-size dependence of charged-particle suppression in ultrarelativistic nucleus- nucleus collisions, (2026), arXiv:2602.21325 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Belyaev et al

    A. Belyaev et al. (CMS), Centrality dependence of charged-hadron pseudorapidity distributions in oxygen- oxygen collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV, (2026), arXiv:2606.02285 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Bia las, W

    A. Bia las, W. Czy˙ z, and W. Furma´ nski, Particle Produc- tion in Hadron-Nucleus Collisions and the Quark Model, Acta Phys. Polon. B8, 585 (1977)

    1977

  14. [14]

    Bia las, W

    A. Bia las, W. Czy˙ z, and L. Le´ sniak, Additive Quark Model of Multiparticle Production and Nucleus-nucleus Collisions at High-energies, Phys. Rev. D25, 2328 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    Bia las and A

    A. Bia las and A. Bzdak, Wounded quarks and diquarks in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B649, 263 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 773, 681–681 (2017)], arXiv:nucl- th/0611021

    arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    Nouicer, Charged particle multiplicities in A+A and p+pcollisions in the constituent quarks framework, Eur

    R. Nouicer, Charged particle multiplicities in A+A and p+pcollisions in the constituent quarks framework, Eur. Phys. J. C49, 281 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0608038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Bo˙ zek, W

    P. Bo˙ zek, W. Broniowski, and M. Rybczy´ nski, Wounded quarks in A+A, p+A, and p+p collisions, Phys. Rev. C 94, 014902 (2016), arXiv:1604.07697 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Barej, A

    M. Barej, A. Bzdak, and P. Gutowski, Wounded-quark emission function at the top energy available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C97, 034901 (2018), arXiv:1712.02618 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    M. J. Tannenbaum, Constituent quarks and system- atic errors in mid-rapidity charged multiplicitydN ch/dη distributions, Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1830001 (2017), arXiv:1801.06063 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Broniowski, M

    W. Broniowski, M. Rybczynski, and P. Bo˙ zek, GLISSANDO: Glauber initial-state simulation and more.., Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 69 (2009), arXiv:0710.5731 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  21. [21]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Centrality dependence of par- ticle production in p-Pb collisions at √sNN= 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C91, 064905 (2015), arXiv:1412.6828 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Welsh, J

    K. Welsh, J. Singer, and U. W. Heinz, Initial state fluc- tuations in collisions between light and heavy ions, Phys. Rev. C94, 024919 (2016), arXiv:1605.09418 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear col- lisions at the subnucleon level, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Bo˙ zek and W

    P. Bo˙ zek and W. Broniowski, Transverse momentum fluc- tuations in ultrarelativistic Pb + Pb and p + Pb colli- sions with “wounded” quarks, Phys. Rev. C96, 014904 (2017), arXiv:1701.09105 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Charged-particle pseudo- 6 rapidity density at mid-rapidity in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 8.16 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 307 (2019), arXiv:1812.01312 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Charged-particle multiplicity distributions over a wide pseudorapidity range in p-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 919 (2025), arXiv:2502.18081 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Bo˙ zek and W

    P. Bo˙ zek and W. Broniowski, Collective dynamics in high-energy proton-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C88, 014903 (2013), arXiv:1304.3044 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [28]

    Nijs and W

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Predictions and postdic- tions for relativistic lead and oxygen collisions with the computational simulation code Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C 106, 044903 (2022), arXiv:2110.13153 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    R. J. Glauber, Cross-sections in deuterium at high- energies, Phys. Rev.100, 242 (1955)

    1955

  30. [30]

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

    arXiv 2007

  31. [31]

    Czy˙ z and L

    W. Czy˙ z and L. C. Maximon, High-energy, small angle elastic scattering of strongly interacting composite parti- cles, Annals Phys.52, 59 (1969)

    1969

  32. [32]

    Bia las, M

    A. Bia las, M. B leszynski, and W. Czy˙ z, Multiplicity Distributions in Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions at High- Energies, Nucl. Phys. B111, 461 (1976)

    1976

  33. [33]

    Kharzeev and M

    D. Kharzeev and M. Nardi, Hadron production in nuclear collisions at RHIC and high density QCD, Phys. Lett. B 507, 121 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0012025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    Kharzeev and E

    D. Kharzeev and E. Levin, Manifestations of high den- sity QCD in the first RHIC data, Phys. Lett. B523, 79 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0108006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Bayesian calibration of a hybrid nuclear collision model using p- Pb and Pb-Pb data at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C101, 024911 (2020), arXiv:1808.02106 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054909 (2021), arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Bo˙ zek, W

    P. Bo˙ zek, W. Broniowski, M. Rybczynski, and G. Ste- fanek, GLISSANDO 3: GLauber Initial-State Simula- tion AND mOre..., ver. 3, Comput. Phys. Commun.245, 106850 (2019), arXiv:1901.04484 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Patrignani et al

    C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    Rohrmoser and W

    M. Rohrmoser and W. Broniowski, Longitudinal cor- relations from fluctuating strings in Pb-Pb, p-Pb, and p-p collisions, Phys. Rev. C101, 014907 (2020), arXiv:1909.01702 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Alter- native ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Centrality determination of Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N= 2.76 TeV with ALICE, Phys. Rev. C88, 044909 (2013), arXiv:1301.4361 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Aad et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012