Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Dilepton Spectra and Even Flow Harmonics in a Magnetized QGP: An Ideal Hydrodynamic Study

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper aims to show that a time- and position-dependent magnetic field, modeled in a Gubser flow background, leaves a measurable imprint on the dilepton spectra and even flow harmonics from a quark-gluon plasma. It argues that the decay-

desk verdict A useful incremental step for B-field effects on dileptons, but the headline claim of a robust v2 sign-flip rests on an external field assumption, so it needs a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15035 v1 pith:ENEYR52T submitted 2025-08-20 hep-ph nucl-th

Ankit Kumar Panda , Aritra Das , Ashutosh Dash , Aritra Bandyopadhyay , Chowdhury Aminul Islam This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh
keywords magnetizedquark-gluonplasmadileptonspectraellipticflowevenharmonicsGubserheavy-ioncollisionsmagneticfieldelectricalconductivity
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

The paper aims to show that a time- and position-dependent magnetic field, modeled in a Gubser flow background, leaves a measurable imprint on the dilepton spectra and even flow harmonics from a quark-gluon plasma. It argues that the decay-channel elliptic flow v2 is nonzero even in nearly central collisions and has a distinctive sign-flip shape in transverse momentum, making it a candidate probe of electromagnetic effects in heavy-ion collisions. A sympathetic reader would care because this suggests central and semi-central collisions can reveal magnetic-field remnants in observables that are usually attributed only to geometric flow.

What carries the argument

The Gubser flow background: an analytically solvable, boost-invariant flow profile that permits a realistic, time-dependent, and spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field to enter the calculation without full 3+1D magnetohydrodynamics. This flow provides the velocity and temperature profiles needed to compute dilepton production rates and to decompose the resulting spectra into even flow harmonics, making the claimed v2 sign-flip pattern explicitly calculable.

What would settle it

Measure the dilepton elliptic flow v2 as a function of transverse momentum in near-central Pb-Pb or Au-Au collisions, isolating the decay-channel contribution by invariant mass. If v2 is zero or does not turn negative at high pT, the predicted magnetic imprint is contradicted. A full viscous magnetohydrodynamic simulation with the same magnetic-field profiles would also test whether the sign-flip pattern persists beyond ideal hydrodynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, despite the near-absence of geometric anisotropy in central collisions, the magnetic field generates a nonzero decay-channel v2 for dileptons that is positive at low pT and negative at high pT, and this shape is largely independent of impact parameter and electrical conductivity. Annihilation processes dominate the total dilepton yield and thus dominate the total flow magnitude, but the distinctive sign-changing signature lives in the decay channels. The paper also reports that v4 and higher even harmonics are smaller by an order of magnitude and show their own zero-crossing patterns, and that lowering the invariant mass enhances the field-induced effects.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a perfectly inviscid (ideal) quark-gluon plasma with zero shear viscosity; if realistic viscous effects erase or shift the predicted sign flip in v2, the proposed magnetic-field probe would not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured nonzero decay-channel v2 in near-central collisions would indicate that magnetic effects survive the geometric near-symmetry of the collision.
  • The predicted positive-to-negative sign flip in pT gives experiments a concrete, shape-based signature to search for in dilepton data.
  • Because annihilation dominates the yield, separating annihilation and decay contributions is essential if the field imprint is to be extracted from the total flow.
  • The conductivity independence of the v2 shape suggests the sign-flip pattern, rather than overall magnitudes, is the robust observable.
  • The smaller v4 with its zero crossings could serve as a cross-check that the even-harmonic pattern is magnetic in origin rather than geometric.
  • The persistence of the v2 pattern across impact parameters could allow magnetic-field remnants to be identified in central collisions where geometric flow is minimal.
  • If the sign flip is confirmed, dilepton measurements could be used to constrain the early magnetic field strength and lifetime in heavy-ion collisions.
  • The same Gubser-based approach could be extended to other electromagnetic probes, such as direct photons, to test whether the field imprint appears across channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies dilepton production from a hot, magnetized quark-gluon plasma, embedding realistic time-dependent and spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field profiles in an analytically solvable Gubser flow background. It computes transverse momentum spectra and even flow harmonics v2 and v4 for decay and annihilation channels, scanning impact parameter, electrical conductivity, and invariant mass. The central claim is that the decay-channel v2 is nonzero even in nearly central collisions and displays a characteristic sign-flip shape—positive at low pT and negative at high pT—that is largely independent of impact parameter and conductivity, proposed as a robust probe of the magnetic field. Annihilation processes dominate the yield and the total flow magnitude; conductivity enhances both spectra and flow but leaves no unique signature. The paper explicitly positions itself as a step toward full 3+1D magnetohydrodynamic simulations.

Significance. If the sign-flip shape and its claimed robustness survive coupling to the hydrodynamic flow and viscosity, the result would provide an analytically tractable, falsifiable probe of electromagnetic fields in heavy-ion collisions. The use of a realistic, time-dependent and inhomogeneous B profile is a clear improvement over static uniform-field studies, and the separate treatment of decay versus annihilation channels is a strength. The claim is emergent, not circular: conductivity, impact parameter, and mass are scanned inputs. However, the robustness claim is currently conditional on the neglect of magnetic back-reaction and on the ideal-fluid approximation, so its significance as a 'probe' is not yet fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and model setup] The magnetic field is treated as an external input imposed on a fixed Gubser flow background. Because Gubser flow is azimuthally symmetric, all nonzero v2 in this calculation comes solely from the B dependence of the emission rates. The central claim that the sign-flip shape is 'largely independent of impact parameter and conductivity' is therefore only demonstrated within this externally-prescribed-field idealization. In a real magnetized plasma, the Lorentz force modifies the flow velocity, and the induction equation couples B to the velocity, creating additional azimuthal structure that feeds back into the emission. The abstract itself acknowledges full 3+1D MHD as the long-term goal, signaling that the current setup is not self-consistent. To support the robustness claim, I ask for a quantitative estimate of the back-reaction—e.g., a leading-order computation of the flow-field modifi
  2. [Ideal hydrodynamics assumption] The calculation uses ideal hydrodynamics with zero shear viscosity. Realistic heavy-ion plasmas have nonzero viscosity, and viscous corrections are known to modify elliptic flow in measured hadron spectra. Although the paper is explicitly an ideal-fluid study, the claim that even flow harmonics can serve as a robust probe of magnetic fields requires at least an estimate of the viscous suppression/enhancement of the decay-channel v2 sign flip. Without such an estimate, the prediction may not be robust under the expected conditions in actual collisions. I suggest adding a simple viscous-correction model or a parametric estimate to justify that the sign-flip feature is not an artifact of the ideal limit.
  3. [Quantitative validation] The abstract makes quantitative assertions—'order of magnitude smaller', 'strongest enhancements at low mass', 'largely independent'—but the manuscript as provided does not show comparisons to available dilepton v2 data (e.g., from STAR or PHENIX) or to previous static-field calculations. Since the paper proposes a robust experimental probe, it should demonstrate that the predicted v2 magnitudes and zero-crossing positions are consistent with or distinguishable from existing measurements. At minimum, a benchmark against a known static-field case would calibrate the model and separate genuine magnetic-field signatures from artifacts of the Gubser background.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Notation] Please define the sign convention for v2 and v4 explicitly, including whether positive pT is measured with respect to the reaction plane or the magnetic field direction. The phrase 'positive at low pT and negative at high pT' is ambiguous without this.
  2. [Channel definitions] Clarify what is meant by 'decay channels' and 'annihilation processes'. Are these vector-meson decays (e.g., ρ, ω, J/ψ) and quark-antiquark annihilation? A table listing the included channels, their thresholds, and relative couplings would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Figures] The figures referenced in the text were not available in the reviewed manuscript. Ensure that each figure has a caption stating the fixed parameters (e.g., impact parameter, conductivity, invariant mass) and that axes are labeled with units.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the v2 sign-flip is an emergent model output from scanned external inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from an analytically prescribed Gubser flow background and an externally imposed, time- and space-dependent magnetic field profile with scanned conductivity and impact parameter. Dilepton emission rates are then computed from magnetized rates, and v2 is extracted. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the claimed v2 sign-flip; conductivity, impact parameter, and invariant mass are varied as independent inputs, and the observed robustness is an output. The ideal-hydro Gubser background is azimuthally symmetric, so the nonzero v2 must come from the B-field dependence of the emission kernel, not from the flow ansatz. There is no self-definitional relation, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation visible in the abstract. The abstract's acknowledgment that full 3+1D MHD simulations remain a long-term goal is a limitation on physical realism, not a circularity; the present calculation does not pretend to include back-reaction, so the lack of back-reaction is not a hidden input masquerading as a prediction. The central claim is therefore self-contained with respect to the inputs stated in the abstract.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Limited to abstract content. The full text would likely add Gubser parameters and specific conductivity values, which should be audited against the equations.

free parameters (1)
  • Electrical conductivity σ
    Varied as an input in the calculation to study its effect on spectra and flow, not fitted to data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Ideal hydrodynamics (zero viscosity) describes the QGP expansion in this system
    Title and abstract: 'An Ideal Hydrodynamic Study'. Viscous corrections are neglected, which can affect flow harmonic magnitudes.
  • domain assumption The Gubser flow background is a valid analytically solvable approximation of the expanding fireball
    Abstract: 'within an analytically solvable Gubser flow background'. The flow profile is imposed, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Dilepton production rates from quark-antiquark annihilation and decay are known and correctly implemented
    Abstract: 'dominated by annihilation processes, while decay contributions remain sub-leading'. Rates are external inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dilepton Spectra and Even Flow Harmonics in a Magnetized QGP: An Ideal Hydrodynamic Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ENEYR52T

@misc{pith2026250815035,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dilepton Spectra and Even Flow Harmonics in a Magnetized QGP: An Ideal Hydrodynamic Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ENEYR52T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15035}
}
abstract

We present the first comprehensive study of dilepton production from a hot, magnetized quark-gluon plasma in heavy-ion collisions (HIC), incorporating realistic, time-dependent, and spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field profiles within an analytically solvable Gubser flow background. This framework provides a significant improvement over previous static calculations with homogeneous fields and moves toward the long-term goal of full $3+1$D magnetohydrodynamic simulations. We explore the effects of impact parameter, electrical conductivity, and invariant mass on the dilepton spectra and anisotropic even flow coefficients. It is found that transverse momentum spectra increase with impact parameter, dominated by annihilation processes, while decay contributions remain sub-leading. Strikingly, the elliptic flow $v_2$ from decay channels is nonzero even in nearly central collisions, exhibiting a characteristic shape--positive at low $p_T$ and negative at high $p_T$--that is largely independent of impact parameter and conductivity. In contrast, $v_2$ from annihilation processes is smaller in magnitude but dominates the total flow in magnitude due to its larger yield. Higher harmonics, such as $v_4$, are an order of magnitude smaller as compared to $v_2$ along with distinctive zero-crossing patterns. Conductivity enhances both spectra and flow but leaves no unambiguous signature for its extraction. Varying the invariant mass reveals the strongest enhancements at low mass, with harmonic coefficients suppressed at higher masses. Overall, our results suggest that central and semi-central collisions can carry imprints of the background magnetic field, and that characteristic correlations in even flow harmonics may provide a robust probe of electromagnetic effects in HICs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Relativistic BDNK MHD Evolution in a Boost-Invariant Medium and Its Impact on Dilepton Production

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Coupled BDNK MHD evolution in boost-invariant flow enhances cooling and suppresses the low-mass dilepton spectrum via magnetic-thermal feedback.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    author author C. Y. \ Wong ,\ https://doi.org/10.1142/1128 title Introduction to High-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions \ ( publisher World Scientific ,\ year 1994 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1142/1128 1994

  2. [2]

    Yagi , author T

    author author K. Yagi , author T. Hatsuda , \ and\ author Y. Miake ,\ https://inspirehep.net/literature/702469 title Quark-gluon plasma: From big bang to little bang ,\ Vol. volume 23 \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Skokov , author A

    author author V. Skokov , author A. Y. \ Illarionov , \ and\ author V. Toneev ,\ 10.1142/S0217751X09047570 journal journal Int. J. Mod. Phys. A \ volume 24 ,\ pages 5925 ( year 2009 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1396 arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th] NoStop

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Gursoy , author D

    author author U. Gursoy , author D. Kharzeev , \ and\ author K. Rajagopal ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.054905 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 89 ,\ pages 054905 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3805 arXiv:1401.3805 [hep-ph] NoStop

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Dash \ and\ author A

    author author A. Dash \ and\ author A. K. \ Panda ,\ 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138342 journal journal Phys. Lett. B \ volume 848 ,\ pages 138342 ( year 2024 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12977 arXiv:2304.12977 [hep-th] NoStop

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    author author A. K. \ Panda , author P. Bagchi , author H. Mishra , \ and\ author V. Roy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.024902 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 110 ,\ pages 024902 ( year 2024 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08431 arXiv:2404.08431 [nucl-th] NoStop

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Kharzeev , editor K

    editor D. Kharzeev , editor K. Landsteiner , editor A. Schmitt , \ and\ editor H.-U. \ Yee ,\ eds.,\ 10.1007/978-3-642-37305-3 title Strongly Interacting Matter in Magnetic Fields ,\ Vol.\ volume 871 \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37305-3 2013

  8. [8]

    author author V. A. \ Miransky \ and\ author I. A. \ Shovkovy ,\ 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.02.003 journal journal Phys. Rept. \ volume 576 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2015 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.00732 arXiv:1503.00732 [hep-ph] NoStop

    arXiv 2015

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    author author M. G. \ Mustafa , author A. Bandyopadhyay , \ and\ author C. A. \ Islam ,\ @noop \ ( year 2025 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00075 arXiv:2503.00075 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2025

  2. [10]

    Ghosh , author B

    author author S. Ghosh , author B. Chatterjee , author P. Mohanty , author A. Mukharjee , \ and\ author H. Mishra ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034024 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 100 ,\ pages 034024 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00812 arXiv:1804.00812 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    author author G. S. \ Denicol , author X.-G. \ Huang , author E. Moln \'a r , author G. M. \ Monteiro , author H. Niemi , author J. Noronha , author D. H. \ Rischke , \ and\ author Q. Wang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.076009 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 98 ,\ pages 076009 (...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    author author G. S. \ Denicol , author E. Moln \'a r , author H. Niemi , \ and\ author D. H. \ Rischke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.056017 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 99 ,\ pages 056017 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.01699 arXiv:1902.01699 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dash , author S

    author author A. Dash , author S. Samanta , author J. Dey , author U. Gangopadhyaya , author S. Ghosh , \ and\ author V. Roy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.016016 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 102 ,\ pages 016016 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.08781 arXiv:2002.087...

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    author author A. K. \ Panda , author A. Dash , author R. Biswas , \ and\ author V. Roy ,\ 10.1007/JHEP03(2021)216 journal journal JHEP \ volume 03 ,\ pages 216 ( year 2021 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.01606 arXiv:2011.01606 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    author author A. K. \ Panda , author A. Dash , author R. Biswas , \ and\ author V. Roy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054004 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 104 ,\ pages 054004 ( year 2021 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12179 arXiv:2104.12179 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Tanji ,\ 10.1016/j.aop.2009.03.012 journal journal Annals Phys

    author author N. Tanji ,\ 10.1016/j.aop.2009.03.012 journal journal Annals Phys. \ volume 324 ,\ pages 1691 ( year 2009 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4429 arXiv:0810.4429 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gould , author D

    author author O. Gould , author D. L. J. \ Ho , \ and\ author A. Rajantie ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.015041 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 100 ,\ pages 015041 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.04388 arXiv:1902.04388 [hep-th] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gould , author D

    author author O. Gould , author D. L. J. \ Ho , \ and\ author A. Rajantie ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.015033 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 104 ,\ pages 015033 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.14454 arXiv:2103.14454 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sadooghi \ and\ author F

    author author N. Sadooghi \ and\ author F. Taghinavaz ,\ 10.1016/j.aop.2016.11.008 journal journal Annals Phys. \ volume 376 ,\ pages 218 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04887 arXiv:1601.04887 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bandyopadhyay , author C

    author author A. Bandyopadhyay , author C. A. \ Islam , \ and\ author M. G. \ Mustafa ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.114034 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 94 ,\ pages 114034 ( year 2016 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06769 arXiv:1602.06769 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bandyopadhyay \ and\ author S

    author author A. Bandyopadhyay \ and\ author S. Mallik ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.074019 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 95 ,\ pages 074019 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.01364 arXiv:1704.01364 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ghosh \ and\ author V

    author author S. Ghosh \ and\ author V. Chandra ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.076006 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 98 ,\ pages 076006 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05176 arXiv:1808.05176 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Das , author N

    author author A. Das , author N. Haque , author M. G. \ Mustafa , \ and\ author P. K. \ Roy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094022 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 99 ,\ pages 094022 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.03528 arXiv:1903.03528 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hattori , author H

    author author K. Hattori , author H. Taya , \ and\ author S. Yoshida ,\ 10.1007/JHEP01(2021)093 journal journal JHEP \ volume 01 ,\ pages 093 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13492 arXiv:2010.13492 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Das , author A

    author author A. Das , author A. Bandyopadhyay , \ and\ author C. A. \ Islam ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.056021 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 106 ,\ pages 056021 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.00019 arXiv:2109.00019 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Wang \ and\ author I

    author author X. Wang \ and\ author I. A. \ Shovkovy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.036014 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 106 ,\ pages 036014 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00276 arXiv:2205.00276 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Wang , author I

    author author X. Wang , author I. A. \ Shovkovy , author L. Yu , \ and\ author M. Huang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.076010 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 102 ,\ pages 076010 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16254 arXiv:2006.16254 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang \ and\ author I

    author author X. Wang \ and\ author I. A. \ Shovkovy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.056008 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 109 ,\ pages 056008 ( year 2024 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.07557 arXiv:2307.07557 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tuchin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.024912 journal journal Phys

    author author K. Tuchin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.024912 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 87 ,\ pages 024912 ( year 2013 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0485 arXiv:1206.0485 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tuchin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024910 journal journal Phys

    author author K. Tuchin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024910 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 88 ,\ pages 024910 ( year 2013 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0545 arXiv:1305.0545 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gao , author X.-Y

    author author H. Gao , author X.-Y. \ Wu , author S. Jeon , \ and\ author C. Gale \ ( year 2025 )\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01764 arXiv:2505.01764 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    author author S. S. \ Gubser ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.085027 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 82 ,\ pages 085027 ( year 2010 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0006 arXiv:1006.0006 [hep-th] NoStop

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    author author S. S. \ Gubser \ and\ author A. Yarom ,\ 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.01.012 journal journal Nucl. Phys. B \ volume 846 ,\ pages 469 ( year 2011 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1314 arXiv:1012.1314 [hep-th] NoStop

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Li , author X.-l

    author author H. Li , author X.-l. \ Sheng , \ and\ author Q. Wang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.044903 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 94 ,\ pages 044903 ( year 2016 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02223 arXiv:1602.02223 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Siddique , author X.-L

    author author I. Siddique , author X.-L. \ Sheng , \ and\ author Q. Wang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.034907 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 104 ,\ pages 034907 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00478 arXiv:2106.00478 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Siddique , author S

    author author I. Siddique , author S. Cao , author U. Tabassam , author M. Saeed , \ and\ author M. Waqas ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.054909 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 105 ,\ pages 054909 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09634 arXiv:2201.09634 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chatterjee , author D

    author author R. Chatterjee , author D. K. \ Srivastava , author U. W. \ Heinz , \ and\ author C. Gale ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.75.054909 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 75 ,\ pages 054909 ( year 2007 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0702039 arXiv:nucl-th/0702039 NoStop

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    \ Paquet ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.064912 journal journal Phys

    author author J.-F. \ Paquet ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.064912 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 108 ,\ pages 064912 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10669 arXiv:2305.10669 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    author author S. S. \ Adler et al. ( collaboration PHENIX ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.034909 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 69 ,\ pages 034909 ( year 2004 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0307022 arXiv:nucl-ex/0307022 NoStop

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Inghirami , author M

    author author G. Inghirami , author M. Mace , author Y. Hirono , author L. Del Zanna , author D. E. \ Kharzeev , \ and\ author M. Bleicher ,\ 10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7847-4 journal journal Eur. Phys. J. C \ volume 80 ,\ pages 293 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.0760...

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Pasechnik \ and\ author M

    author author R. Pasechnik \ and\ author M. S umbera ,\ 10.3390/universe3010007 journal journal Universe \ volume 3 ,\ pages 7 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01533 arXiv:1611.01533 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    \ Deng \ and\ author X.-G

    author author W.-T. \ Deng \ and\ author X.-G. \ Huang ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.044907 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 85 ,\ pages 044907 ( year 2012 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5108 arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wang \ and\ author I

    author author X. Wang \ and\ author I. Shovkovy ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.056017 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 104 ,\ pages 056017 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01967 arXiv:2103.01967 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    McLerran \ and\ author V

    author author L. McLerran \ and\ author V. Skokov ,\ 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.05.008 journal journal Nucl. Phys. A \ volume 929 ,\ pages 184 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0774 arXiv:1305.0774 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Dash , author M

    author author A. Dash , author M. Shokri , author L. Rezzolla , \ and\ author D. H. \ Rischke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.056003 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 107 ,\ pages 056003 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09459 arXiv:2211.09459 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Schenke , author S

    author author B. Schenke , author S. Jeon , \ and\ author C. Gale ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.042301 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 106 ,\ pages 042301 ( year 2011 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.3244 arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph] NoStop

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Karpenko , author P

    author author I. Karpenko , author P. Huovinen , \ and\ author M. Bleicher ,\ 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.07.010 journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 185 ,\ pages 3016 ( year 2014 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4160 arXiv:1312.4160 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Nakamura , author T

    author author K. Nakamura , author T. Miyoshi , author C. Nonaka , \ and\ author H. R. \ Takahashi ,\ 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11343-y journal journal Eur. Phys. J. C \ volume 83 ,\ pages 229 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.02310 arXiv:2211.02310 [nucl-th] NoStop

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Mayer , author A

    author author M. Mayer , author A. Dash , author G. Inghirami , author H. Elfner , author L. Rezzolla , \ and\ author D. H. \ Rischke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.111.044907 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 111 ,\ pages 044907 ( year 2025 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08668 arX...

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Mayer , author A

    author author M. Mayer , author A. Dash , author G. Inghirami , author H. Elfner , author L. Rezzolla , \ and\ author D. H. \ Rischke ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevC.111.044908 journal journal Phys. Rev. C \ volume 111 ,\ pages 044908 ( year 2025 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08669 arX...

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    author author L. D. \ McLerran \ and\ author T. Toimela ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.31.545 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 31 ,\ pages 545 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    1985 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.