Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 119 references

Treating light nuclei as explicit degrees of freedom changes proton collective flow calculations in Au+Au collisions up to about 600 A MeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:15 UTC pith:SAGNOZYE

load-bearing objection Solid controlled comparison showing cluster dynamics matter for proton flows below ~600 A MeV; the qualitative claim holds, the low-energy magnitude is conditional on the Mott-suppression calibration. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02383 v1 pith:SAGNOZYE submitted 2026-08-03 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Effects of light-cluster degrees of freedom on collective flows in heavy-ion collisions at FOPI energies

Xin Li , Si-Pei Wang , Rui Wang , Zhen Zhang , Jie Pu , Chun-Wang Ma , Lie-Wen Chen This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords light-cluster degrees of freedomcollective flowanisotropic flowheavy-ion collisionslattice Boltzmann transportMott effectnucleon-number scalingSkyrme pseudopotential
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 sets out to show that light nuclei—deuterons, tritons, helium-3, and helium-4—cannot be treated as afterthoughts in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions. Using a transport model in which these clusters are formed, broken up, scattered, and propagated dynamically alongside nucleons, it compares Au+Au collisions with and without cluster degrees of freedom. It finds that the cluster dynamics substantially changes proton directed, elliptic, triangular, and quadrangular flow at beam energies of 120–150 A MeV, remains visible at 250–400 A MeV, and weakens above 600 A MeV. The same kinetic approach reproduces the beam-energy trend of measured light-nucleus yields and flows, with overprediction at the lowest energies, and it yields nucleon-number scaling violations that point to dynamical cluster formation rather than simple coalescence. If the paper is right, flow-model comparisons below about 600 A MeV need explicit cluster degrees of freedom to avoid misreading the equation-of-state signal.

Core claim

This paper claims that explicit light-cluster degrees of freedom redistribute baryon number and momentum during the collision in a way that measurably reshapes the final free-proton phase-space distribution. Comparing otherwise identical lattice BUU simulations with and without deuterons, tritons, helium-3, and helium-4, the authors find the largest effects at 120–150 A MeV: proton v1 is enhanced, v2 moves from weak or positive to more negative (stronger squeeze-out), v3 can change sign pattern, and v4 is mildly modified. The effect remains visible at 250–400 A MeV and nearly vanishes by 600–800 A MeV, consistent with the decreasing abundance of clusters. The kinetic approach also describes

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-space excluded-volume criterion implementing Mott dissolution: a light cluster may form only when the averaged phase-space occupation of surrounding nucleons, weighted by the cluster's internal momentum distribution, stays below a species-dependent cutoff F_cut = (0.192, 0.248, 0.345). This suppression is embedded in the collision integral of the lattice Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck kinetic equations, so clusters are active degrees of freedom during the evolution—not reconstructed after the fact. The comparison of otherwise identical 'with LN' and 'w/o LN' calculations isolates the dynamical effect of these degrees of freedom on proton flow.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the three cutoff parameters F_cut = (0.192, 0.248, 0.345) being a faithful stand-in for real Mott dissolution in mid-central collisions, and the paper's own yield benchmark shows overprediction at 120–150 A MeV—exactly where the cluster effect is largest.

What would settle it

Vary F_cut over the Bayesian posterior and recompute proton v2 at 120 A MeV in mid-central Au+Au; if the 'with LN' versus 'w/o LN' gap does not remain for any value consistent with the measured yields, the claimed cluster effect collapses.

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

If this is right

  • Transport-model analyses of proton flow below about 600 A MeV that omit cluster degrees of freedom may misattribute flow differences to the equation of state or in-medium cross sections.
  • The cluster effect is differential: it can flip the sign of triangular flow and change elliptic flow from in-plane to squeeze-out patterns, so comparing only integrated yields is not enough.
  • The overpredicted light-nucleus flows at 120–250 A MeV indicate that heavier fragments, residual nuclei, and inter-cluster correlations must be included before quantitative low-energy flow conclusions can be drawn.
  • Nucleon-number scaling violations at low energies and at high scaled transverse velocity show that simple late-stage coalescence scaling is insufficient for light-cluster elliptic flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's logic suggests that existing equation-of-state constraints derived from intermediate-energy proton-flow data without cluster degrees of freedom should be re-examined; the effect is largest in exactly the beam-energy range used for those constraints.
  • A practical extension would be to map how the ~600 A MeV threshold shifts with collision system size, centrality, or isospin asymmetry—the same framework could predict where cluster effects matter for neutron-rich collisions.
  • Because fast, high-transverse-velocity clusters experience weaker Mott suppression and escape the dense region quickly, their flow may carry information from the earliest, densest stage; measuring nucleon-cluster correlations at high u_t0 could test this.
  • A direct robustness check would be to rerun the 'with LN' calculations with F_cut values at the edges of the Bayesian posterior; if the low-energy with/without difference changes sign or vanishes, the central claim is calibration-dependent.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the dynamical effect of light-cluster degrees of freedom (d, t, 3He, 4He) on collective flow in Au+Au collisions at E_beam = 120–1500 A MeV within the lattice BUU transport model augmented by a kinetic cluster-formation approach. After benchmarking light-nucleus yields against FOPI central-collision data, the authors compare proton v1–v4 with and without light-nucleus degrees of freedom under otherwise identical conditions, compare proton and light-nucleus flows with FOPI mid-central data, and examine v2/A scaling. Their central claim is that dynamical clustering appreciably modifies proton v1–v4 at 120–150 A MeV, remains visible at 250–400 A MeV, and weakens above about 600 A MeV, implying that cluster DOF cannot be ignored in flow analyses below about 600 A MeV.

Significance. If the result holds, it quantifies an important systematic uncertainty in transport-model flow comparisons at intermediate energies: explicit light-cluster degrees of freedom alter free-proton flows at the low-energy end of the FOPI range, while being negligible above about 600 A MeV. The methodological strength is the controlled with-LN vs w/o-LN comparison, which isolates the dynamical cluster effect from other model ingredients, and the comprehensive coverage of nine beam energies and four flow harmonics. The paper also provides a broad phenomenological comparison with FOPI yields and flows, and the nucleon-number scaling analysis is a useful diagnostic. The central prediction—that cluster effects are minor above about 600 A MeV—is a useful falsifiable statement. However, the quantitative magnitude and energy threshold of the central claim depend on the F_cut calibration, which is not independently validated in the low-energy region, and on the absence of uncertainty estimates on the model lines.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A (Eq. (3)) and Sec. III A] The Mott-suppression cutoffs F_cut = (0.192, 0.248, 0.345) are posterior values from the Bayesian inference of Ref. [78] based on measured light-nucleus yields, and the yield benchmark in Sec. III A then compares the same model to FOPI yields. As presented, this is a consistency check rather than an independent validation. More importantly, the benchmark shows systematic overprediction at E_beam = 120–150 A MeV (most clearly for t and alpha), and the text states that low-energy yields are 'particularly sensitive to the strength of the in-medium suppression implemented through the cutoff parameters F_cut^A.' Since the central claim is strongest at exactly these beam energies, the quantitative size of the with/without-LN v1–v4 differences is not yet secured. Please provide a sensitivity scan over F_cut (or an alternative calibration restricted to E_beam >= 250 A MeV) and show how the claim
  2. [Sec. III B, Figs. 2–5] The central energy-dependence claim is based on visual differences between the 'with LN' and 'w/o LN' curves. The figures carry no statistical or numerical uncertainty bands, so statements such as 'nearly overlap' at 600–1500 A MeV and 'remains visible' at 250–400 A MeV are not quantified. With 30,000 test particles and a 1 fm lattice spacing, the small residual differences at high u_t0 above 600 A MeV could be comparable to numerical noise. Please add uncertainty estimates (e.g., multiple independent runs or bootstrap over events) and define a quantitative criterion for a visible/weak effect; this is needed to support the threshold claim.
  3. [Sec. III C, Figs. 6–14] The comparison with FOPI flow data shows systematic overprediction of light-nucleus flow magnitudes at 120–250 A MeV, and the text attributes this to missing heavier fragments, spectator fragmentation, inter-cluster correlations, and uncertainties in in-medium suppression. These are the same physics that sets the magnitude of the cluster-induced modification of proton flows in the low-energy region. The controlled with/without-LN comparison demonstrates that the effect is physical within the model, but the quantitative size of the low-energy effect and the location of the threshold are conditional on unresolved low-energy deficiencies. Please discuss how the missing low-energy physics would plausibly affect the with/without-LN difference, and ideally quantify this by adding a schematic heavy-fragment sink or by restricting the central claim to the model's well-described energy range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 15 caption] Typo: 'scald transverse velocity' should be 'scaled transverse velocity'.
  2. [Sec. III B, v4 discussion] The text says the two calculations are 'nearly indistinguishable within the displayed uncertainties,' but Figs. 2–5 display no uncertainty bands. Either show the uncertainties or reword.
  3. [References / model setup] Reference [90] is cited as 'In preparation' for the MAP parameters of the N5LO pseudopotential and alpha_NN. The model setup is not reproducible until this reference is available; please complete the reference or include the relevant parameter values in the text or an appendix.
  4. [Sec. II A, numerical parameters] The convergence of the flow observables with respect to test-particle number, lattice spacing, and time step is not demonstrated. A brief convergence check would strengthen confidence in the small differences discussed in Sec. III B.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central with-LN vs w/o-LN flow comparison is an internally controlled prediction, but the yield benchmark is partly in-sample: F_cut was fit to measured light-nucleus yields, and those same yields are then compared as a benchmark.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II A (Eq. 3) and Sec. III A]
    "we use the posterior most probable values F_cut=(0.192,0.248,0.345) obtained in Ref. [78] from Bayesian inference based on measured light-nucleus yields ... We first benchmark the kinetic approach for light-nucleus formation by comparing the calculated light-nucleus yields with FOPI data [112] in central (b0<0.15) Au+Au collisions."

    The F_cut parameters in Eq. (3) determine how much cluster formation is allowed, and they were obtained by Bayesian inference from measured light-nucleus yields in Ref. [78] (same research group). The Sec. III A benchmark then compares model light-nucleus yields with FOPI yields of the same observable class. If the benchmark data overlap the Bayesian training set, the 'reasonable description' is an in-sample check of the fitted suppression strength, not an independent prediction. This does not reduce the flow claim itself: the with-LN/w/o-LN difference is not fitted to flow data, so the central flow modification retains independent content. However, the quantitative magnitude of the cluster effect inherits the calibration.

full rationale

The load-bearing claim is the controlled comparison of proton flows calculated with and without dynamical light clusters, which is a model-internal difference and is not fitted to the FOPI flow data; the qualitative energy trend (strong at 120-150 A MeV, weakening above ~600 A MeV) follows from the same transport calculation and is compared with external FOPI flow data [86]. That part is not circular. The main caveat is at the calibration level: cluster formation is gated by F_cut values taken from Ref. [78] (overlapping authors), inferred from measured light-nucleus yields, and Sec. III A benchmarks against FOPI yields of the same species. The benchmark is therefore not fully out-of-sample, and the paper itself acknowledges low-energy yields are overpredicted and 'particularly sensitive to the strength of the in-medium suppression implemented through the cutoff parameters F_cut^A'. No sensitivity scan over F_cut is shown, so the size of the low-energy cluster effect is conditional on the calibration. This is a validation/correctness limitation rather than a derivation of the flow effect from the fitted quantity, hence score 4 rather than higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central comparison is model-internal, but the absolute predictions inherit several fitted parameters from prior Bayesian analyses: F_cut from light-nucleus yields, alpha_NN and the N5LO macroscopic parameters from HADES proton-flow analyses. The yield benchmark reproduces data that likely entered the F_cut fit, making it a consistency check rather than an independent validation.

free parameters (4)
  • F_cut Mott-suppression cutoffs = 0.192, 0.248, 0.345
    Cutoffs in the phase-space excluded-volume condition Eq. (3); posterior means from Ref. [78] fit to measured light-nucleus yields. They set how easily clusters dissolve and therefore control the strength of the cluster effect on proton flows.
  • alpha_NN = 2.13
    In-medium nucleon-nucleon elastic cross-section strength from a MAP Bayesian inference on HADES proton flows [90]; affects all hadronic transport and flow magnitudes.
  • N5LO Skyrme macroscopic parameter set = Table I values, e.g. E_sym=30.3 MeV, L=30.1 MeV, K0=235 MeV
    Macroscopic parameters from the MAP Bayesian inference [90] (unpublished); determine mean-field potentials and hence flow magnitudes and rapidity dependences.
  • E[2] gradient-term parameter = -310 MeV fm^5
    Set to reproduce the experimental ground-state binding energy of 197Au within Thomas-Fermi method; chosen by tuning, not fitted to flow data.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Kinetic equations Eq. (1) from the real-time Green's function formalism provide a valid description of light-cluster formation, breakup, and propagation.
    Sec. II.A; this is the foundational modeling choice; no formal justification in this paper beyond citing Refs. [71,77,78].
  • domain assumption Pauli/Mott suppression of clusters is captured by the phase-space excluded-volume condition Eq. (3) with F_cut=(0.192, 0.248, 0.345).
    Sec. II.A; F_cut values come from a Bayesian yield fit [78] rather than from first principles; the low-energy yield overprediction (Sec. III A) shows this approximation is imperfect.
  • domain assumption Cluster single-particle potentials equal the sum of constituent nucleon single-particle potentials.
    Sec. II.A; affects cluster propagation and flow.
  • domain assumption Nucleon-cluster and cluster-cluster cross sections are scaled from the Nd->Nd elastic parametrization, and catalytic production cross sections come from the impulse approximation.
    Sec. II.A; these determine collision terms for clusters and are not directly benchmarked in this paper.
  • domain assumption LBUU with 30,000 test particles, 1 fm lattice spacing, and 0.2 fm/c time steps produces converged v1-v4 coefficients.
    Sec. II.A; no convergence study or statistical error bars are shown for the small v3/v4 signals.
  • domain assumption FOPI centrality classes map onto the scaled impact-parameter interval 0.25<b0<0.45 via a sharp-cut approximation.
    Sec. II.B; systematic uncertainty in this mapping is not quantified.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 26440 in / 16425 out tokens · 145118 ms · 2026-08-04T08:15:25.864670+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Within a lattice Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model coupled to a kinetic approach for light-cluster formation, we investigate the impact of explicit light-cluster degrees of freedom on collective flows in Au+Au collisions at FOPI energies with beam energies $E_{\rm beam}$= $120$--$1500 A$ MeV by using a density-, momentum-, and isospin-dependent N$5$LO Skyrme pseudopotential. We first benchmark the kinetic approach by comparing the calculated light-cluster yields with FOPI data in central Au+Au collisions. We then analyze the collective flows of protons and light nuclei (deuterons, tritons, $^{3}\mathrm{He}$, and $^{4}\mathrm{He}$) in mid-central collisions. For protons, calculations with and without dynamical light-cluster degrees of freedom are compared to quantify the influence of dynamical cluster formation on proton directed ($v_1$), elliptic ($v_2$), triangular ($v_3$), and quadrangular ($v_4$) flows. We find that the dynamical light-cluster effect appreciably modifies proton $v_1$--$v_4$ flows at $E_{\rm beam}=120$--$150 A$ MeV, remains visible at $E_{\rm beam}=250$--$400 A$ MeV, and gradually weakens at $E_{\rm beam}\gtrsim 600 A$ MeV. For light nuclei, the kinetic approach captures the overall beam-energy dependence of the FOPI flow data, with better agreement for $E_{\rm beam}\geq 400 A$ MeV. We further examine the nucleon-number scaling of $v_2/A$ in both model calculations and experimental data, finding that the kinetic light-cluster formation approach qualitatively reproduces the observed scaling behavior. These results highlight the importance of a dynamical treatment of light-cluster formation for interpreting collective flows in heavy-ion collisions below about $600 A$ MeV, although the clustering effects on proton flows are minor at higher collision energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02383 by Chun-Wang Ma, Jie Pu, Lie-Wen Chen, Rui Wang, Si-Pei Wang, Xin Li, Zhen Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Beam-energy dependence of the yields of deuterons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Elliptic flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Directed ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Nucleon-number scaled elliptic flow ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.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

119 extracted references · 91 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B.-A. Li, C. M. Ko, and W. Bauer, Isospin physics in heavy ion collisions at intermediate-energies, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E7, 147 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9707014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Determi- nation of the equation of state of dense matter, Science 298, 1592 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0208016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Baran, M

    V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, and M. Di Toro, Re- action dynamics with exotic beams, Phys. Rept.410, 335 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0412060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, and G.-C. Yong, Prob- ing the nuclear symmetry energy with heavy-ion reac- tions induced by neutron-rich nuclei, Front. Phys. China 2, 327 (2007), arXiv:0704.2340 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Li, L.-W

    B.-A. Li, L.-W. Chen, and C. M. Ko, Recent Progress and New Challenges in Isospin Physics with Heavy-Ion Reactions, Phys. Rept.464, 113 (2008), arXiv:0804.3580 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Trautmann and H

    W. Trautmann and H. H. Wolter, Elliptic flow and the symmetry energy at supra-saturation density, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E21, 1230003 (2012), arXiv:1205.2585 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Ono, Dynamics of clusters and fragments in heavy- ion collisions, Prog

    A. Ono, Dynamics of clusters and fragments in heavy- ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.105, 139 (2019), arXiv:1903.00608 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Zhang, N

    Y. Zhang, N. Wang, Q.-F. Li, L. Ou, J.-L. Tian, M. Liu, K. Zhao, X.-Z. Wu, and Z.-X. Li, Progress of quantum molecular dynamics model and its applications in heavy ion collisions, Front. Phys. (Beijing)15, 54301 (2020), arXiv:2005.12877 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, R. Kumar, and C. J. Horowitz, Determination of the equation of state from nuclear experiments and neutron star observations, Nature Astron.8, 328 (2024), arXiv:2310.11588 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Sorensenet al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion collisions, Prog

    A. Sorensenet al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134, 104080 (2024), arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    M. D. Cozma and W. Trautmann, Neutron star radii from laboratory experiments, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E34, 2530001 (2025), arXiv:2505.00390 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    A. L. F` evre, Nuclear equation-of-state at high density and multi-messenger astronomy: contribution of heavy- ion collisions, (2026), arXiv:2606.29588 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Stoecker and W

    H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, High-Energy Heavy Ion Collisions: Probing the Equation of State of Highly Ex- cited Hadronic Matter, Phys. Rept.137, 277 (1986)

    1986

  14. [14]

    C. Gale, G. Bertsch, and S. Das Gupta, Heavy-ion col- lision theory with momentum-dependent interactions, Phys. Rev. C35, 1666 (1987)

    1987

  15. [15]

    Li, Z.-Z

    B.-A. Li, Z.-Z. Ren, C. M. Ko, and S. J. Yennello, Isospin dependence of collective flow in heavy ion colli- sions at intermediate-energies, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4492 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9605015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  16. [16]

    Paket al., Isospin Dependence of Collective Trans- verse Flow in Nuclear Collisions, Phys

    R. Paket al., Isospin Dependence of Collective Trans- verse Flow in Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1022 (1997)

    1997

  17. [17]

    L.-W. Chen, F. Zhang, and G. Jin, Analysis of isospin dependence of nuclear collective flow in an isospin- dependent quantum molecular dynamics model, Phys. Rev. C58, 2283 (1998)

    1998

  18. [18]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. A. Lacey, P. B. Gossiaux, C. Pinken- burg, P. Chung, J. M. Alexander, and R. L. McGrath, Disappearance of elliptic flow: a new probe for the nu- clear equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2438 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9803047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  19. [19]

    Danielewicz, Determination of the mean field momen- tum dependence using elliptic flow, Nucl

    P. Danielewicz, Determination of the mean field momen- tum dependence using elliptic flow, Nucl. Phys. A673, 375 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9912027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  20. [20]

    Scalone, M

    L. Scalone, M. Colonna, and M. Di Toro, Transverse flows in charge asymmetric collisions, Phys. Lett. B461, 9 (1999)

    1999

  21. [21]

    Li, Neutron proton differential flow as a probe of isospin dependence of nuclear equation of state, Phys

    B.-A. Li, Neutron proton differential flow as a probe of isospin dependence of nuclear equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4221 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0009069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  22. [22]

    Giordano, M

    V. Giordano, M. Colonna, M. Di Toro, V. Greco, and J. Rizzo, Isospin emission and flows at high baryon den- sity: a test of the symmetry potential, Phys. Rev. C81, 044611 (2010), arXiv:1001.4961 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Xuet al.(TMEP), Understanding transport simula- tions of heavy-ion collisions at 100A and 400A MeV: Comparison of heavy-ion transport codes under con- trolled conditions, Phys

    J. Xuet al.(TMEP), Understanding transport simula- tions of heavy-ion collisions at 100A and 400A MeV: Comparison of heavy-ion transport codes under con- trolled conditions, Phys. Rev. C93, 044609 (2016), arXiv:1603.08149 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Russottoet al., Results of the ASY-EOS experiment at GSI: The symmetry energy at suprasaturation den- sity, Phys

    P. Russottoet al., Results of the ASY-EOS experiment at GSI: The symmetry energy at suprasaturation den- sity, Phys. Rev. C94, 034608 (2016), arXiv:1608.04332 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Y. Nara, T. Maruyama, and H. Stoecker, Momentum- dependent potential and collective flows within the rela- tivistic quantum molecular dynamics approach based on relativistic mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. C102, 024913 (2020), arXiv:2004.05550 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Nara and A

    Y. Nara and A. Ohnishi, Mean-field update in the JAM microscopic transport model: Mean-field effects on collective flow in high-energy heavy-ion collisions at sNN=2–20 GeV energies, Phys. Rev. C105, 014911 18 (2022), arXiv:2109.07594 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    P. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li, and H. Zhang, Accessing the in- medium effects on nucleon-nucleon elastic cross section with collective flows and nuclear stopping, Phys. Lett. B828, 137019 (2022), arXiv:2203.05855 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Wolteret al.(TMEP), Transport model compar- ison studies of intermediate-energy heavy-ion colli- sions, Prog

    H. Wolteret al.(TMEP), Transport model compar- ison studies of intermediate-energy heavy-ion colli- sions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.125, 103962 (2022), arXiv:2202.06672 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Xuet al.(TMEP), Comparing pion production in transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions at 270AMeV under controlled conditions, Phys

    J. Xuet al.(TMEP), Comparing pion production in transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions at 270AMeV under controlled conditions, Phys. Rev. C 109, 044609 (2024), arXiv:2308.05347 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Du, G.-F

    H. Du, G.-F. Wei, and G.-C. Yong, Directed and ellip- tic flows of protons and deuterons in HADES Au+Au collisions at sNN=2.4 GeV, Phys. Lett. B839, 137823 (2023), arXiv:2302.07037 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Chenet al., Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion col- lider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl

    J. Chenet al., Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion col- lider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Y. Wang, B. Gao, G. Wei, P. Li, and Q. Li, Time evo- lution of elliptic flow and medium density in heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energies, Phys. Rev. C110, 044606 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    M. D. Cozma, Equation of state of nuclear matter from collective flows and stopping in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C110, 064911 (2024), arXiv:2407.16411 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Steinheimer, T

    J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, Y. Nara, and M. Bleicher, Momentum dependent potentials from a parity doubling CMF model in UrQMD: results on flow and particle pro- duction, J. Phys. G52, 035103 (2025), arXiv:2410.01742 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Reichert and J

    T. Reichert and J. Aichelin, Untangling the interplay of the equation of state and the collision term toward the generation of directed and elliptic flow at inter- mediate energies, Phys. Rev. C111, 054916 (2025), arXiv:2411.12908 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    J. M. Wang, X. G. Deng, W. J. Xie, B. A. Li, and Y. G. Ma, Bayesian inference of nuclear incompressibil- ity from collective flow in mid-central Au+Au collisions at 400–1500 MeV/nucleon, Chin. Phys. C49, 124105 (2025), arXiv:2406.07051 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Kireyeu, V

    V. Kireyeu, V. Voronyuk, M. Winn, S. Gl¨ aßel, J. Aiche- lin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, and J. Zhao, Systematic study of flow of protons and light clus- ters in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions with momentum-dependent potentials, Phys. Rev. C113, 064909 (2026), arXiv:2411.04969 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Liu, J.-P

    Y.-Y. Liu, J.-P. Yang, Y.-J. Wang, Q.-F. Li, Z.-X. Li, C.-J. Xia, and Y.-X. Zhang, A perspective on describing nucleonic flow and pionic observables within the ultra- relativistic quantum molecular dynamics model, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 45 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    G. Wei, M. Nan, P. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li, G. Yong, and F. Liu, Bayesian analysis of properties of nuclear matter with the FOPI experimental data, Phys. Rev. C113, 024910 (2026), arXiv:2509.03406 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Li and W.-J

    B.-A. Li and W.-J. Xie, Evolution of in-medium baryon- baryon scattering cross sections and stiffness of dense nuclear matter from Bayesian analyses of FOPI proton- flow excitation functions, Phys. Rev. C111, 054602 (2025), arXiv:2501.02579 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Zhouet al., Probing the nuclear equation of state with clusters and hypernuclei, Phys

    Y. Zhouet al., Probing the nuclear equation of state with clusters and hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C113, 014909 (2026), arXiv:2507.14255 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Li, Trace Anomaly of Cold Dense Matter Con- strained by Collective Flow, Phys

    B.-A. Li, Trace Anomaly of Cold Dense Matter Con- strained by Collective Flow, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 242301 (2026), arXiv:2601.13374 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Sato and K

    H. Sato and K. Yazaki, On the coalescence model for high-energy nuclear reactions, Phys. Lett. B98, 153 (1981)

    1981

  44. [44]

    Gyulassy, K

    M. Gyulassy, K. Frankel, and E. a. Remler, DEUTERON FORMATION IN NUCLEAR COLLI- SIONS, Nucl. Phys. A402, 596 (1983)

    1983

  45. [45]

    Mrowczynski, On the neutron proton correlations and deuteron production, Phys

    S. Mrowczynski, On the neutron proton correlations and deuteron production, Phys. Lett. B277, 43 (1992)

    1992

  46. [46]

    Mattiello, H

    R. Mattiello, H. Sorge, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Nuclear clusters as a probe for expansion flow in heavy ion reactions at 10-A/GeV - 15-A/GeV, Phys. Rev. C 55, 1443 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9607003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  47. [47]

    J. L. Nagle, B. S. Kumar, D. Kusnezov, H. Sorge, and R. Mattiello, Coalescence of deuterons in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C53, 367 (1996)

    1996

  48. [48]

    Scheibl and U

    R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C59, 1585 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  49. [49]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Light clusters production as a probe to the nuclear symmetry energy, Phys. Rev. C68, 017601 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0302068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Light cluster pro- duction in intermediate-energy heavy ion collisions in- duced by neutron rich nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A729, 809 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Effects of mo- mentum dependent nuclear potential on two nucleon correlation functions and light cluster production in intermediate-energy heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 69, 054606 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0403049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  52. [52]

    Oh, Z.-W

    Y. Oh, Z.-W. Lin, and C. M. Ko, Deuteron production and elliptic flow in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C80, 064902 (2009), arXiv:0910.1977 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Liu, H.-G

    H.-J. Liu, H.-G. Cheng, and Z.-Q. Feng, Collective flows of clusters and pions in heavy-ion collisions at GeV energies, Phys. Rev. C108, 024614 (2023), arXiv:2304.03913 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Aichelin, ’Quantum’ molecular dynamics: A Dynami- cal microscopic n body approach to investigate fragment formation and the nuclear equation of state in heavy ion collisions, Phys

    J. Aichelin, ’Quantum’ molecular dynamics: A Dynami- cal microscopic n body approach to investigate fragment formation and the nuclear equation of state in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rept.202, 233 (1991)

    1991

  55. [55]

    Kaur and A

    S. Kaur and A. D. Sood, Model ingredients and peak mass production in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054611 (2010), arXiv:1009.5452 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [56]

    Goyal and R

    S. Goyal and R. K. Puri, Formation of fragments in heavy-ion collisions using a modified clusteri- zation method, Phys. Rev. C83, 047601 (2011), arXiv:1105.3590 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    J. Su, W. Trautmann, L. Zhu, W.-J. Xie, and F.-S. Zhang, Dynamical properties and secondary decay ef- fects of projectile fragmentation in 107,124Sn + 120Sn collisions at 600 MeV/nucleon, Nuovo Cim. C41, 191 (2019), arXiv:1810.10100 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Kireyeu, Cluster dynamics studied with the phase- space Minimum Spanning Tree approach, Phys

    V. Kireyeu, Cluster dynamics studied with the phase- space Minimum Spanning Tree approach, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054905 (2021), arXiv:2103.10542 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Gl¨ aßel, V

    S. Gl¨ aßel, V. Kireyeu, V. Voronyuk, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, V. Kolesnikov, and 19 M. Winn, Cluster and hypercluster production in rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions within the parton-hadron- quantum-molecular-dynamics approach, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014908 (2022), arXiv:2106.14839 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Liu, C.-J

    L.-M. Liu, C.-J. Zhang, J. Xu, J. Jia, and G.-X. Peng, Free spectator nucleons in ultracentral relativis- tic heavy-ion collisions as a probe of neutron skin, Phys. Rev. C106, 034913 (2022), arXiv:2209.03106 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Sun and L.-W

    K.-J. Sun and L.-W. Chen, Production of antimatter 5,6Li nuclei in central Au+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Lett. B751, 272 (2015), arXiv:1509.05302 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    L. Zhu, C. M. Ko, and X. Yin, Light (anti-)nuclei production and flow in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C92, 064911 (2015), arXiv:1510.03568 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    Sun and L.-W

    K.-J. Sun and L.-W. Chen, Antimatter 4 ΛH Hypernu- cleus Production and the 3 ΛH/3He Puzzle in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 064909 (2016), arXiv:1512.00692 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Sun and L.-W

    K.-J. Sun and L.-W. Chen, Production of ΛΛ and Λn in central Pb+Pb collisions at √sN N= 2.76 TeV within a covariant coalescence model, Phys. Rev. C94, 064908 (2016), arXiv:1607.04037 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    Sun and L.-W

    K.-J. Sun and L.-W. Chen, Analytical coalescence formula for particle production in relativistic heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C95, 044905 (2017), arXiv:1701.01935 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [66]

    Sun, L.-W

    K.-J. Sun, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and Z. Xu, Probing QCD critical fluctuations from light nuclei production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B774, 103 (2017), arXiv:1702.07620 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    X. Yin, C. M. Ko, Y. Sun, and L. Zhu, Elliptic flow of light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C95, 054913 (2017), arXiv:1703.09383 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Sun, L.-W

    K.-J. Sun, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, J. Pu, and Z. Xu, Light nuclei production as a probe of the QCD phase di- agram, Phys. Lett. B781, 499 (2018), arXiv:1801.09382 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    D.-N. Liu, C. M. Ko, Y.-G. Ma, F. Mazzaschi, M. Puc- cio, Q.-Y. Shou, K.-J. Sun, and Y.-Z. Wang, Softening of the hypertriton transverse momentum spectrum in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B855, 138855 (2024), arXiv:2404.02701 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Ma, Z.-Q

    F. Ma, Z.-Q. Wang, X.-H. He, C. M. Ko, Y.-G. Ma, Q.-Y. Shou, K.-J. Sun, W. Zhao, and W.-H. Zhou, Anisotropic flow of light (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei in Pb+Pb collision at sNN=5.36 TeV, Phys. Lett. B880, 140711 (2026), arXiv:2604.04075 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Danielewicz and G

    P. Danielewicz and G. F. Bertsch, Production of deuterons and pions in a transport model of energetic heavy ion reactions, Nucl. Phys. A533, 712 (1991)

    1991

  72. [72]

    Kuhrts, M

    C. Kuhrts, M. Beyer, P. Danielewicz, and G. Ropke, Medium corrections in the formation of light charged particles in heavy ion reactions, Phys. Rev. C63, 034605 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0009037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  73. [73]

    J. Mohs, M. Ege, H. Elfner, and M. Mayer (SMASH), Collective flow at SIS energies within a hadronic trans- port approach: Influence of light nuclei formation and equation of state, Phys. Rev. C105, 034906 (2022), arXiv:2012.11454 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    G. Coci, S. Gl¨ aßel, V. Kireyeu, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, V. Kolesnikov, and V. Voronyuk, Dy- namical mechanisms for deuteron production at mid- rapidity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from energies available at the GSI Schwerionensynchrotron to those at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 108, 014902 (2023), arXiv:...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Kireyeu, G

    V. Kireyeu, G. Coci, S. Glaessel, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, and E. Bratkovskaya, Cluster formation near midra- pidity: How the production mechanisms can be iden- tified experimentally, Phys. Rev. C109, 044906 (2024), arXiv:2304.12019 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Cheng and Z.-Q

    H.-G. Cheng and Z.-Q. Feng, Novel approach to light- cluster production in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 109, L021602 (2024), arXiv:2308.04852 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Wang, Y.-G

    R. Wang, Y.-G. Ma, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, K.-J. Sun, and Z. Zhang, Kinetic approach of light-nuclei produc- tion in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C108, L031601 (2023), arXiv:2305.02988 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    R. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y.-G. Ma, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and K.-J. Sun, Clustered Nature of Hot and Dense Nuclear Matter: Signatures from Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 172301 (2026), arXiv:2507.16613 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    R. Wang, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and F. Matera, Dy- namics of dilute nuclear matter with light clusters and in-medium effects, Phys. Rev. C110, L031601 (2024), arXiv:2405.02157 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    R. Wang, Z. Zhang, S. Burrello, M. Colonna, and E. G. Lanza, Phase-space excluded-volume approach for light clusters in a nuclear medium, Phys. Rev. C113, 034624 (2026), arXiv:2506.16437 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

Showing first 80 references.