Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Responses of multiparticle observables to multidimensional nuclear deformation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a joint three-dimensional map of how multiparticle flow and momentum correlations respond to quadrupole, triaxial, and hexadecapole nuclear deformation, and finds that only one of the tested probes—ρ2—preserves its ini

desk verdict A useful 3D sensitivity map of deformation observables, but the initial-to-final comparison is muddied by switching initial-condition models. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14776 v1 pith:SC4Y4XGT submitted 2026-07-16 nucl-th

Ying Shan Zhao , Yifeng Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Ld
keywords nucleardeformationquadrupoletriaxialityhexadecapoleheavy-ioncollisionsflowcorrelationobservablesmultiparticlecumulantsinitial-stateestimators
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 asks whether multiparticle flow and momentum correlations can jointly constrain three nuclear-shape parameters—quadrupole deformation β2, triaxiality γ, and hexadecapole deformation β4—and maps their sensitivity across the full three-dimensional parameter space using 129Xe+129Xe collisions as a testbed. At the initial-geometry level, the v2–mean-pT correlation ρ2 responds mainly to β2 and γ (distance correlations 0.606 and 0.611 versus only 0.044 for β4), while the nonlinear coefficient χ4,22 responds mainly to β4 (0.792). After full hydrodynamic and hadronic evolution, only ρ2 preserves its β2/γ sensitivity; the β4 signal in χ4,22 is substantially washed out, and the higher-order correlators ρ224, ρ235, and ρ24 cannot be resolved within present statistics. The paper concludes that initial-state sensitivity alone is not proof of final-state probing power, and that joint multidimensional scans rather than one-parameter variations are needed to identify robust deformation observables.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the initial-state estimator pair: event-by-event eccentricity vectors E_n, computed from the wounded-quark entropy profile, stand in for final flow vectors V_n, and the initial energy-per-entropy ratio E/S stands in for mean transverse momentum [pT]. From these, the paper builds geometric counterparts of ρ2, χ4,22, ρ224, ρ235, and ρ24 (Eqs. 16–19). Sensitivity across the three-dimensional deformation space is quantified with distance correlation (dCor) and SHAP values. Representative deformation points are then pushed through a full viscous-hydrodynamic + hadronic-afterburner hybrid model to test whether each observable's geometric sensitivity survives evolution.

What would settle it

Measure χ4,22 ratios to a spherical reference in 0–5% central 129Xe+129Xe with event statistics high enough to resolve a roughly 10% change: if β4 enhancement of the ratio (≈0.15–0.2 in the initial-state map) is clearly observed, the claim that β4 sensitivity is lost after evolution would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a wounded-quark Monte Carlo Glauber initial condition and an energy-per-entropy proxy for mean transverse momentum, the paper simulates 500 deformation configurations spanning β2∈[0,0.4], γ∈[0°,60°], β4∈[0,0.2] for 0–5% central 129Xe+129Xe collisions. Distance-correlation analysis yields dCor(ρ2,β2)=0.606, dCor(ρ2,γ)=0.611, dCor(ρ2,β4)=0.044, and dCor(χ4,22,β4)=0.792 (vs 0.319, 0.289 for β2,γ). After passing representative configurations through a full viscous-hydrodynamic + hadronic-afterburner hybrid model, the ρ2 sensitivity to β2 and γ survives, the χ4,22 β4 sensitivity is largely lost, and the higher-order correlators are statistically unresolved. This yields a three-dimensional r

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that initial-state geometric proxies (eccentricity vectors for flow, energy-per-entropy for mean-pT) faithfully capture how the true final-state flow vector and mean-pT respond to deformation, so that sensitivity rankings derived from those proxies predict which observables will remain deformation-sensitive after viscous evolution and hadronic rescattering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ρ2 is a dependable experimental probe of β2 and γ in ultra-central 129Xe+129Xe collisions, because its final-state ratios track the initial-state pattern across the sampled γ and β2 range.
  • χ4,22 cannot serve as a β4 probe in this system after full evolution; its usefulness is system-dependent, contrasting with results in larger deformed nuclei.
  • Sensitivity can be conditional: ρ224's γ- and β4-dependence appears mainly at nonzero β2, so single-parameter scans would miss the effect.
  • dCor and SHAP rankings on geometric estimators offer a scalable screening method for higher-dimensional deformation spaces, including additional parameters beyond (β2,γ,β4).
  • Resolving the higher-order four-particle correlators requires either higher event statistics in 129Xe+129Xe or studies in larger collision systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the breakdown seen for χ4,22 is generic, then any candidate deformation probe motivated by initial-state geometry should be validated through full evolution before being used to extract nuclear-structure parameters.
  • The same multidimensional mapping could be applied to octupole deformation β3 or to isobar systems, where correlated deformations may couple in unexpected ways.
  • A dedicated high-statistics run—either much more than 10^6 events or a larger deformed system—could separate viscous damping from small-system-size effects as the cause of χ4,22's lost β4 sensitivity.
  • The near-zero dCor of ρ2 with β4 and of ρ235 with β4 suggests those two observables might combine into an approximately orthogonal basis for separating quadrupole/triaxiality from hexadecapole parameters, pending final-state confirmation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a multidimensional mapping of how multiparticle heavy-ion observables respond to nuclear deformation, using 129Xe+129Xe collisions at 5.44 TeV as a test case. The authors perform a three-dimensional scan over (β2, γ, β4) with a modified quark-Glauber initial-state model and compute initial-state estimators for ρ2, χ4,22, ρ224, ρ235, and ρ24, characterizing sensitivity with distance correlation and SHAP values. They then run iEBE-VISHNU for six selected deformation configurations and compare final-state responses to the initial-state maps. The main claims are that ρ2 retains its β2/γ sensitivity after full evolution, while the strong initial-state β4 sensitivity of χ4,22 is substantially reduced, and the other higher-order observables cannot be resolved with current statistics.

Significance. If the conclusions are substantiated, this would be a useful contribution to the nuclear-deformation program in heavy-ion collisions: it demonstrates a systematic three-parameter sensitivity analysis rather than isolated one-dimensional scans, and it offers quantitative tools (distance correlation, SHAP) for ranking observable sensitivity. The initial-state scan is based on 500 parameter sets and 4e5 events per set, giving a reasonably dense geometric map. The use of a full iEBE-VISHNU hybrid model for final-state verification is also a strength. However, the central final-state conclusion—that β4 sensitivity of χ4,22 is suppressed after evolution—rests on a comparison between two different initial-condition models, which is a load-bearing issue that must be addressed before the practical recommendations can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A–II.B; Fig. 4 and Eqs. (16)–(18)] The initial-state estimators are computed from the modified wounded-quark Glauber model, while the iEBE-VISHNU final-state runs use TRENTo initial conditions. The paper's central negative result—that the β4 sensitivity of χ4,22 (dCor=0.792 at the initial-state level) is 'substantially reduced' after evolution—therefore conflates two effects: genuine viscous/hadronic response and the difference between two initial-condition models. A matched comparison is needed: either recompute the initial-state estimators for the same six configurations using TRENTo, or demonstrate that the quark-Glauber and TRENTo geometries have equivalent β4 sensitivity for these observables. Without this, the statement that initial-state sensitivity is insufficient for final-state probe power is not established.
  2. [Sec. III.B–III.D and Figs. 2, 4, 6, 9] The final-state conclusions rely on only six deformation configurations and roughly 10^6 events each, yet the figures show no uncertainty bands or error bars even though the text repeatedly invokes 'statistical uncertainties.' For example, the claim that the β4 difference in χ4,22 is 'indistinguishable within statistical uncertainties' cannot be evaluated without a quantitative uncertainty estimate. Similarly, the null results for ρ224 and ρ24 are presented as 'not resolved with the present statistics,' but the reader has no way to judge the size of those statistics. I recommend adding explicit statistical uncertainties to all final-state figures and to the distance-correlation values, or softening the final-state claims accordingly.
  3. [Sec. II.B and Table I] The final-state scan covers only two β2 values (0.17, 0.27), three γ values (0°, 30°, 60°), and two β4 values (0, 0.1). This is a reasonable representative set, but the abstract and summary state general conclusions about 'largely preserved' sensitivity and 'substantially reduced' beta-4 sensitivity. The evidence is consistent with those statements, but the sparsity of the grid and the absence of any uncertainty quantification make the strength of the claims disproportionate. I suggest either expanding the final-state configuration set or rewording the conclusions to make the exploratory nature explicit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the upper panel shows γ variation and the lower panel shows β2/β4 variation, but the text and the displayed panel layout appear reversed. Please check and correct the caption/panel order.
  2. [Table I] The numeric entries appear to have lost spaces, e.g., '0.1730°' should probably read '0.17 30°'. Please fix the formatting.
  3. [Sec. II.A] There is a typo in 'the then-th eccentricity'—should be 'the n-th eccentricity.'
  4. [Sec. II.A and III.A] The dCor values are reported to three decimal places without any statistical uncertainty. Given that they are computed from a finite sample of 500 parameter sets, a bootstrap estimate would help the reader understand the robustness of the ranking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the deformation sensitivities are computed model outputs, not fitted inputs disguised as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct model computations. Deformation parameters (β2, γ, β4) enter explicitly through the deformed Woods-Saxon profile (Eq. 1); the initial entropy density is a Monte Carlo Glauber output (Eqs. 2-3); eccentricities and E/S are explicit geometric/thermodynamic estimators (Eqs. 4-5); and the multiparticle observables, including the initial-state estimators (Eqs. 16-19), are defined by these quantities independently of any conclusion about which deformation parameter is most important. The dCor and SHAP sensitivity measures are diagnostic statistics applied to the resulting sampled outputs, not free parameters fitted to data, and the paper explicitly disclaims that SHAP is used to constrain physical inputs. The final-state iEBE-VISHNU calculations use independent parameter sets (Table I) and the standard Q-cumulant observables; the paper's finding that χ4,22 loses much of its β4 sensitivity after evolution is a direct comparison of computed ratios, not an assumption of that loss. The paper even states the limitation that initial-state sensitivity alone does not guarantee final-state resolving power. Self-citations such as Refs. [20] and [27] provide context and parameter choices (e.g., baseline deformation values) but do not carry the load of the derivation. The quark-Glauber vs. TRENTo difference between the initial-state estimator and the hybrid runs is a possible model-consistency issue for interpretation, but it is not circularity: the final-state conclusion does not presuppose the initial-state sensitivity it tests. No step reduces a prediction to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The model ingredients are drawn from the cited literature; the deformation parameters themselves are scan inputs rather than fitted outputs. The main announced 'cost' is the proxy assumption connecting initial-geometry estimators to final-state observables, which is only partially validated and is explicitly weakened by the study's own final-state results.

free parameters (4)
  • NBD multiplicity parameters (n̄, κ) after global rescaling = not quoted; rescaled to match experimental dNch/dη
    Eq. (2) uses negative binomial weights taken from Ref. [30] and globally rescaled to match multiplicity data. This calibration affects event-by-event [pT] fluctuations and hence ρ2-like correlations.
  • Gaussian smearing width σ = 0.55 fm
    Eq. (3); chosen by hand for entropy deposition. It changes eccentricity magnitudes and the correlations between ε_n and [pT].
  • Wounded-quark radius r0 and collision cross-section σqq = r0=0.30 fm, σqq=13.6 mb
    Taken from Ref. [30] for wounded-quark sampling; these control the number of wounded sources and the initial geometry.
  • Hydrodynamic transport parameters for iEBE-VISHNU = not listed; described only as consistent with Refs. [27,47]
    Viscosity and particlization settings determine how much initial-state β4 sensitivity is damped, so they directly influence the central final-state conclusion about χ4,22.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Deformed Woods-Saxon density (Eq. 1) with β2, γ, β3, β4 parameterization is an adequate model of nuclear ground-state shape.
    All initial geometries derive from this parameterization; if the shape parameters do not map to physical nuclei, the response maps have no physical meaning.
  • domain assumption Wounded-quark/constituent-quark model with approximate linearity between dNch/dη and wounded-quark count.
    Adopted from Refs. [28-33]; the initial entropy profile and all initial-state estimators depend on this model choice.
  • domain assumption Longitudinal boost invariance of the initial entropy density around mid-rapidity.
    Invoked in Eq. (3); the 2+1D hydrodynamics and initial-state estimates assume no longitudinal structure within the acceptance.
  • domain assumption Eccentricity vectors E_n and E/S act as faithful geometric proxies for final flow vectors V_n and [pT] (Eqs. 4,5,16-18).
    This is the load-bearing proxy assumption. It is tested only partially by the six final-state calculations, and it fails for χ4,22 in the β4 direction.
  • standard math Distance correlation and SHAP assume the 500 sampled parameter sets are independent draws and that the estimated observable values are stable enough to rank sensitivities.
    No uncertainties are quoted for dCor values, so the rankings assume negligible statistical uncertainty in the event-averaged observables.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Responses of multiparticle observables to multidimensional nuclear deformation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SC4Y4XGT

@misc{pith2026260714776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Responses of multiparticle observables to multidimensional nuclear deformation in relativistic heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SC4Y4XGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14776}
}
abstract

Relativistic heavy-ion collisions provide a unique opportunity to probe ground-state nuclear structure through its imprint on the initial collision geometry. We investigate how multiparticle observables respond to combined variations of quadrupole deformation, triaxiality, and hexadecapole deformation, using $^{129}$Xe+$^{129}$Xe collisions as a representative testing ground. We perform a joint analysis in the three-dimensional $(\beta_2,\gamma,\beta_4)$ parameter space and construct initial-state estimators for several flow and mean transverse momentum correlation observables. At the initial-state level, $\rho_2$ is primarily sensitive to $\beta_2$ and $\gamma$, with its sensitivity to $\gamma$ enhanced at nonzero $\beta_2$. The nonlinear response coefficient $\chi_{4,22}$ is predominantly sensitive to $\beta_4$, while its dependence on $\beta_2$ and $\gamma$ remains comparatively weak. Higher-order correlators exhibit more complex multidimensional response patterns; in particular, $\rho_{224}$ shows a dependence on $\gamma$ and $\beta_4$ that becomes more pronounced at finite $\beta_2$. We further employ the iEBE-VISHNU hybrid model to examine whether these deformation sensitivities survive the subsequent dynamical evolution. The final-state calculations indicate that the sensitivity of $\rho_2$ to $\beta_2$ and $\gamma$ is largely preserved, whereas the $\beta_4$ sensitivity of $\chi_{4,22}$ is substantially reduced. For the other higher-order observables, the initial-state sensitivities are modified by the evolution or cannot be resolved with the present statistics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14776 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Centrality dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. presents the centrality dependence of the final￾state R(χ4,22) calculated with the iEBE-VISHNU hybrid model. In the upper panel, the curves for different γ nearly overlap across the 0–5% centrality range, consis￾tent with the weak γ dependence observed in the initial￾state estimator. However, the lower panel deviates from the initial-state geometric predictions regarding β2 and β4. The final￾state results exhibit a … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. FIG. 6. Centrality dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Contour plots of the initial-state estimator for the ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Centrality dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    E. V. Shuryak, Physics Reports61, 71 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    STAR Collaboration, Nuclear Physics A757, 102 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    PHENIX Collaboration, Nuclear Physics A757, 184 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252302 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Ollitrault, Phys

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D46, 229 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    P. Kolb, P. Huovinen, U. Heinz, and H. Heiselberg, Physics Letters B500, 232 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Pratt, E

    S. Pratt, E. Sangaline, P. Sorensen, and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 202301 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    CMS Collaboration, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 077801 (2024)

    2024

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 172301 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 192301 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, and S. A. Bass, Nature Physics15, 1113 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Jia, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242301 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Bally, M

    B. Bally, M. Bender, G. Giacalone, and V. Somà, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 082301 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    STAR Collaboration, Nature635, 67 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Jiaet al., Nuclear Science and Techniques35, 220 (2024)

    J. Jiaet al., Nuclear Science and Techniques35, 220 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Phys.75, 121 (2003)

    M.Bender, P.-H.Heenen,andP.-G.Reinhard,Rev.Mod. Phys.75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Schatzet al., Physics Reports294, 167 (1998)

    H. Schatzet al., Physics Reports294, 167 (1998)

    1998

  10. [18]

    Schunck and D

    N. Schunck and D. Regnier, Progress in Particle and Nu- clear Physics125, 103963 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    J.EngelandJ.Menéndez,ReportsonProgressinPhysics 80, 046301 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    H.-j. Xu, J. Zhao, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 262301 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C111, 014901 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Magdy, The European Physical Journal A59, 64 (2023)

    N. Magdy, The European Physical Journal A59, 64 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Jia, J. Chen, C. Shen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 033018 (2026)

    2026

  16. [24]

    C.ZhangandJ.Jia,Phys.Rev.Lett.128,022301(2022). 11

    2022

  17. [25]

    S. Zhao, H. jie Xu, Y.-X. Liu, and H. Song, Physics Let- ters B839, 137838 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Z. Wang, J. Chen, J. Jia, Y.-G. Ma, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C113, 034905 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Zhao, H.-j

    S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, Y. Zhou, Y.-X. Liu, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 192301 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Białas and E

    A. Białas and E. Białas, Phys. Rev. D20, 2854 (1979)

    1979

  21. [29]

    Anisovich, Y

    V. Anisovich, Y. Shabelsky, and V. Shekhter, Nuclear Physics B133, 477 (1978)

    1978

  22. [30]

    Bożek, W

    P. Bożek, W. Broniowski, and M. Rybczyński, Phys. Rev. C94, 014902 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Eremin and S

    S. Eremin and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C67, 064905 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    P. K. Netrakanti and B. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. C70, 027901 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    PHENIX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C89, 044905 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    R. D. Woods and D. S. Saxon, Phys. Rev.95, 577 (1954)

    1954

  27. [35]

    Bożek and W

    P. Bożek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C85, 044910 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    H.Niemi, G.S.Denicol, H.Holopainen,andP.Huovinen, Phys. Rev. C87, 054901 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C102, 034905 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Giacalone, F

    G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C103, 024909 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, Computer Physics Communications199, 61 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C83, 024912 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C94, 024907 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C92, 011901 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C77, 064901 (2008), arXiv:0712.3715 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. Heinz, Physics Letters B658, 279 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Basset al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 41, 255 (1998)

    S. Basset al., Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 41, 255 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    M.Bleicher, E.Zabrodin, C.Spieles, S.A.Bass, C.Ernst, S. Soff, L. Bravina, M. Belkacem, H. Weber, H. Stöcker, and W. Greiner, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Par- ticle Physics25, 1859 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C101, 024911 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Loizides, J

    C. Loizides, J. Nagle, and P. Steinberg, SoftwareX1-2, 13 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Bilandzic, R

    A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044913 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Bilandzic, C

    A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A.Hansen, andY.Zhou,Phys.Rev.C89,064904(2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    ALICE Collaboration, Physics Letters B834, 137393 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Yan and J.-Y

    L. Yan and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Physics Letters B744, 82 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Bożek, Phys

    P. Bożek, Phys. Rev. C93, 044908 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    G. J. Székely, M. L. Rizzo, and N. K. Bakirov, The An- nals of Statistics35(2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Da Veiga, Journal of Statistical Computation and Sim- ulation85(2013)

    S. Da Veiga, Journal of Statistical Computation and Sim- ulation85(2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Teaney and L

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

    2012

  49. [57]

    Lundberg and S.-I

    S. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, (2017), arXiv:1705.07874 [cs.AI]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. Ali, F. Akhlaq, A. S. Imran, Z. Kastrati, S. M. Daud- pota, and M. Moosa, Computers in Biology and Medicine 166, 107555 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.