Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and Ne$-$Ne collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit s}_{\rm\mathbf {NN}}}}$ = 5.36 TeV

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Colliding oxygen and neon nuclei at the LHC produces anisotropic flow that traces each nucleus's intrinsic shape, with hydrodynamic models built from ab initio nuclear structure reproducing the measurements.

desk verdict First OO/Ne-Ne flow data; solid analysis, but the 'geometry-driven' label needs a spherical baseline before it can carry the weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06428 v1 pith:YFLYGXH7 submitted 2025-09-08 nucl-ex hep-ex

ALICE Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exhep-ex PACS 25.75.Ld
keywords anisotropicflowelliptictriangularoxygen-oxygencollisionsneon-neonquark-gluonplasmanucleargeometryalphaclustering
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

ALICE presents the first measurements of elliptic (v2) and triangular (v3) flow in 16O–16O and 20Ne–20Ne collisions at 5.36 TeV per nucleon pair, using about 3 billion OO and 400 million Ne–Ne events. The measured flow coefficients, extracted from two- and four-particle azimuthal correlations, show that the collision system responds to the initial spatial shape of the overlap region. The key result is that the ratio v2(Ne–Ne/OO) rises to about 1.08 in ultracentral collisions, an enhancement the paper attributes to the stronger quadrupole (bowling-pin-like) deformation of 20Ne compared with the tetrahedral 16O. Hydrodynamic calculations that explicitly include ab initio NLEFT and PGCM nuclear-structure inputs reproduce the centrality dependence of v2 and v3, and the system ratios favor a small subnucleon width near 0.1–0.2 fm. The paper concludes that these data support nuclear geometry-driven hydrodynamic flow in light-ion collisions and offer a new probe of the early-time initial state and of light-nucleus shape.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Fourier flow coefficients v_n (n=2,3) defined by the azimuthal distribution of emitted charged particles, measured via two- and four-particle cumulants; the nonzero four-particle cumulant v2{4} is the marker of collective flow. The argument is carried by the ratio v2(Ne–Ne/OO) as a function of centrality, which cancels final-state effects and isolates the initial-geometry difference between the two nuclei. The nuclear-shape inputs come from two ab initio frameworks: NLEFT, which gives 16O a tetrahedral 4-alpha configuration, and PGCM, which gives 20Ne a bowling-pin alpha+16O structure; collisions are assumed to probe these shapes as frozen because the nuclear rota

What would settle it

Measure the v2{2}(Ne–Ne/OO) ratio in the 0–1% most central events with higher statistics: if the peak near 1.08 in ultracentral collisions flattens to unity, the claim that quadrupole deformation of 20Ne drives the enhancement would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the final-state azimuthal anisotropy in collisions of two 16O and two 20Ne nuclei is set primarily by the intrinsic shapes of the colliding nuclei, not by final-state rescattering. In both systems, v2{2} and v2{4} are nonzero and grow with centrality percentile; v2{4} being nonzero is taken as evidence of genuine collective flow rather than nonflow correlations. The v3{2} signal decreases with centrality, matching the behavior seen in pp and p-Pb collisions, while v2{4} shows an increasing trend, a feature not previously seen in small systems. The decisive observation is the system ratio: v2{2}(Ne–Ne/OO) peaks at about 1.08 in ultracentral collisions and decreases

Load-bearing premise

The centrality classes used by the data (based on forward-rapidity multiplicity) are directly comparable to those used by the models (based on midrapidity multiplicity); if that mapping is biased, the quantitative comparisons, including the Ne-Ne/OO ratio enhancement, are shifted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the interpretation holds, the ratio of flow coefficients between two similar-size light systems, OO and Ne-Ne, provides a nearly model-independent measure of the relative deformation (quadrupole vs octupole) of the two nuclei.
  • The agreement with hydrodynamics across centralities extends the evidence for quark-gluon-plasma-like collective behavior from heavy-ion and p-Pb/pp collisions down to light-ion systems, narrowing the gap between large and small collision systems.
  • The preference for a small subnucleon width (~0.1–0.2 fm) in the system ratios constrains the initial-state models used for all heavy-ion calculations, not just light ions.
  • These measurements make 16O and 20Ne collisions a practical tool for imaging alpha-cluster structure in light nuclei, connecting high-energy nuclear collisions to nuclear-structure theory.
  • The observed increasing v2{4} toward peripheral collisions, while v2{2} is flat, quantifies event-by-event flow fluctuations in small systems, which future models of initial fluctuations must reproduce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparison is limited to OO and Ne-Ne; an obvious extension is that other light ions with known shapes (e.g., 24Mg, 28Si, or 12C) collided at the LHC would produce a shape-ratio map that could pin down deformation parameters more tightly than any single pair.
  • The centrality-estimator sensitivity of v2{4} raises a caution: forward- and midrapidity-based centralities differ, so future publications should report both to make model comparisons robust; this is an editorial concern, not a claim of the paper.
  • The preference for small subnucleon width suggests a connection between the size of quantum fluctuations inside a nucleon inferred from the flow ratios and the proton shape fluctuations measured in diffractive deep-inelastic scattering; combining both could resolve the Bayesian-uncertainty issue the paper mentions.
  • If the bowling-pin interpretation of 20Ne holds, one prediction is that v2{2}(Ne-Ne/OO) should rise further in even more central (0–2%) events than measured, and that the ratio should depend on the orientation of the 20Ne deformation axis; a dedicated high-statistics run could test this.
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. The ALICE Collaboration presents the first measurements of the elliptic flow coefficient v2 (via two- and four-particle cumulants) and triangular v3 (via two-particle cumulants) for charged particles in 16O–16O and 20Ne–20Ne collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.36 TeV. Using about 3 billion OO and 400 million Ne-Ne events, the analysis applies standard cumulant methods with an eta gap of |Delta eta|>1.4 and subevent cross-checks, and estimates systematic uncertainties from event selection, tracking, and nonflow. The data are compared with Trajectum hydrodynamic predictions using NLEFT and PGCM nuclear-structure inputs, and with IP-Glasma+JIMWLK+MUSIC+UrQMD and 3DGlauber+MUSIC+UrQMD calculations using PGCM inputs. The paper reports that NLEFT-based Trajectum reproduces the individual flow coefficients up to about 50% centrality, that all deformed-geometry models approximately capture the centrality trend of the v2{2}(Ne-Ne/OO) ratio, and that the IP-Glasma framework with a small subnucleon width best describes the measured system ratios. The central claim is that the observed ~8% enhancement of v2{2} in central Ne-Ne relative to OO is driven by the deformed ('bowling-pin'-like) shape of 20Ne versus the tetrahedral shape of 16O, and that this constitutes evidence for nuclear geometry-driven hydrodynamic flow in light-ion collisions at the LHC.

Significance. If the central claim holds, these measurements provide a qualitatively new, hadron-level observable that is sensitive to the ground-state shapes of light nuclei and to the early-time initial conditions of small collision systems. The paper's strengths are that the analysis uses a large data sample, standard and well-tested cumulant techniques, quantified systematic uncertainties, and comparisons to multiple independent hydrodynamic frameworks. The model calculations were not tuned to the new data: nuclear structures come from NLEFT and PGCM, and the hydrodynamic parameters were fixed by heavy-ion or HERA constraints. In particular, the system ratios Ne-Ne/OO are a useful tool because they cancel many final-state effects. The data also appear to discriminate between models with different subnucleon widths, which is a valuable constraint for initial-state modeling. However, as detailed below, the specific attribution of the ratio enhancement to nuclear geometry is not yet uniquely established, and one of the model comparisons has an unresolved centrality-estimator ambiguity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Ratios between two collision systems...' and Fig. 3] The central claim that the observed v2{2}(Ne-Ne/OO) enhancement is 'driven by the nuclear geometries' is not uniquely established because no no-deformation control calculation is shown. The paper compares data only with models that all include the deformed 20Ne and tetrahedral 16O shapes. The ratios could partly reflect the ~25% difference in mass number (A=16 vs 20); the text's statement that the systems are 'similar in size' is not quantified with radii or with a spherical-baseline calculation. Since both Trajectum NLEFT and PGCM actually overestimate the measured v2{2} ratio (Fig. 3), the case would be strengthened by a model calculation using spherical (or deformation-free) 16O and 20Ne, or by a quantitative estimate of the expected ratio without deformation. Please provide such a control or else soften the attribution.
  2. [Centrality cross-check paragraph and Fig. 3] The paper notes that switching the data centrality estimator from FT0C (forward rapidity) to midrapidity multiplicity leaves v2{2} and v3{2} unchanged but reduces v2{4} by about 10%, improving agreement with Trajectum. However, Fig. 3 also presents the v2{4}(Ne-Ne/OO) ratio compared with Trajectum model calculations that use midrapidity multiplicity. The effect of the centrality redefinition on this ratio is not reported. If the ~10% shift differs between the two systems, the comparison of the v2{4} ratio in Fig. 3 is biased. Please provide the v2{4}(Ne-Ne/OO) ratio under the alternative centrality estimator, or explicitly state that the ratio is stable under this change.
  3. [Discussion of subnucleon width and conclusions] The paper concludes that the data 'point to' a subnucleon width w_q of about 0.1-0.2 fm, based on the fact that IP-Glasma+MUSIC+UrQMD and 3DGlauber+MUSIC+UrQMD (both with w_q≈0.11 fm) describe the system ratios while Trajectum with w_q≈0.40 fm overestimates them. However, these frameworks differ in more than w_q: initial-state model, energy deposition, pre-equilibrium dynamics, and hydrodynamic starting time. The data do not uniquely constrain w_q without a controlled scan within a single framework. I recommend either adding such a scan or softening the conclusion to say the data favor a smaller effective nucleon size, rather than identifying w_q as the specific origin.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that hydrodynamic model predictions 'exhibit a good agreement' with the measurements, but Fig. 3 shows that both NLEFT- and PGCM-based Trajectum calculations overestimate the measured v2{2}(Ne-Ne/OO) ratio. The later text acknowledges this; the abstract should be tempered to 'reasonable agreement' or explicitly mention the ratio overestimation.
  2. [Fig. A.3 caption] The AMPT calculations in Fig. A.3 appear without visible uncertainty bands or a description of how their uncertainties were estimated. Please clarify whether these are central predictions only, and if bands exist, specify what they represent.
  3. [Section 'Systematic uncertainties'] The sentence 'Only the sources of systematic uncertainties found to be statistically significant by more than 1 sigma following the procedure in Ref. [79] are combined' is slightly ambiguous. It would be clearer to specify that insignificant uncertainties were not added, and to state whether the same procedure was applied consistently to the ratios.
  4. [Fig. 2] The model bands in Fig. 2 are described as 'combined statistical and systematic uncertainties,' but the text does not explain how the model systematic uncertainties were obtained. A sentence describing their source (e.g., parameter variations, model choices) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hydrodynamic/nuclear-structure predictions are external and pre-existing, with no parameter fitted to the new OO/Ne–Ne flow data.

full rationale

The paper's argument is an experimental measurement compared with model predictions whose parameters were fixed before the OO and Ne–Ne data existed. Trajectum's subnucleon width w_q≈0.40 fm comes from Bayesian inference on Pb–Pb collisions (Refs. [16–18,83]), and the smaller w_q≈0.11 fm in IP-Glasma and 3DGlauber calculations is inferred from HERA incoherent J/ψ data (Refs. [88–91]); neither is fitted to the new OO/Ne–Ne v_n measurements. The nuclear-structure inputs (tetrahedral 16O, bowling-pin 20Ne) come from independent NLEFT and PGCM ab initio calculations (Refs. [60–62]), not from the flow data or from an ansatz invented for this paper. The centrality-estimator caveat—that switching from FT0C to midrapidity multiplicity shifts v2{4} by about 10%—is an honest systematic, not a rescaling that manufactures the claimed effect. Concerns that no spherical (undeformed) baseline is shown, and that the w_q preference is underdetermined because the models differ in several ways, are legitimate scientific caveats about interpretation and model discrimination, but they are not circularity: the conclusion that geometry drives the v2(Ne–Ne/OO) enhancement is an inference from model/data agreement, not an identity or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes data, not a derivation. The main imported ingredients are nuclear structure calculations, hydrodynamic modeling assumptions, and calibrated model parameters from other data sets. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Subnucleon width w_q (Trajectum) = ~0.40 fm (Bayesian inference from Pb-Pb)
    Used in Trajectum model predictions whose slight overestimate of Ne-Ne/OO ratios motivates the paper's conclusion that a smaller width is favored.
  • Subnucleon width w_q (IP-Glasma+MUSIC+UrQMD) = ~0.11 fm (inferred from incoherent J/psi production at HERA)
    Used in the alternative model that reproduces the ratios; central to the conclusion that the data favor a width around 0.1-0.2 fm.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic response: initial spatial eccentricity drives final momentum anisotropy through pressure gradients
    The interpretation of v_n as flow from geometry relies on this mapping, which is the framework being tested rather than independently proven here. Invoked in Eq. (1) and the model comparison section.
  • domain assumption Ground states of 16O and 20Ne are correctly described by NLEFT/PGCM intrinsic shapes (tetrahedral 4-alpha and alpha+16O bowling pin), frozen during the collision
    Used when attributing the observed Ne-Ne/OO enhancement to nuclear geometry; if the ab initio shapes are wrong, the geometry-driven interpretation changes. See intro and model comparison section.
  • domain assumption Nonflow correlations are suppressed by |Delta eta|>1.4 and four-particle cumulants; residual nonflow estimates are reliable
    If nonflow is larger than estimated, the collective interpretation of nonzero v2{4} weakens. See systematic uncertainties paragraph.
  • domain assumption Centrality determined by FT0C forward multiplicity is comparable to midrapidity multiplicity centrality used by Trajectum, except for the noted ~10% difference in v2{4}
    Used for all quantitative data/model comparisons in Figs. 2-3; the paper itself flags the mismatch, but it remains a load-bearing premise for the claimed agreement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and Ne$-$Ne collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit s}_{\rm\mathbf {NN}}}}$ = 5.36 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFLYGXH7

@misc{pith2026250906428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and Ne$-$Ne collisions at $\mathbf\sqrt\textit s_\rm\mathbf NN$ = 5.36 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFLYGXH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06428}
}
abstract

A central question in strong-interaction physics, governed by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), is whether femto-scale droplets of quark$-$gluon plasma (QGP) form in small collision systems involving projectiles significantly smaller than heavy ions. Collisions of light ions such as $^{16}$O and $^{20}$Ne offer a unique opportunity to probe the emergence of collective behavior in QCD matter. This Letter presents the first measurements of elliptic ($v_2$) and triangular ($v_3$) flow of charged particles in $^{16}$O$-$$^{16}$O and $^{20}$Ne$-$$^{20}$Ne collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}} = 5.36$ TeV with the ALICE detector. The hydrodynamic model predictions, explicitly incorporating the nuclear structures of $^{16}$O and $^{20}$Ne, exhibit a good agreement with the flow measurements presented. The observed increase of $v_2$ in central Ne$-$Ne collisions relative to OO collisions, driven by the nuclear geometries, highlights the importance of utilizing light nuclei with well-defined geometric shapes to constrain the initial conditions. These findings support the presence of nuclear geometry-driven hydrodynamic flow in light-ion collisions at the LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Charged particle v2{2}, v3{2}, and v2{4} as a function of centrality in OO (solid markers) and Ne–Ne (open markers) collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV. The vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties, and the open boxes represent systematic uncertainties, with most of them being smaller than the symbol size. suppresses nonflow effects, the remaining differences between two- and four-particle cumulants of v2 can be… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Charged particle v2{2}, v3{2}, and v2{4} as a function of centrality in OO (left) and Ne–Ne (right) collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV. The vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties, and the open boxes represent systematic uncertainties, with most of them being smaller than the symbol size. The measurements are compared with Trajectum calculations with NLEFT and PGCM inputs [50]. different centrality dependence … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratios v2(Ne–Ne/OO) and v3(Ne–Ne/OO) as a function of centrality in the 0–30% centrality range. The vertical lines represent statistical uncertainties and the open boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, while most of them are smaller than the symbol size. The measurements are compared with Trajectum cal￾culations with NLEFT and PGCM inputs [50] as well as IP-Glasma+JIMWLK+MUSIC+UrQMD [84] and 3DGlauber+MUSIC+… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

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

    nucl-th 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

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

  2. Deformation effects on reaction observables of beryllium nuclei from ab initio densities

    nucl-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using NLEFT intrinsic densities in a deformed Glauber model, deformation reduces the calculated 11Be reaction cross section by ~50 mb and reproduces the 10Be to 11Be halo step.

  3. Evidence for sequential $\Upsilon$(nS) suppression in light ion collisions

    nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First evidence of sequential Upsilon(nS) suppression in oxygen-oxygen and neon-neon collisions, with the Upsilon(3S)/Upsilon(2S) ratio reduced by 3.2 standard deviations.

  4. Imaging two-body correlations in atomic nuclei via low- and high-energy processes

    nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ground-state two-body correlations in light nuclei are better probed by high-energy eccentricity variances than by low-energy Kumar operators, whose deformation interpretation is shown to fail.

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

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With four partons per nucleon and one shared entropy-to-multiplicity scale, a wounded-parton Glauber model with negative-binomial fluctuations fits O+O, Ne+Ne, Xe+Xe, and Pb+Pb multiplicity distributions from 1–80% ce...

  6. Scaling approach to rigid and soft nuclear deformation through flow fluctuations in high-energy nuclear collisions

    nucl-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Triangular flow four-particle cumulants scale linearly with the fourth moment of octupole deformation, allowing the mean and variance of 238U octupole deformation to be extracted separately.

  7. Constraining $\alpha$-cluster compactness in $^{16}\rm O$ and $^{20}\rm Ne$ at TeV energies using azimuthal anisotropy

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Elliptic flow in TeV OO and Ne–Ne collisions prefers loose α-cluster nuclear profiles over compact ones when compared to LHC Run 3 data in a hybrid IP-Glasma+MUSIC framework.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow

    J.-Y . Ollitrault, “Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow”,Phys. Rev.D46(1992) 229–245. [5]ALICECollaboration, K. Aamodtet al., “Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 032301, arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex]. 8 Anisotropic flow in OO and Ne–Ne ALICE C...

    arXiv 1992

  2. [15]

    Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63(2013) 123–151,arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  3. [16]

    Applying Bayesian parameter estimation to relativistic heavy-ion collisions: simultaneous characterization of the initial state and quark-gluon plasma medium

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, and U. Heinz, “Applying Bayesian parameter estimation to relativistic heavy-ion collisions: simultaneous characterization of the initial state and quark-gluon plasma medium”,Phys. Rev.C94(2016) 024907,arXiv:1605.03954 [nucl-th]. [17]JETSCAPECollaboration, D. Everettet al., “Phenomenological constraints o...

    arXiv 2016

  4. [18]

    Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, “Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 202301, arXiv:2010.15130 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [19]

    Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, “Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics”,Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 111601,arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [20]

    Report from Working Group 5: Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams

    Z. Citronet al., “Report from Working Group 5: Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams”,CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr .7(2019) 1159–1410,arXiv:1812.06772 [hep-ph]. 9 Anisotropic flow in OO and Ne–Ne ALICE Collaboration [21]CMSCollaboration, V . Khachatryanet al., “Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular C...

    arXiv 2019

  7. [34]

    Collective flow and hydrodynamics in large and small systems at the LHC

    H. Song, Y . Zhou, and K. Gajdosova, “Collective flow and hydrodynamics in large and small systems at the LHC”,Nucl. Sci. Tech.28(2017) 99,arXiv:1703.00670 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [35]

    Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Collisions

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, “Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Collisions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018) 211–235,arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]. 10 Anisotropic flow in OO and Ne–Ne ALICE Collaboration

    arXiv 2018

Show all 56 references
  1. [36]

    Soft qcd physics at the lhc: Highlights and opportunities

    P. Christiansen and P. Van Mechelen, “Soft qcd physics at the lhc: Highlights and opportunities”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.(2025) ,arXiv:2412.02672 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [37]

    A Decade of Collectivity in Small Systems

    J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus and U. A. Wiedemann, “A Decade of Collectivity in Small Systems”, CERN-TH-2024-110,arXiv:2407.07484 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [38]

    Probing the Partonic Degrees of Freedom in High-Multiplicity p–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV

    W. Zhao, C. M. Ko, Y .-X. Liu, G.-Y . Qin, and H. Song, “Probing the Partonic Degrees of Freedom in High-Multiplicity p–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 072301, arXiv:1911.00826 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [39]

    Collective flow in p-Pb and d-Pb collisions at TeV energies

    P. Bozek, “Collective flow in p-Pb and d-Pb collisions at TeV energies”,Phys. Rev.C85(2012) 014911,arXiv:1112.0915 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [40]

    Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC

    H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, “Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Lett.B772(2017) 681–686,arXiv:1705.03177 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [41]

    One fluid to rule them all: viscous hydrodynamic description of event-by-event central p+p, p+Pb and Pb+Pb collisions at √s=5.02 TeV

    R. D. Weller and P. Romatschke, “One fluid to rule them all: viscous hydrodynamic description of event-by-event central p+p, p+Pb and Pb+Pb collisions at √s=5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett.B774 (2017) 351–356,arXiv:1701.07145 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [42]

    Hydrodynamic collectivity in proton–proton collisions at 13 TeV

    W. Zhao, Y . Zhou, H. Xu, W. Deng, and H. Song, “Hydrodynamic collectivity in proton–proton collisions at 13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B780(2018) 495–500,arXiv:1801.00271 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [43]

    Searching for small droplets of hydrodynamic fluid in proton–proton collisions at the LHC

    W. Zhao, Y . Zhou, K. Murase, and H. Song, “Searching for small droplets of hydrodynamic fluid in proton–proton collisions at the LHC”,Eur . Phys. J. C80(2020) 846,arXiv:2001.06742 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [44]

    Anisotropic parton escape is the dominant source of azimuthal anisotropy in transport models

    L. He, T. Edmonds, Z.-W. Lin, F. Liu, D. Molnar, and F. Wang, “Anisotropic parton escape is the dominant source of azimuthal anisotropy in transport models”,Phys. Lett.B753(2016) 506–510, arXiv:1502.05572 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [45]

    Nearly isentropic flow at sizeableη/s

    A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, “Nearly isentropic flow at sizeableη/s”,Phys. Lett. B 783(2018) 274–279,arXiv:1803.02072 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [46]

    Exploring the partonic collectivity in small systems at the LHC

    Y . Wang, W. Zhao, and H. Song, “Exploring the partonic collectivity in small systems at the LHC”,arXiv:2401.00913 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  12. [47]

    Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, “Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions”,Phys. Rev. C102(2020) 044905,arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [48]

    Bayesian inference of the fluctuating proton shape

    H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, “Bayesian inference of the fluctuating proton shape”,Phys. Lett. B833(2022) 137348,arXiv:2202.01998 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [49]

    Nuclear cluster structure effect on elliptic and triangular flows in heavy-ion collisions

    S. Zhang, Y . G. Ma, J. H. Chen, W. B. He, and C. Zhong, “Nuclear cluster structure effect on elliptic and triangular flows in heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C95(2017) 064904, arXiv:1702.02507 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [50]

    Exploiting 20Ne Isotopes for Precision Characterizations of Collectivity in Small Systems

    G. Giacaloneet al., “Exploiting 20Ne Isotopes for Precision Characterizations of Collectivity in Small Systems”,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 012302,arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [51]

    Signatures ofα-clustering in16O by using a multiphase transport model

    Y .-A. Li, S. Zhang, and Y .-G. Ma, “Signatures ofα-clustering in16O by using a multiphase transport model”,Phys. Rev. C102(2020) 054907,arXiv:2010.10003 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [52]

    Exploring the compactness ofαclusters in O16 nuclei with relativistic O16+O16 collisions

    Y . Wang, S. Zhao, B. Cao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, “Exploring the compactness ofαclusters in O16 nuclei with relativistic O16+O16 collisions”,Phys. Rev. C109(2024) L051904, arXiv:2401.15723 [nucl-th]. 11 Anisotropic flow in OO and Ne–Ne ALICE Collaboration

    2024 arXiv

  18. [53]

    Nuclear cluster structure effect in 16O+16O collisions at the top RHIC energy

    X.-L. Zhao, G.-L. Ma, Y . Zhou, Z.-W. Lin, and C. Zhang, “Nuclear cluster structure effect in 16O+16O collisions at the top RHIC energy”,arXiv:2404.09780 [nucl-th]

  19. [54]

    Exploring New Small System Geometries in Heavy Ion Collisions

    S. H. Lim, J. Carlson, C. Loizides, D. Lonardoni, J. E. Lynn, J. L. Nagle, J. D. Orjuela Koop, and J. Ouellette, “Exploring New Small System Geometries in Heavy Ion Collisions”,Phys. Rev. C99 (2019) 044904,arXiv:1812.08096 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [55]

    16O 16O collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider comparingαclustering versus substructure

    N. Summerfield, B.-N. Lu, C. Plumberg, D. Lee, J. Noronha-Hostler, and A. Timmins, “ 16O 16O collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider comparingαclustering versus substructure”,Phys. Rev. C104(2021) L04190...

    2021 arXiv

  21. [56]

    Effects of clustered nuclear geometry on the anisotropic flow in O-O collisions at the LHC within a multiphase transport model framework

    D. Behera, S. Prasad, N. Mallick, and R. Sahoo, “Effects of clustered nuclear geometry on the anisotropic flow in O-O collisions at the LHC within a multiphase transport model framework”, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 054022,arXiv:2304.10879 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [57]

    Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart

    J. Jiaet al., “Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart”,Nucl. Sci. Tech.35(2024) 220,arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [58]

    Nuclear Physics Confronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars

    G. Giacaloneet al., “Nuclear Physics Confronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars”, Report of the EMMI RRTF,arXiv:2507.01454 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  24. [59]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem. Springer, 1980

    1980

  25. [60]

    Lattice Effective Field Theory Simulations of Nuclei

    D. Lee, “Lattice Effective Field Theory Simulations of Nuclei”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.(2025) , arXiv:2501.03303 [nucl-th]

    2025

  26. [61]

    Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: I. Novel PGCM-PT formalism

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, and V . Somà, “Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: I. Novel PGCM-PT formalism”,Eur . Phys. J. A58(2022) 62,arXiv:2110.15737 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [62]

    Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: II. Ab initio study of neon isotopes via PGCM and IM-NCSM calculations

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, B. Bally, T. Mongelli, T. R. Rodríguez, R. Roth, and V . Somà, “Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: II. Ab initio study of neon isotopes via PGCM and IM-NCSM calculations”,Eur . Phys. J. A58(2022) 63,arXiv:2111.00797 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [63]

    Time-dependent density-functional description of nuclear dynamics

    T. Nakatsukasa, K. Matsuyanagi, M. Matsuo, and K. Yabana, “Time-dependent density-functional description of nuclear dynamics”,Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) 045004,arXiv:1606.04717 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [64]

    Azimuthal anisotropy in U+U and Au+Au collisions at RHIC

    W. Greiner and J. A. Maruhn,Nuclear Models. Springer, 1996. [65]STARCollaboration, L. Adamczyket al., “Azimuthal anisotropy in U+U and Au+Au collisions at RHIC”,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 222301,arXiv:1505.07812 [nucl-ex]. [66]STARCollaboration, M. I. Abdulhamidet al., “Imaging...

    1996 arXiv

  30. [70]

    Collision system size scan of collective flows in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    S. Zhang, Y . G. Ma, G. L. Ma, J. H. Chen, Q. Y . Shou, W. B. He, and C. Zhong, “Collision system size scan of collective flows in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Lett. B804(2020) 135366, arXiv:2003.06747 [nucl-th]. [71]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “ALICE upg...

    2020 arXiv

  31. [74]

    Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations

    A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Hansen, and Y . Zhou, “Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations”,Phys. Rev.C89(2014) 064904,arXiv:1312.3572 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [75]

    Generic algorithm for multiparticle cumulants of azimuthal correlations in high energy nucleus collisions

    Z. Moravcova, K. Gulbrandsen, and Y . Zhou, “Generic algorithm for multiparticle cumulants of azimuthal correlations in high energy nucleus collisions”,Phys. Rev. C103(2021) 024913, arXiv:2005.07974 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [76]

    Investigation of possible hadronic flow in√sNN =5.02 TeV p–Pb collisions

    Y . Zhou, X. Zhu, P. Li, and H. Song, “Investigation of possible hadronic flow in√sNN =5.02 TeV p–Pb collisions”,Phys. Rev. C91(2015) 064908,arXiv:1503.06986 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [77]

    Importance of non-flow in mixed-harmonic multi-particle correlations in small collision systems

    P. Huo, K. Gajdosov, J. Jia, and Y . Zhou, “Importance of non-flow in mixed-harmonic multi-particle correlations in small collision systems”,Phys. Lett.B777(2018) 201–206, arXiv:1710.07567 [nucl-ex]. [78]ALICECollaboration, B. Abelevet al., “Long-range angular correlations on ...

    2018 arXiv

  35. [79]

    Systematic errors: Facts and fictions

    R. Barlow, “Systematic errors: Facts and fictions”, inConference on Advanced Statistical Techniques in Particle Physics, pp. 134–144. 7, 2002.arXiv:hep-ex/0207026

    2002 arXiv

  36. [80]

    Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC

    C. Loizides, “Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC”,arXiv:2507.05853 [nucl-th]. [81]CMSCollaboration, S. Chatrchyanet al., “Multiplicity and Transverse Momentum Dependence of Two- and Four-Particle Correlations in pPb and Pb–Pb Collisions”,Phys. Lett. B724...

    2013

  37. [82]

    Predictions and postdictions for relativistic lead and oxygen collisions with the computational simulation code Trajectum

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, “Predictions and postdictions for relativistic lead and oxygen collisions with the computational simulation code Trajectum”,Phys. Rev. C106(2022) 044903, arXiv:2110.13153 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [83]

    Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. Gürsoy, and R. Snellings, “Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum”,Phys. Rev. C103(2021) 054909, arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [84]

    Collision-Energy Dependence in Heavy-Ion Collisions from Nonlinear QCD Evolution

    H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, “Collision-Energy Dependence in Heavy-Ion Collisions from Nonlinear QCD Evolution”,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 022302, arXiv:2502.05138 [nucl-th]. 13 Anisotropic flow in OO and Ne–Ne ALICE Collaboration

    2025 arXiv

  40. [85]

    Bayesian analysis of (3+1)D relativistic nuclear dynamics with the RHIC beam energy scan data

    S. A. Jahan, H. Roch, and C. Shen, “Bayesian analysis of (3+1)D relativistic nuclear dynamics with the RHIC beam energy scan data”,Phys. Rev. C110(2024) 054905,arXiv:2408.00537 [nucl-th]

    2024

  41. [86]

    Accessing the shape of atomic nuclei with relativistic collisions of isobars

    G. Giacalone, J. Jia, and V . Somà, “Accessing the shape of atomic nuclei with relativistic collisions of isobars”,Phys. Rev. C104(2021) L041903,arXiv:2102.08158 [nucl-th]. [87]STARCollaboration, M. Abdallahet al., “Search for the chiral magnetic effect with isobar collisions ...

    2021 arXiv

  42. [88]

    Evidence of strong proton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction

    H. Mäntysaari and B. Schenke, “Evidence of strong proton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction”,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 052301,arXiv:1603.04349 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [89]

    Revealing proton shape fluctuations with incoherent diffraction at high energy

    H. Mäntysaari and B. Schenke, “Revealing proton shape fluctuations with incoherent diffraction at high energy”,Phys. Rev.D94(2016) 034042,arXiv:1607.01711 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [90]

    Investigating the gluonic structure of nuclei via J/ψscattering

    A. Caldwell and H. Kowalski, “Investigating the gluonic structure of nuclei via J/ψscattering”, Phys. Rev. C81(2010) 025203

    2010

  45. [91]

    Event-by-event gluon multiplicity, energy density, and eccentricities in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, “Event-by-event gluon multiplicity, energy density, and eccentricities in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C86(2012) 034908, arXiv:1206.6805 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [92]

    Constraining the Nucleon Size with Relativistic Nuclear Collisions

    G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, “Constraining the Nucleon Size with Relativistic Nuclear Collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 042301,arXiv:2111.02908 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [93]

    System-size and shape dependencies of collective-flow fluctuations in relativistic nuclear collisions

    X. Chen, X.-Y . Wu, S. Cao, and G.-Y . Qin, “System-size and shape dependencies of collective-flow fluctuations in relativistic nuclear collisions”,Phys. Rev. C109(2024) 064915, arXiv:2402.02348 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [94]

    Ab-initio nucleon-nucleon correlations and their impact on high energy 16O+16O collisions

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia, and Y .-G. Ma, “Ab-initio nucleon-nucleon correlations and their impact on high energy 16O+16O collisions”,Phys. Lett. B862(2025) 139322,arXiv:2404.08385 [nucl-th]. 14 Anisotropic flow in OO and Ne–Ne ALICE Collaboration A Sup...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.