Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 1 cited by

Cumulants of mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 0 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-07-01 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Hydrodynamic simulations of heavy-ion collisions satisfy derived quantitative relations between cumulants of mean transverse momentum and moments of elliptic flow.

desk verdict The paper derives explicit relations between pT cumulants and flow moments that hold in the hydro runs and could serve as an experimental test. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.26737 v1 pith:ZO26XDC4 submitted 2026-05-26 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Tribhuban Parida , Piotr Bożek This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords cumulantsmeantransversemomentumellipticflowhydrodynamicmodelheavy-ioncollisionsinitial-statepredictorsharmonicmoments
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 computes higher-order cumulants linking mean transverse momentum to elliptic flow inside a relativistic viscous hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions. These results are compared against event-by-event predictors built directly from the initial-state entropy distribution, which match the centrality dependence of the cumulants. The authors derive explicit quantitative relations connecting the cumulants of mean transverse momentum to different moments of the harmonic flow; the full hydrodynamic runs obey these relations to high accuracy. The relations therefore supply a direct experimental test for whether the observed correlations arise from collective hydrodynamic evolution.

What carries the argument

Event-by-event predictors constructed from the initial-state entropy distribution, which map initial geometry to final-state cumulants and thereby encode the centrality dependence.

What would settle it

Experimental measurement of the same cumulants in heavy-ion data that deviates systematically from the predicted quantitative relations with flow moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The cumulants of mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model obey the derived quantitative relations with moments of the harmonic flow, and the hydrodynamic simulations satisfy those relations very well.

Load-bearing premise

That predictors built from the initial entropy distribution capture the full centrality dependence of the higher cumulants after complete hydrodynamic evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The derived relations provide an experimental signature for the collective hydrodynamic origin of mean-pT and flow correlations.
  • The initial-state predictors quantitatively reproduce the centrality trends seen in the full hydrodynamic calculation.
  • The same relations can be checked order-by-order for higher harmonics or other flow coefficients.
  • Deviations from the relations would indicate the presence of non-collective contributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the relations are confirmed in data, they constrain the allowed range of initial-state fluctuations more tightly than flow moments alone.
  • The approach can be extended to test whether the same relations survive when viscosity or other transport coefficients are varied.
  • A direct comparison with non-hydrodynamic models (e.g., transport or cascade) would show whether the relations are unique to collective expansion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates higher-order cumulants involving the mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow v_2 within a relativistic viscous hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions. Hydrodynamic results are compared to event-by-event predictors constructed from the initial-state entropy distribution; these predictors are reported to capture the centrality dependence of the cumulants quantitatively. The authors derive explicit quantitative relations linking the cumulants of mean p_T to moments of the harmonic flow and demonstrate that the hydrodynamic simulations satisfy these relations to high accuracy. The relations are proposed as an experimental test of the collective hydrodynamic origin of the observed correlations.

Significance. If the derived relations hold under viscous hydrodynamic evolution, they furnish a largely model-independent diagnostic for the collective character of p_T–flow correlations that can be confronted directly with experimental multi-particle cumulants. The quantitative success of initial-state entropy predictors for higher-order cumulants reinforces the utility of such predictors beyond mean values and strengthens the connection between initial geometry fluctuations and final-state observables. The work therefore supplies both a theoretical benchmark and a practical experimental handle in the study of collective dynamics in heavy-ion collisions.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the sentence 'The predictors describes quantitatively centrality dependence...' contains a subject-verb agreement error ('describes' should be 'describe').
  2. [Results section (near the statement on satisfaction of relations)] The manuscript states that the hydrodynamic simulations 'satisfy those relation very well,' but does not specify a quantitative metric (e.g., relative deviation or χ² per degree of freedom) or identify the figure/table that displays the comparison; this should be added for reproducibility.
  3. [Section introducing the cumulant definitions] Notation for the higher-order cumulants (e.g., whether they are normalized or un-normalized) should be defined explicitly at first use, as conventions differ across the heavy-ion literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript, the detailed summary, and the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were listed in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives quantitative relations between cumulants of mean pT and moments of harmonic flow from general hydrodynamic considerations, then verifies them via independent viscous hydro simulations and separate initial-state entropy predictors. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or renamed input; the satisfaction of the relations is presented as a numerical outcome of the evolution rather than an algebraic identity. The central claim therefore rests on external verification against simulations and is not forced by the paper's own definitions or prior self-citations.

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

The work rests on the standard assumption that relativistic viscous hydrodynamics models the collective evolution, plus numerical choices for initial conditions and viscosity parameters typical in the field.

free parameters (2)
  • shear and bulk viscosity coefficients
    Standard parameters in viscous hydro models that are usually tuned to data or chosen within ranges.
  • initial entropy deposition parameters
    Event-by-event initial conditions involve model parameters for entropy fluctuations.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Relativistic viscous hydrodynamics provides an accurate description of the space-time evolution in heavy-ion collisions.
    Invoked as the basis for all simulation results.
  • domain assumption Initial-state entropy distributions can be used to construct reliable event-by-event predictors for final-state collective observables.
    Central to the comparison performed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cumulants of mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZO26XDC4

@misc{pith2026260526737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cumulants of mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZO26XDC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.26737}
}
read the original abstract

Higher order cumulants between the mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow are calculated in a relativistic viscous hydrodynamic model of relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The results of the hydrodynamic simulations are compared with calculations using event-by-event predictors of the final collective observables constructed from the initial state entropy distribution. The predictors describes quantitatively centrality dependence of the higher cumulants considered in the paper. We derive a quantitative relations between the cumulants of the mean transverse momentum and different moments of the harmonic flow. The hydrodynamic simulations satisfy those relation very well. Those relations could be used to test experimentally the collective origin of the observed correlations between the mean transverse momentum and harmonic flow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The scaled cumulants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Scaled cumulants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the hydrodynamic-model results (solid lines with markers) with predictions based on estimators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nonlinear collective flow reveals the breakdown of quadrupole--hexadecapole scaling in heavy ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The nonlinear flow coefficient ξ6,222 in simulated U+U collisions separates the four (β2, β4) nuclear topology classes, making the sign of the hexadecapole deformation β4 experimentally accessible.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (solid line), ρ2,1([pT ], v2

    work page

  2. [2]

    (dashed line with squares),ρ 3,1([pT ], v2

    work page

  3. [3]

    (dot- ted line),ρ 1,2([pT ], v2

    work page

  4. [4]

    withT ±(x, y) denoting the thickness functions of the pro- jectile and target participants, respectively

    (dashed line with stars),ρ 13([pT ], v2 2) (dashed line with diamonds), calculated in the relativistic hy- drodynamic model for Pb+Pb collisions as a function of col- lision centrality. withT ±(x, y) denoting the thickness functions of the pro- jectile and target participants, respectively. Centrality classification is performed using minimum-bias T RENTo...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The scaled cumulants of [pT ]2 and [p T ]3 are small in semicentral collisions, but become negative in peripheral collisions

    are consistent with other calculations and measurements [30, 31, 34, 54]. The scaled cumulants of [pT ]2 and [p T ]3 are small in semicentral collisions, but become negative in peripheral collisions. This behavior is qualitatively consistent with results from the AMPT transport model shown in Ref. [43]. The scaled cumu- lantsρ 1,2([pT ], v2

    work page

  6. [6]

    This is qualitatively consistent with preliminary results from the CMS Collaboration [55] and with AMPT results [43]

    are approximately proportional and of the same sign asρ1,1([pT ], v2 2). This is qualitatively consistent with preliminary results from the CMS Collaboration [55] and with AMPT results [43]. In Sec. IV, we derive, using a simple model, quantitative re- lations between the cumulantsρ 1,k([pT ], v2

    work page

  7. [7]

    Those relations explains their relative magnitudes and signs found in the numerical simulations

    (k= 1,2,3). Those relations explains their relative magnitudes and signs found in the numerical simulations. IV. RELA TION BETWEEN THE CUMULANT OF THE SECOND AND FIRST ORDER INv 2 2 Assuming a Gaussian distribution of eccentricity fluc- tuations around the geometric deformation of the interac- tion region, the event-by-event elliptic-flow distribution can...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The presence of correlations between the elliptic flow and the mean transverse momentum modifies the averages of the v2 andpvariables

    =A e − (p−˜p)2 2s2p + κ(v2 −v2 0 −2s2 v)(p−˜p) sp s2v B(v2),(29) assuming a Gaussian distribution inp, with a term in the exponent that correlatespandv 2 with strengthκ. The presence of correlations between the elliptic flow and the mean transverse momentum modifies the averages of the v2 andpvariables. The normalization coefficient is A= 1√ 2πsp 1 +κ 2 2...

    work page

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    (solid line), ρ1,2([pT ], v2

  2. [10]

    The dotteded lines represent the estimates ofρ 1,2 andρ 1,3 obtained fromρ 1,1 using the scaling relations (38) and (39)

    (dashed line with stars), andρ 1,3([pT ], v2 2) (dashed line with diamonds) calculated in the relativistic hy- drodynamic model for Pb+Pb collisions as a function of col- lision centrality. The dotteded lines represent the estimates ofρ 1,2 andρ 1,3 obtained fromρ 1,1 using th...

  3. [11]

    The results in Fig

    for the elliptic flow are of the same sign as the lowest order cumulant ρ1,1(p, v2). The results in Fig. 2 show that the relation Eq. (38) is approximately fulfilled by the hydrodynamic model results. The ratios of the cumulants of different order invtakes the form ⟨[pT ]V 2V ...

  4. [12]

    [panel (b)],ρ 3,1([pT ], v2

  5. [13]

    [panel (c)],ρ 1,2([pT ], v2

  6. [14]

    [panel (d)], andρ 1,3([pT ], v2

  7. [15]

    Estimates using predictors [Eq

    [panel (e)]. Estimates using predictors [Eq. (49)] and [Eq. (50)] are shown with dashed, and dotted lines, respectively. transverse plane, [m] = R m(x, y)s(x, y)dxdyR s(x, y)dxdy .(44) The moments of the initial density used are defined as S= Z s(x, y)dxdy ,(45) ϵ2 2 = [x2 −y ...

  8. [16]

    3, panel (a)]

    is reproduced qualitatively by all formulas [Fig. 3, panel (a)]. The hydrodynamic-model re- sults for the cumulantρ 2,1([pT ], v2

  9. [17]

    3, panel (b)]

    are also reproduced qualitatively the predictors [Fig. 3, panel (b)]. All of them show a change of sign as a function of centrality. However, the predictors do not reproduce well the hy- drodynamic results for the cumulantρ3,1([pT ], v2

  10. [18]

    3, panel (c)]

    [Fig. 3, panel (c)]. Only the simplest predictor [Eq. (49)], shows a change of sign, but its centrality dependence is too steep compared with the hydrodynamic simulations. The cen- trality dependence of the fourth and six-order cumulants 6 in elliptic flow,ρ 1,2([pT ], v2

  11. [19]

    3, panels (d) and (e)]

    is repro- duced qualitatively by the predictors [Fig. 3, panels (d) and (e)]. It is expected for any predictor reproducing the lowest oreder scaled cumulantρ 1,1([pT ], v2 2), due to the relations (38) and (39). The linear approximation for the mean transverse mo- mentum can b...

  12. [20]

    andρ 1,3([pT ], v2 2) are of the same order as lowest-order cumulant ρ1,1([pT ], v2 2). Assuming a simple Gaussian form for the joint probability distribution of [p T ] andv 2 2, we derive a simple relation between these the scaled cumulants of [pt] and higher orders ofv 2. Th...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Ollitrault, J

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

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci.63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. A. Voloshin, V. Koch, and H. G. Ritter, Phys. Rev. C60, 024901 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9903060

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C71, 064906 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0308033

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3077 (2014), arXiv:1407.5530 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Anticicet al.(NA49), Phys

    T. Anticicet al.(NA49), Phys. Rev. C70, 034902 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0311009

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gavin, Phys

    S. Gavin, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 162301 (2004), nucl- th/0308067

    2004

  21. [29]

    Broniowski, M

    W. Broniowski, M. Chojnacki, and L. Obara, Phys. Rev. C80, 051902(R) (2009), arXiv:0907.3216 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    I. J. Abualrobet al.(ALICE), JHEP11, 076 (2025), arXiv:2506.10394 [nucl-ex]. 7

    2025

  23. [31]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 032301 (2026), arXiv:2503.24125 [nucl-ex]

    2026

  24. [32]

    Jia, Phys

    J. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 112301 (2026), arXiv:2507.14399 [nucl-th]

    2026

  25. [33]

    Parida, R

    T. Parida, R. Samanta, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B857, 138985 (2024), arXiv:2407.17313 [nucl-th]

    2024

  26. [34]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 252301 (2024), arXiv:2407.06413 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  27. [35]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C63, 054906 (2001), nucl-th/0007063

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys.Rev. C64, 054901 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0105040 [nucl-th]

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adleret al.(STAR), Phys

    C. Adleret al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C66, 034904 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001

    2002 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys

    K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 032301 (2011), arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3157 (2014), arXiv:1408.4342 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B724, 213 (2013), arXiv:1305.0609 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bilandzic, C

    A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Hansen, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C89, 064904 (2014), arXiv:1312.3572 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev.C86, 044908 (2012), arXiv:1206.1905 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev.C90, 024905 (2014), arXiv:1403.0489 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Adamet al.(ALICE Collaboration), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 182301 (2016), arXiv:1604.07663 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. Qian, U. W. Heinz, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev.C93, 064901 (2016), arXiv:1602.02813 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    X. Zhu, Y. Zhou, H. Xu, and H. Song, Phys. Rev.C95, 044902 (2017), arXiv:1608.05305 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev.C95, 034901 (2017), arXiv:1608.02982 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Qiu and U

    Z. Qiu and U. Heinz, Phys. Lett.B717, 261 (2012), arXiv:1208.1200 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bo˙ zek, Phys

    P. Bo˙ zek, Phys. Rev.C93, 044908 (2016), arXiv:1601.04513 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C102, 034905 (2020), arXiv:2004.00690 [nucl-th]

    2020

  43. [51]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C79, 985 (2019), arXiv:1907.05176 [nucl-ex]

    2019

  44. [52]

    Giacalone, Phys

    G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. C102, 024901 (2020), arXiv:2004.14463 [nucl-th]

    2020

  45. [53]

    Giacalone, F

    G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C103, 024909 (2021), arXiv:2004.01765 [nucl-th]

    2021

  46. [54]

    J. Jia, S. Huang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C105, 014906 (2022), arXiv:2105.05713 [nucl-th]

    2022

  47. [55]

    Bally, M

    B. Bally, M. Bender, G. Giacalone, and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 082301 (2022), arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl- th]

    2022

  48. [56]

    N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C111, L011901 (2025), arXiv:2405.17526 [nucl-th]

    2025

  49. [57]

    Giacaloneet al., Phys

    G. Giacaloneet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 012302 (2025), arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

    2025

  50. [58]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Nature635, 67 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  51. [59]

    P. Li, B. Zhou, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 082302 (2026), arXiv:2504.04688 [nucl-th]

    2026

  52. [60]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), (2024), arXiv:2410.04578 [nucl-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), (2024), arXiv:2410.04578 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  53. [61]

    Bo˙ zek and R

    P. Bo˙ zek and R. Samanta, Phys. Rev. C104, 014905 (2021), arXiv:2103.15338 [nucl-th]

    2021

  54. [62]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B834, 137393 (2022), arXiv:2111.06106 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  55. [63]

    E. G. D. Nielsen, N. Nathanson, K. Gulbrandsen, and Y. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1016 (2025), arXiv:2504.03044 [nucl-th]

    2025

  56. [64]

    Zhao, H.-j

    S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, Y. Zhou, Y.-X. Liu, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 192301 (2024), arXiv:2403.07441 [nucl-th]

    2024

  57. [65]

    Giacalone, Eur

    G. Giacalone, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 297 (2023), arXiv:2305.19843 [nucl-th]

    2023

  58. [66]

    Mehrabpour, G

    H. Mehrabpour, G. Giacalone, and M. W. Luzum, (2026), arXiv:2604.00619 [nucl-th]

    2026

  59. [67]

    Parida, R

    T. Parida, R. Samanta, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B868, 139729 (2025), arXiv:2506.18690 [nucl-th]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C82, 014903 (2010), arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042301 (2011), arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Paquet, C

    J.-F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C93, 044906 (2016), arXiv:1509.06738 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C92, 011901(R) (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, (2018), arXiv:1808.02106 [nucl-th]

    2018

  65. [73]

    J. S. Moreland and R. A. Soltz, Phys. Rev. C93, 044913 (2016), arXiv:1512.02189 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bo˙ zek and H

    P. Bo˙ zek and H. Mehrabpour, Phys. Rev. C101, 064902 (2020), arXiv:2002.08832 [nucl-th]

    2020

  67. [75]

    Tuo (CMS), Acta Phys

    S. Tuo (CMS), Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16, 67 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, A. Tang, and G. Wang, Phys. Lett.B659, 537 (2008), arXiv:0708.0800 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev.C83, 064904 (2011), arXiv:1010.1876 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Mazeliauskas and D

    A. Mazeliauskas and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev.C93, 024913 (2016), arXiv:1509.07492 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Zhang, A

    C. Zhang, A. Behera, S. Bhatta, and J. Jia, Phys. Lett. B822, 136702 (2021), arXiv:2102.05200 [nucl-th]

    2021

  72. [80]

    Cumulants of mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions [data set]. zenodo,

    T. Parida and P. Bozek, “Cumulants of mean transverse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions [data set]. zenodo,” (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.