Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Normalized symmetric cumulants as a measure of QCD phase transition: a viscous hydrodynamic study

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flow correlations can tell a first-order phase transition from a crossover in heavy-ion collisions.

desk verdict A credible exploratory study showing NSC flow correlators separate crossover from first-order EoS in viscous hydro, with the main caveat being the untested bag-constant range and an overreach in the critical-point claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05292 v3 pith:ZETRANCM submitted 2019-08-14 hep-ph nucl-th

Ashutosh Dash , Victor Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords normalizedsymmetriccumulantsQCDphasetransitionhydrodynamicsequationofstatecriticalpointflowharmonicsshearviscositybeamenergyscan
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

This paper argues that normalized symmetric cumulants of anisotropic flow harmonics, observables that can be measured directly in experiments, are sensitive to the equation of state of the quark-gluon plasma. Using event-by-event viscous hydrodynamics, the authors evolve identical collision conditions with two equations of state: a lattice-QCD crossover and a strong first-order phase transition with a bag-model constant. They find that the cumulants, especially NSC(3,4), differ consistently between the two equations of state across different initial conditions and shear-viscosity values. The authors propose NSC(3,4) as a practical 'EoS meter' that could help locate the QCD critical point in beam-energy-scan data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized symmetric cumulant NSC(m,n), defined as SC(m,n)/(<$v_m^{2}$><$v_n^{2}$>), where SC(m,n) is the four-particle cumulant measuring the correlation between the magnitudes of flow harmonics v_m and v_n. The machinery that carries the argument is an event-by-event 2+1-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic simulation with finite baryon density, run with two equations of state: a lattice-QCD+HRG crossover EoS and a first-order bag-model EoS with B^(1/4)=230 MeV. The flow harmonics are generated from fluctuating initial conditions via MC-Glauber and TRENTo models, and the comparison of NSC values between the two EoSs isolates the effect of the phase transition on the hydrodynamic response.

What would settle it

Compute NSC(3,4) in the same hydrodynamic setup using an equation of state with a critical point of moderate strength (rather than a full first-order transition) and compare it to the crossover case; if the NSC difference falls below the current statistical errors or changes sign, the claim that NSC(3,4) can locate the QCD critical point would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the normalized symmetric cumulants NSC(m,n) computed from the correlations between flow harmonics v2, v3, and v4 can distinguish an equation of state with a first-order phase transition from one with a crossover, while all other simulation conditions remain the same. This separation is shown to survive changes in the initial condition model (MC-Glauber wounded nucleons versus TRENTo) and variations in shear viscosity up to eta/s = 1/2. The key quantitative results are that c(epsilon2,v2), the Pearson correlation between initial eccentricity and elliptic flow, drops by roughly 5-10 percent for a first-order transition compared with a crossover, and that NSC(3,4) in particular grows with shear viscosity in the first-order case, making it a robust discriminator. The authors explicitly propose NSC(3,4) as a probe of the QCD equation of state that could be computed from existing experimental data across collision energies to search for a sudden change indicative of the QCD critical point.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison relies on the specific strong first-order bag-model equation of state with a bag constant that yields T_c=164 MeV; if the real QCD transition is weaker or has a smaller latent heat, the size or sign of the NSC difference could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If NSC(3,4) is a robust EoS discriminator, experimental measurements of this cumulant across the RHIC beam energy scan could reveal a sudden change in magnitude indicative of a first-order transition or critical point.
  • The consistency of the NSC difference across initial conditions and shear viscosity values implies that the observable is relatively robust to model uncertainties, strengthening its use as an experimental probe.
  • The finding extends to c(epsilon2,v2), suggesting that initial-geometry-flow correlations, though not directly measurable, can serve as a sensitive theoretical diagnostic for the phase transition.
  • The increase of the NSC(3,4) difference with shear viscosity suggests that viscous effects amplify, rather than erase, the EoS signature, which is a concrete prediction that can be tested against higher-precision hydrodynamics.
  • The success of this exploratory study motivates constructing equations of state with a critical point and testing whether NSC(3,4) responds to the critical point's location and strength in the same way it responds to a full first-order transition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's comparison uses a very strong first-order transition with zero speed of sound over a long mixed phase; if the true QCD transition at finite baryon density is weaker, the magnitude and sign of the NSC difference could change, so the claimed 'EoS meter' may primarily be sensitive to the latent heat and the length of the mixed phase rather than to the mere presence of a critical point.
  • A natural testable extension would be to run the same hydrodynamic setup with equations of state that include a critical point of varying strength and location, and check whether NSC(3,4) shows a monotonic response; this would tell whether the observable can localize the critical point or only distinguish first-order from crossover transitions.
  • Since NSC(3,4) grows with shear viscosity in the first-order case but behaves non-trivially for NSC(2,3), the viscosity dependence itself could be used as an additional discriminating handle in experimental data where eta/s is not precisely known.
  • The 5-10 percent drop in c(epsilon2,v2) for central collisions suggests that the correlation between initial geometry and final flow is a sensitive, albeit model-dependent, indicator of the phase transition; comparing this quantity across initial-condition models in a systematic way could sharpen the prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an event-by-event (2+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic study at finite net baryon density, comparing two equations of state: a lattice-QCD+HRG crossover EoS and a first-order bag-model EoS with B^{1/4}=230 MeV. The authors compute normalized symmetric cumulants NSC(2,3), NSC(2,4), and NSC(3,4) for charged pions at sqrt(s_NN)=62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions, using MC-Glauber and TRENTo initial conditions, and also scan shear viscosity. They report that NSC values differ between the two EoSs, that the difference persists across initial-condition models and viscosity values, and conclude that NSC(3,4) can serve as an 'EoS meter' and possibly help locate the QCD critical point. The hydrodynamic code is tested against the Riemann problem, Gubser flow, and 200 GeV pion spectra and elliptic flow.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide a practically measurable observable (NSC) that is sensitive to the QCD equation of state in heavy-ion collisions, complementing earlier work on machine-learning EoS extraction. The study is a forward sensitivity analysis rather than a fit, so there is no circularity: the NSC separation is an output of hydrodynamics with two distinct input EoSs. The code validation against analytic solutions and 200 GeV data is a genuine strength, as is the test against two different initial-condition models and a viscosity scan. However, the significance is conditional because the first-order EoS is represented by a single bag parameter, the critical-point extrapolation is not simulated, and the 62.4 GeV validation is only claimed, not shown.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A] The central EoS-discrimination claim rests on a single first-order EoS: the bag model with B^{1/4}=230 MeV, chosen to give Tc=164 MeV. The text immediately notes that B^{1/4} may vary between 150 and 300 MeV. The latent heat and the length of the mixed phase, which are the mechanisms invoked to explain the NSC differences, depend strongly on B. A weaker first-order transition or one with a smaller latent heat could reduce or even reverse the NSC separation shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The authors should explicitly test the robustness of NSC(2,3), NSC(2,4), and NSC(3,4) for at least the extreme values B^{1/4}=150 and 300 MeV, or, if that is beyond the exploratory scope, clearly state that the result is conditional on this specific first-order parameterization.
  2. [Section III / Conclusion] The extrapolation to locating the QCD critical point is not supported by the simulations shown. Only a crossover EoS and a strongly first-order EoS are compared; no EoS containing a critical point (e.g., those of Refs. [48,49]) is used. The observed NSC difference may be specific to a long first-order mixed phase, whereas a critical point is expected to produce different dynamics, possibly with enhanced fluctuations and critical slowing down. The statement that NSC(3,4) 'can possibly be used to locate the QCD critical point' should be removed or substantially softened unless a critical-point EoS is simulated and shows a similar or distinguishable NSC signal.
  3. [Section II.A / Fig. 3] The validation of the 62.4 GeV setup is only claimed in the text ('We have checked that the above parameters explains the invariant yield of π− across various centralities') but no figure or quantitative comparison is displayed. Since all NSC results are obtained at 62.4 GeV, and the initial parameters epsilon0 and n0 are not otherwise constrained in the paper, the reader cannot assess the model's accuracy at the energy that matters for the main claim. The authors should show the comparison or reference a previous publication where it appears.
  4. [Section II.B / Figs. 5-6] The statistical and systematic uncertainties of the NSC differences are not quantified in a way that supports the strength of the conclusion. The bootstrap errors are shown, but the number of events is not given, so the statistical significance of the separation between the two EoSs cannot be judged. In addition, resonance decays are neglected (stated for the 200 GeV validation, with the same code used at 62.4 GeV), and the freeze-out energy density differs slightly between the two EoSs (epsilonF=0.28 vs 0.3 GeV/fm3). An estimate of the possible effect of these choices on the NSC separation is needed before claiming that the observable can reliably 'differentiate' the EoSs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The terms 'EoS meter' and 'unique observable' overstate the exploratory nature of the study. The paper demonstrates a sensitivity in a specific model setup; softer wording such as 'potential discriminant' would be more accurate.
  2. [Section II.A] There are typographical errors in the text, for example 'obtsined' instead of 'obtained' and 'decrribed' instead of 'described'. The notation 'm⁄= n' should be typeset as 'm ≠ n'.
  3. [Fig. 6] Fig. 6 shows NSC(v2,v3) and NSC(v3,v4) but not NSC(v2,v4), although the text in Section II.B states that NSC(2,3), NSC(2,4), and NSC(3,4) were computed. Please either include NSC(2,4) in the figure or explicitly state why it is omitted.
  4. [Section II.B, Eq. (12)] The definitions of v_n and the NSC are clear, but the pT-integration range used for the final v_n and NSC values is not specified. Since the experimental comparison at 200 GeV uses a particular pT window, stating the integration range for the 62.4 GeV NSC results would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section II.B, Fig. 4] The notion 'c(ϵ2,v2)' is introduced and used, but the Pearson correlation is computed with what appears to be a small number of events; the number of hydrodynamic events per centrality/initial-condition combination should be stated in the caption or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: NSC differences are forward hydrodynamic outputs from two published EoS inputs; no parameter was fitted to produce the NSC separation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that normalized symmetric cumulants computed from event-by-event viscous hydrodynamics differ between a crossover EoS and a first-order bag-model EoS. This is a forward sensitivity study: the two EoSs are external inputs (lattice-QCD+HRG parameterization from Ref. [18] and the Kolb et al. bag-model EoS from Ref. [21]), and the NSC values are outputs of the hydrodynamic evolution. No NSC value, correlation coefficient, or flow harmonic is used to tune any parameter of either EoS. The bag constant B^(1/4)=230 MeV is adjusted to reproduce a crossover-scale critical temperature Tc=164 MeV, but that calibration concerns the EoS input itself and does not force the NSC difference, which is the claimed result. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the bag parameter is not unique and could range over B^(1/4)=150-300 MeV; this is a robustness limitation, not a circular step. The extrapolation from a first-order EoS comparison to locating the QCD critical point is speculative and would need a critical-point EoS simulation, but that is an unproven inference, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the hydrodynamic framework is standard, the EoSs are from independent groups, and the flow-correlation observables are established. Thus, under the stated definitions, no circularity is present.

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

The central simulation rests on standard hydrodynamic modeling assumptions plus two EoS parameterizations from the literature. The most consequential free input is the bag constant in the first-order EoS, set to 230 MeV to match the lattice crossover Tc but stated to be uncertain between 150 and 300 MeV. Initial energy density and baryon density are tuned to reproduce yields at 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Bag constant B^(1/4) in first-order EoS = 230 MeV
    Adjusted to yield Tc=164 MeV; authors state it may vary between 150-300 MeV, so the first-order transition strength is a free choice.
  • Initial central energy density epsilon0 for 62.4 GeV = 16 GeV/fm^3
    Tuned to reproduce pion yield in 0-15% centrality at 62.4 GeV.
  • Initial central net baryon density n0 for 62.4 GeV = 0.4 fm^-3
    Tuned together with epsilon0 to match data at 62.4 GeV.
  • Freeze-out energy density epsilonF = 0.28-0.3 GeV/fm^3
    Set to match freeze-out temperature Tf~137 MeV for 200 GeV and 62.4 GeV; choices affect final vn.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The matter formed in heavy-ion collisions reaches local thermal equilibrium at tau0=0.6 fm and evolves according to Israel-Stewart viscous hydrodynamics with tau_pi=5eta/(e+p).
    Standard assumption for hydrodynamic modeling; referenced to [51,52].
  • domain assumption Longitudinal boost invariance: the 2+1D approximation is valid near midrapidity.
    Used throughout the paper to reduce the full 3+1D problem.
  • ad hoc to paper The parameterized bag-model EoS [21] represents the QCD first-order phase transition with a large latent heat.
    The EoS is a simple non-interacting QGP bag model, not a state-of-the-art critical-point EoS; the claim that NSC can locate the QCD critical point rests on this representativeness.
  • domain assumption The initial-state models MC-Glauber (wounded nucleons) and TRENTo with p=0 span the plausible range of initial conditions.
    Only two IC models are tested; other models (e.g., with binary-collision scaling) could alter the NSC difference.
  • domain assumption NSC computed from event-plane vn equals the multi-particle symmetric cumulant in the absence of non-flow.
    Eq. (12) last equality is used; the paper states it holds only without non-flow effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Normalized symmetric cumulants as a measure of QCD phase transition: a viscous hydrodynamic study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZETRANCM

@misc{pith2026190805292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Normalized symmetric cumulants as a measure of QCD phase transition: a viscous hydrodynamic study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZETRANCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05292}
}
abstract

Finding the existence and the location of the QCD critical point is one of the main goals of the RHIC beam energy scan program. To make theoretical predictions and corroborate with the experimental data requires modeling the space-time evolution of the matter created in heavy-ion collisions by dynamical models such as the relativistic hydrodynamics with an appropriate Equation of State (EoS). In the present exploratory study, we use a viscous 2+1 dimensional event-by-event (e-by-e) hydrodynamic code at finite baryon densities with two different EoSs (i) Lattice QCD + HRG with a crossover transition and (ii) EoS with a first-order phase transition to studying the normalized symmetric cumulants of charged pions $v_n$ $(n=2-4)$. We show that the normalized symmetric cumulants can differentiate the two EoSs while all other conditions remain the same. The conclusion does not change for various initial conditions and shear viscosity. This indicates that these observables can be used to gain information about the QCD EoS from experimental data and can be used as an EoS meter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05292 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) Trajectories of different regions of the fireball during hydrodynamical evolution as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Equation of state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) (a) Top panel : Comparison of experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Top row) Event-by-event distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Left panel) Normalized symmetric cummulants NSC( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The difference between the NSC( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The QCD Critical Point : marching towards continuum

    S. Datta, R. V . Gavai, and S. Gupta, Nucl. Phys. A 904-905, 883c (2013), arXiv:1210.6784 [hep-lat]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal-Budapest), JHEP 09, 073 (2010), arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    R. V . Gavai and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 71, 114014 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0412035

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Bernard, T

    C. Bernard, T. Burch, E. B. Gregory, D. Toussaint, C. E. DeTar, J. Osborn, S. Gottlieb, U. M. Heller, and R. Sugar (MILC), Phys. Rev. D 71, 034504 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0405029

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Bhattacharya et al

    T. Bhattacharya et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1402.5175 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , Phys. Rev. D 85, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74, 014001 (2011), arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y . Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Schaefer, J

    B.-J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D 76, 074023 (2007), arXiv:0704.3234 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kovacs and Z

    P. Kovacs and Z. Szep, Phys. Rev. D 77, 065016 (2008), arXiv:0710.1563 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. M. Aggarwal et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 022302 (2010), arXiv:1004.4959 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 032302 (2014), arXiv:1309.5681 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 092301 (2014), arXiv:1402.1558 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 785, 551 (2018), arXiv:1709.00773 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Luo (STAR), PoS CPOD2014, 019 (2015), arXiv:1503.02558 [nucl-ex]

    X. Luo (STAR), PoS CPOD2014, 019 (2015), arXiv:1503.02558 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mohanty, Nucl

    B. Mohanty, Nucl. Phys. A 830, 899C (2009), arXiv:0907.4476 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    that the goal mentioned above can be achieved by us- ing relativistic hydrodynamic model, experimental data and a state-of-the-art deep-learning technique that uses a convolu- tional neural network to train the system. The present exploratory study aims to find a unique observ-...

    1908 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Noronha-Hostler, P

    J. Noronha-Hostler, P. Parotto, C. Ratti, and J. M. Stafford, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064910 (2019), arXiv:1902.06723 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    L.-G. Pang, K. Zhou, N. Su, H. Petersen, H. St ¨ocker, and X.- N. Wang, Nature Commun. 9, 210 (2018), arXiv:1612.04262 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Niemi, G

    H. Niemi, G. S. Denicol, H. Holopainen, and P. Huovinen, Phys. Rev. C 87, 054901 (2013), arXiv:1212.1008 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V . Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4816 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806219

    1998 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nonaka, E

    C. Nonaka, E. Honda, and S. Muroya, Eur. Phys. J. C 17, 663 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007187

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P. F. Kolb, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054909 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0006129

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. E. Aguiar, T. Kodama, T. Osada, and Y . Hama, J. Phys. G 27, 75 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0006239

    2001 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hirano, Phys

    T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C 65, 011901 (2002), arXiv:nucl- th/0108004

    2002

  18. [26]

    Nonaka and S

    C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 75, 014902 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0607018

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. C 74, 044904 (2006), arXiv:nucl- th/0604014

    2006

  20. [28]

    Baier and P

    R. Baier and P. Romatschke, Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 677 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0610108

    2007 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 77, 064901 (2008), arXiv:0712.3715 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pratt and J

    S. Pratt and J. Vredevoogd, Phys. Rev. C 78, 054906 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 79, 069901 (2009)], arXiv:0809.0516 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Muronga, Phys

    A. Muronga, Phys. Rev. C 76, 014909 (2007), arXiv:nucl- th/0611090

    2007

  24. [32]

    Molnar, H

    E. Molnar, H. Niemi, and D. H. Rischke, Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 615 (2010), arXiv:0907.2583 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Petersen, J

    H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher, and H. St ¨ocker, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044901 (2008), arXiv:0806.1695 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Werner, I

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher, and K. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. C 82, 044904 (2010), arXiv:1004.0805 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014903 (2010), arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Roy and A

    V . Roy and A. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024909 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 85, 049902 (2012)], arXiv:1109.1630 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Holopainen, H

    H. Holopainen, H. Niemi, and K. J. Eskola, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034901 (2011), arXiv:1007.0368 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 86, 024911 (2012), arXiv:1205.5019 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034901 (2012), arXiv:1110.6742 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Noronha-Hostler, G

    J. Noronha-Hostler, G. S. Denicol, J. Noronha, R. P. G. Andrade, and F. Grassi, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044916 (2013), arXiv:1305.1981 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Akamatsu, S.-i

    Y . Akamatsu, S.-i. Inutsuka, C. Nonaka, and M. Takamoto, J. Comput. Phys. 256, 34 (2014), arXiv:1302.1665 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Plumari, G

    S. Plumari, G. L. Guardo, F. Scardina, and V . Greco, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054902 (2015), arXiv:1507.05540 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Del Zanna, V

    L. Del Zanna, V . Chandra, G. Inghirami, V . Rolando, A. Be- raudo, A. De Pace, G. Pagliara, A. Drago, and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2524 (2013), arXiv:1305.7052 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 78, 024902 (2008), arXiv:0805.1756 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. F. Kolb and U. W. Heinz, (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305084

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    Adam et al

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

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. J. Plumberg, T. Welle, and J. I. Kapusta, PoS CORFU2018, 157 (2018), arXiv:1812.01684 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Huovinen and P

    P. Huovinen and P. Petreczky, Nucl. Phys. A 837, 26 (2010), arXiv:0912.2541 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. P. Boris and D. L. Book, J. Comput. Phys. 11, 38 (1973). 10

    1973

  43. [51]

    Monnai, B

    A. Monnai, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C100, 024907 (2019), arXiv:1902.05095 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. Stewart, Physics Letters A 58, 213 (1976)

    1976

  45. [53]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039902 (2015)], arXiv:1202.4551 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D 90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    K. G. Powell, P. L. Roe, T. J. Linde, T. I. Gombosi, and D. L. D. Zeeuw, Journal of Computational Physics 154, 284 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    J. P. Boris, A. Landsberg, E. S. Oran, and J. H. Gardner, (1993)

    1993

  50. [58]

    Huovinen and H

    P. Huovinen and H. Petersen, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 171 (2012), arXiv:1206.3371 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. M. Marti and E. Mueller, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 3 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906333

    1999 arXiv

  52. [60]

    are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 3. We can see that the simulated result nicely explain the observed asymmetry in the final momentum spectra ofπ−. For Au-Au collisions at√sNN = 62.4 GeV we use EoS- 1st order PT shown in Fig. 2(b) and the freeze-out energy den- sity is fixed...

  53. [61]

    S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 69, 034909 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0307022

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 72, 014904 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0409033

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    B. B. Back et al. (PHOBOS), Phys. Rev. C 75, 024910 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0610001

    2007 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054906 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007063

    2001 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 64, 054901 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0105040

    2001 arXiv

  58. [66]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025

    2007 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Alver and G

    B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C81, 054905 (2010), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.C 82, 039903 (2010)], arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl- th]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    B. H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034913 (2010), arXiv:1007.5469 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.