Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Influence of the neutron-skin effect on nuclear isobar collisions at RHIC

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Neutron skin halves magnetic-field gap between isobar collision systems.

desk verdict A focused, physically sensible transport study showing that the measured neutron skin of 96Zr can cut the Ru/Zr magnetic-field difference in half—but the headline number rests on the upper-limit skin value and needs an uncertainty band before it should be quoted as the central result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10231 v2 pith:IUCMC7AG submitted 2019-08-27 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Jan Hammelmann , Alba Soto-Ontoso , Massimiliano Alvioli , Hannah Elfner , Mark Strikman This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q
keywords neutronskinisobarcollisionschiralmagneticeffectfieldstrengthnucleardeformationeccentricityrelativisticheavy-ionLiénard-Wiechertpotentials
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 studies collisions of two mirror nuclei with the same mass, ruthenium-96 and zirconium-96, at 200 GeV per nucleon pair, and asks whether an experimentally measured nuclear-structure feature changes the magnetic field that drives the chiral magnetic effect. The central finding is that including the neutron skin of zirconium-96—the fact that its neutrons extend farther from the center than its protons—cuts the expected magnetic-field difference between the two systems by half, from about 10% to about 5% in peripheral collisions. Because the CME signal is proportional to the field, the paper concludes that the isobar run will show a smaller charge-separation signal relative to background than earlier estimates suggested. It also finds that the deformation of ruthenium-96 raises the eccentricity ratio between the systems by up to 10% in ultra-central collisions, an effect that must be matched when comparing backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is an isospin-dependent nuclear density profile: protons and neutrons are no longer sampled from one common Woods-Saxon distribution but are given separate radii and diffusivities, tuned so that zirconium-96 satisfies the measured skin $\Delta r_{np} = 0.15$ fm while keeping the overall nucleus size fixed. This shifts neutrons to large radii and, in peripheral collisions, changes which nucleons interact, thereby altering the charge distribution that generates the magnetic field via Liénard-Wiechert potentials. The same geometric setup also includes a quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta_2 = 0.158$ for ruthenium-96 and nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations, allowing the paper to isolate the skin's effect on both the magnetic field and the participant eccentricity.

What would settle it

Rerun the same calculation with the central measured value $\Delta r_{np} = 0.12$ fm or with a newer precision measurement of the skin; if the predicted Ru/Zr magnetic-field ratio in peripheral collisions stays near the original 10% excess rather than dropping to about 5%, the claimed cancellation fails. The experimental charge-separation data from the isobar run in peripheral centralities can serve as a direct check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a cancellation. Ruthenium has more protons than zirconium and would normally generate stronger magnetic fields in peripheral collisions, but zirconium has a measured neutron skin that places extra neutrons in the nuclear surface. In peripheral collisions those neutrons dominate the interaction region, and the proton charge that contributes to the magnetic field concentrates near the center of the overlap, boosting the zirconium system's field. The paper finds that with the upper limit of the measured skin, $\Delta r_{np} = 0.15$ fm, the ratio of squared magnetic-field strengths between Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr drops from a 10% excess to about 5% in peripheral collisions ($12 > b > 8$ fm), approaching unity. The same calculation shows that the eccentricity ratio between the two systems differs by up to 10% in ultra-central collisions, driven by ruthenium's deformation rather than by the neutron skin or nucleon correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The headline factor-of-two reduction is computed by taking the experimentally measured neutron skin of zirconium-96 at its upper limit, 0.15 fm; if the true skin is at the central value 0.12 fm or below, the reduction weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Peripheral isobar events are expected to show a smaller CME signal relative to background than previously thought, because the magnetic-field difference driving the signal drops from 10% to about 5%.
  • The centrality window for a clean CME search shifts toward more peripheral events with $b > 12$ fm, where a sizeable field difference between the two systems reappears.
  • The eccentricity ratio between Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr is up to 10% larger in ultra-central collisions because of ruthenium's deformation, so background comparisons in that region must correct for flow differences; the paper suggests using $b > 6$ fm for matched backgrounds.
  • Nuclear-structure details such as the neutron skin and deformation need to be included in the interpretation of isobar data, while short-range correlations by themselves have a negligible effect on these observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors deliberately use the upper limit of the measured skin; if a more precise measurement settles on the central value $\Delta r_{np} = 0.12$ fm or lower, the same calculation would likely give a ratio closer to the original 10% difference, so the headline factor-of-two reduction is an extremal scenario rather than a central estimate.
  • The same cancellation logic should apply to other isobar pairs with a neutron-rich member that carries a skin; a systematic comparison across nickel or tin isobar pairs could test whether the suppression scales with skin size.
  • A ratio observable comparing charge separation in peripheral bins, where the field ratio is near one, against mid-central bins, where it is not, could isolate the CME contribution without relying on absolute magnetic-field predictions.
  • Because the neutron skin changes which nucleons participate in the collision, it should also alter photon and dilepton yields that track the proton fraction, offering independent experimental checks of the geometrical change.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses the SMASH hadronic transport code to quantify how nuclear-structure details of the isobar pair 96Zr and 96Ru affect two CME-relevant observables in 200 GeV collisions: the participant eccentricity (a flow background proxy) and the early-time magnetic field strength (a CME signal proxy). The authors introduce isospin-dependent Woods-Saxon profiles for 96Zr with a neutron skin at the upper experimental limit (Δr_np = 0.15 fm), a deformation for 96Ru (β2 = 0.158), and nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations. Their main claim is that the neutron skin reduces the Ru+Ru to Zr+Zr magnetic field ratio difference from 10% to 5% in peripheral collisions (12 > b > 8 fm), which would imply a smaller CME signal-to-background ratio than previously expected. They also report an up-to-10% deformation-driven enhancement of the eccentricity ratio in ultra-central collisions.

Significance. The isobar program at RHIC was designed to separate CME signal from background by comparing Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions; this paper is the first transport-model study to include the measured neutron skin of 96Zr in that context. If the central claim holds, it materially changes the expected sensitivity of the isobar run and informs the centrality selection for CME analyses. The eccentricity-deformation result is also a useful cross-check of earlier hydrodynamic work. The study is based on the publicly available SMASH code, and the nuclear-structure inputs are traceable to experimental data, which is a strength. However, the headline magnetic-field result is computed at the upper limit of the measured neutron skin and no uncertainties are propagated, so the quantitative claim is an extremal estimate rather than a central prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Framework (Eq. 5)] The headline claim of a factor-of-2 reduction, from 10% to 5%, is computed only for Δr_np = 0.15 fm, the upper edge of the measured 0.12 ± 0.03 fm quoted in Eq. (5). The text honestly states that this is chosen 'with the purpose of studying the neutron-skin impact at its extreme,' but the abstract and summary present the factor-of-2 reduction without this caveat. Since the effect is expected to scale with Δr_np, the reduction at the central value 0.12 fm, or at the lower value 0.09 fm, would likely be smaller than a factor of 2. The authors should either compute the ratio for at least the central and lower values of Δr_np, or propagate the experimental uncertainty and rephrase the abstract to state that the factor-of-2 is an upper-limit sensitivity estimate.
  2. [Fig. 3 (bottom panel)] The ratio of magnetic field strengths, which is the central observable, is shown without statistical uncertainties or error bands. Given that the claimed effect is a change from a ratio of about 1.10 to about 1.05, it is essential to know whether this difference is significant relative to event-by-event fluctuations. Please add error bars or confidence bands to the ratio plot and, if possible, provide the statistical significance of the reduction in the peripheral bin 12 > b > 8 fm.
  3. [Table II; Appendix A] The implementation of the neutron skin is of the 'neutron-halo' type (R0,n = R0,p, d_n > d_p), but the paper does not explicitly verify that the parameters listed in Table II indeed yield the intended Δr_np = 0.15 fm when used in Eqs. (9)-(12). Adding the resulting root-mean-square radii and the corresponding Δr_np to Table II would provide a useful consistency check that the sampled distributions realize the claimed extreme value.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'assumptios' (Framework), 'pannel' (Fig. 2 caption), 'diffusiveness' (should be 'diffuseness'), and 'refer to' (should be 'referred to'). The paper would benefit from a careful proofread.
  2. [Introduction] Reference [14] is listed as '(2019), arXiv:1906.03373 [nucl-ex]' without an author list; this appears to be the STAR isobar paper and the citation should be completed.
  3. [Signal: Magnetic field strength (Eq. 8)] The sentence explaining the mechanism states that the neutron skin 'enhances the number of neutron-neutron interactions in peripheral collisions or, equivalently, the concentration of protons in the central point that contribute to Eq. 8, leading to a larger B field.' This is confusing because neutron-neutron interactions do not directly contribute to the magnetic field. Please clarify the causal chain connecting the neutron skin to the enhanced B field at the central point.
  4. [Signal: Magnetic field strength (Eq. 8)] The cutoff R_i < 0.3 fm used to avoid singularities in the Lienard-Wiechert sum is a free parameter. Please provide a sensitivity check with respect to this cutoff, or at least justify the chosen value quantitatively.
  5. [Figs. 2 and 3] In the top panels of Figs. 2 and 3, the solid and dashed curves for the two systems overlap considerably, making them hard to distinguish. Adding markers or different line colors/widths would improve readability.
  6. [Appendix A] Equations (11) and (12) use R0 and d on the right-hand side for the charge distribution, while R0,p and d_p denote point-proton values; this notation should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: forward SMASH simulation with independent nuclear-structure inputs; the upper-limit skin choice is an explicit caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a forward model: experimental charge radii and deformation from Ref. [39], the measured neutron skin Δr_np = 0.12 ± 0.03 fm from Refs. [27,28], and an SRC generator from Ref. [47] are converted into Woods-Saxon parameters via the unfolding in Appendix A, fed into SMASH, and then participant eccentricity (Eq. 6) and magnetic-field strength (Eq. 8) are computed event-by-event. The headline B-field reduction is not an identity with any input: the skin parameter enters as a nuclear-structure input, and the B-field ratio is a transport output that could in principle behave differently. The quantitative claim is conditional on the upper limit Δr_np = 0.15 fm, which the paper explicitly labels as an extreme-case study ('we take the upper limit of Δr_np = 0.15 fm with the purpose of studying the neutron-skin impact at its extreme'); that is a precision-and-caveat issue, not circularity. The self-citations (Alvioli et al. for the SRC configuration generator and the neutron-skin update) are not load-bearing for the main result, because SRC is shown to leave the eccentricity and B-field ratio essentially unchanged; the skin effect itself is anchored to independent experimental data. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in by self-citation. The paper is therefore self-contained in the sense relevant for circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The simulation is a forward model. The main quantitative output depends on empirically chosen nuclear-structure inputs, specifically the neutron skin thickness at its measured upper limit, the deformation of 96Ru, and the unfolding procedure, plus standard approximations for the magnetic field and initial geometry. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Neutron skin thickness delta_r_np for 96Zr = 0.15 fm (upper limit of measured 0.12 +/- 0.03 fm)
    Chosen explicitly as the extreme of the measured value to maximize the effect; the headline factor-of-2 result is quoted for this value.
  • Deformation parameter beta_2 for 96Ru = 0.158
    Taken from Table I based on nuclear data compilations; the alternative scenario in Ref. [42] assigns deformation to 96Zr instead, and that alternative is not explored.
  • Lienard-Wiechert cutoff radius R_i < 0.3 fm = 0.3 fm
    Particles closer than 0.3 fm to the observation point are excluded from the magnetic-field sum to avoid singularities; the B ratio may depend weakly on this numerical choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nucleon positions follow a Woods-Saxon distribution with isospin-dependent parameters, Eqs. 2-3 and Tables I-II.
    The entire nuclear geometry is parametrized by two-parameter Woods-Saxon forms plus deformation; standard but not an exact many-body density.
  • domain assumption The charge-to-point-nucleon unfolding formulas in Appendix A (Eqs. 9-12) relate measured charge radii to point proton and neutron distributions.
    These formulas assume spherical Woods-Saxon shapes and a fixed proton radius; systematic uncertainties from the unfolding are not propagated.
  • domain assumption The Lienard-Wiechert formula, Eq. 8, with point charges in vacuum gives the magnetic field at the geometric overlap time, ignoring QGP conductivity and collective medium fields.
    Standard in the CME literature, but an approximation; the field is evaluated at r=0 and at the time in Eq. 7.
  • domain assumption Short-range nucleon-nucleon correlations are implemented via the Metropolis Monte Carlo generator of Refs. [47,38].
    The spatial correlations are inputs from the authors' previous framework; no in-paper validation of these configurations for 96Zr or 96Ru is shown.
  • domain assumption SMASH assumes isospin symmetry for masses and interactions after initialization.
    Stated in the SMASH section; Coulomb effects and proton/neutron interaction differences are neglected.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field is evaluated at the geometric overlap time Eq. 7 rather than at the event-by-event true maximum.
    The paper states this choice explicitly; the ratio could shift if each event's field maximum occurs at a different time.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of the neutron-skin effect on nuclear isobar collisions at RHIC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUCMC7AG

@misc{pith2026190810231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of the neutron-skin effect on nuclear isobar collisions at RHIC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUCMC7AG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10231}
}
abstract

The unambiguous observation of a Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME)-driven charge separation is the core aim of the isobar program at RHIC consisting of ${^{96}_{40}}$Zr+${^{96}_{40}}$Zr and ${^{96}_{44}}$Ru+${^{96}_{44}}$Ru collisions at $\sqrt {s_{\rm NN}}\!=\!200$ GeV. We quantify the role of the spatial distributions of the nucleons in the isobars on both eccentricity and magnetic field strength within a relativistic hadronic transport approach (SMASH, Simulating Many Accelerated Strongly-interacting Hadrons). In particular, we introduce isospin-dependent nucleon-nucleon spatial correlations in the geometric description of both nuclei, deformation for ${^{96}_{44}}$Ru and the so-called neutron skin effect for the neutron-rich isobar i.e. ${^{96}_{40}}$Zr. The main result of this study is a reduction of the magnetic field strength difference between ${^{96}_{44}}$Ru+${^{96}_{44}}$Ru and ${^{96}_{40}}$Zr+${^{96}_{40}}$Zr by a factor of 2, from $10\%$ to $5\%$ in peripheral collisions when the neutron-skin effect is included. Further, we find an increase of eccentricity by up to 10$\%$ when deformation is taken into account while neither the neutron skin effect nor the nucleon-nucleon correlations result into a significant modification of this observable with respect to the traditional Woods-Saxon modeling. Our results suggest a significantly smaller CME signal to background ratio for the experimental charge separation measurement in peripheral collisions with the isobar systems than previously expected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10231 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ratio of one-body density of protons to neutrons as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Strength of magnetic field (see Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_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. Nuclear Physics Confronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars

    nucl-ex 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    RHIC isobar data are explained by different shapes of 96Ru and 96Zr, with 96Zr showing a large octupole deformation, so nuclear structure uncertainty, not the magnetic field, dominates the observed ratios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Q. Li, D. E. Kharzeev, C. Zhang, Y. Huang, I. Pletikosic, A. V . Fedorov, R. D. Zhong, J. A. Schneeloch, G. D. Gu, and T. Valla, Nature Phys. 12, 550 (2016), arXiv:1412.6543 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Lappi and L

    T. Lappi and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A772, 200 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602189 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Lappi and S

    T. Lappi and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev.D97, 034034 (2018), arXiv:1708.08625 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Topological charge fluctuations in the Glasma

    P . Guerrero-Rodr´ıguez, (2019), arXiv:1903.11602 [hep- ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D30, 2212 (1984)

    1984

  6. [6]

    M. Mace, S. Schlichting, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D93, 074036 (2016), arXiv:1601.07342 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    M. Mace, N. Mueller, S. Schlichting, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D95, 036023 (2017), arXiv:1612.02477 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Magnetic field in expanding quark-gluon plasma

    E. Stewart and K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. C97, 044906 (2018), arXiv:1710.08793 [nucl-th]. 6

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Inghirami, M

    G. Inghirami, M. Mace, Y. Hirono, L. Del Zanna, D. E. Kharzeev, and M. Bleicher, (2019), arXiv:1908.07605 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V . Koch, and J. Liao, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 503 (2013), arXiv:1207.7327 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C70, 057901 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0406311 [hep-ph]

    2004

  5. [13]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 251601 (2009), arXiv:0909.1739 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    (2019), arXiv:1906.03373 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C81, 054908 (2010), arXiv:0909.1717 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 052302 (2014), arXiv:1404.1433 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Khachatryan et al

    V . Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 122301 (2017), arXiv:1610.00263 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 012301 (2013), arXiv:1207.0900 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V . Koch, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C83, 014905 (2011), arXiv:1008.4919 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Schlichting and S

    S. Schlichting and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C83, 014913 (2011), arXiv:1009.4283 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Magdy, S

    N. Magdy, S. Shi, J. Liao, N. Ajitanand, and R. A. Lacey, Phys. Rev. C97, 061901 (2018), arXiv:1710.01717 [physics.data-an]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    V . Koch, S. Schlichting, V . Skokov, P . Sorensen, J. Thomas, S. Voloshin, G. Wang, and H.-U. Yee, Chin. Phys. C41, 072001 (2017), arXiv:1608.00982 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C97, 044901 (2018), arXiv:1802.02292 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Zhao, G.-L

    X.-L. Zhao, G.-L. Ma, and Y.-G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C99, 034903 (2019), arXiv:1901.04151 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P . Tribedy, Phys. Rev. C99, 044908 (2019), arXiv:1901.04378 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    H.-J. Xu, X. Wang, H. Li, J. Zhao, Z.-W. Lin, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022301 (2018), arXiv:1710.03086 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Trzcinska, J

    A. Trzcinska, J. Jastrzebski, P . Lubinski, F. J. Hartmann, R. Schmidt, T. von Egidy, and B. Klos, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 082501 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Trzcinska, J

    A. Trzcinska, J. Jastrzebski, P . Lubinski, F. J. Hartmann, R. Schmidt, T. von Egidy, and B. Klos, Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Low-Energy Antiproton Physics (LEAP 2003): Y okohama, Japan, March 3-7, 2003 , Nucl. In- strum. Meth. B214, 157 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Weil et al

    J. Weil et al. , Phys. Rev. C94, 054905 (2016), arXiv:1606.06642 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    1954

  23. [31]

    Chaumeaux, V

    A. Chaumeaux, V . Layly, and R. Schaeffer, Annals Phys. 116, 247 (1978)

    1978

  24. [32]

    C. J. Horowitz, K. S. Kumar, and R. Michaels, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 48 (2014), arXiv:1307.3572 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hagen et al

    G. Hagen et al. , Nature Phys. 12, 186 (2015), arXiv:1509.07169 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. M. Tarbert et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 242502 (2014), arXiv:1311.0168 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Helenius, H

    I. Helenius, H. Paukkunen, and K. J. Eskola, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 148 (2017), arXiv:1606.06910 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Paukkunen, Phys

    H. Paukkunen, Phys. Lett. B745, 73 (2015), arXiv:1503.02448 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Loizides, J

    C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, Phys. Rev. C97, 054910 (2018), [erratum: Phys. Rev.C99,no.1,019901(2019)], arXiv:1710.07098 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Alvioli and M

    M. Alvioli and M. Strikman, (2018), arXiv:1811.10078 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, and M. Horoi, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.107, 1 (2016), [Erratum: Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.114,371(2017)], arXiv:1312.5975 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. D. Patterson and R. J. Peterson, Nucl. Phys. A717, 235 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Warda, X

    M. Warda, X. Vinas, X. Roca-Maza, and M. Centelles, Phys. Rev. C81, 054309 (2010), arXiv:1003.5225 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  34. [42]

    M¨oller, A

    P . M¨oller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 109-110, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.06294 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Duer et al

    M. Duer et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 172502 (2019), arXiv:1810.05343 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alvioli, C

    M. Alvioli, C. Ciofi degli Atti, I. Marchino, V . Palli, and H. Morita, Phys. Rev. C78, 031601 (2008), arXiv:0807.0873 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Alvioli, C

    M. Alvioli, C. Ciofi degli Atti, B. Z. Kopeliovich, I. K. Potashnikova, and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C81, 025204 (2010), arXiv:0911.1382 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Alvioli, C

    M. Alvioli, C. Ciofi Degli Atti, L. P . Kaptari, C. B. Mezzetti, and H. Morita, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330021 (2013), arXiv:1306.6235 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Alvioli, H

    M. Alvioli, H. J. Drescher, and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B680, 225 (2009), arXiv:0905.2670 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    J. Mohs, S. Ryu, and H. Elfner, In preparation

  42. [50]

    smash-transport/smash: Smash-1.6,

    D. Oliinychenko, V . Steinberg, J. Weil, M. Kretz, H. E. (Petersen), J. Staudenmaier, S. Ryu, A. Sch ¨afer, J. Rother- mel, J. Mohs, F. Li, L. Pang, D. Mitrovic, A. Goldschmidt, L. Geiger, L. Prinz, J.-B. Rose, and J. Hammelmann, “smash-transport/smash: Smash-1.6,” (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Alvioli, H

    M. Alvioli, H. Holopainen, K. J. Eskola, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C85, 034902 (2012), arXiv:1112.5306 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V . Skokov, Phys. Lett. B710, 171 (2012), arXiv:1111.1949 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Skokov, A

    V . Skokov, A. Yu. Illarionov, and V . Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lienard, L’ ´Eclairage ´Electrique 16, 5 (1898)

    A. Lienard, L’ ´Eclairage ´Electrique 16, 5 (1898)

  47. [55]

    Wiechert, Annalen der Physik 309, 667 (1901)

    E. Wiechert, Annalen der Physik 309, 667 (1901)

    1901

  48. [56]

    L. L. Salcedo, E. Oset, M. J. Vicente-Vacas, and C. Garcia- Recio, Nucl. Phys. A484, 557 (1988)

    1988

Pith tools

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