Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Untangling the interplay of the Equation-of-State and the Collision Term towards the generation of Directed and Elliptic Flow at intermediate energies

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At intermediate energies, the measured elliptic flow is created late by the mean-field potential, not by squeeze-out or shadowing.

desk verdict Solid UrQMD mechanistic study that makes a genuinely new claim about the late-time, potential-driven origin of negative v2 at SIS energies, with the main caveat being an underspecified decomposition into collision and mean-field contributions. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12908 v1 pith:GAIDKFV2 submitted 2024-11-19 nucl-th nucl-ex

Tom Reichert , Jörg Aichelin This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords ellipticflowdirectedUrQMDheavy-ioncollisionsequationofstatesqueeze-outshadowingmean-fieldpotential
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 aims to settle why the elliptic flow $v_2$ measured at midrapidity in heavy-ion collisions is negative in the intermediate-energy regime. It uses the UrQMD transport model with a hard Skyrme equation of state and decomposes, time step by time step, the change of $v_1$ and $v_2$ into a collision contribution and a potential contribution. For Au+Au collisions at $0.6A$ GeV, $1.23A$ GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3.0$ GeV at a fixed impact parameter, the calculation finds that squeeze-out and shadowing both occur but largely cancel, and that the observed final $v_2$ is created late, after maximal compression, while a matter bridge between projectile and target remnants is breaking up. At the three energies, 62%, 44% and 27% of the final midrapidity $v_2$ is produced by the potential after the nucleons' last collision, so the measured value reflects freeze-out geometry rather than an early pressure signal. If this is right, the equation-of-state information in these flow data enters mostly through the late mean-field phase, not through the initial compression pulse.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the per-time-step decomposition of the flow derivative $dv_n/dt$ into a collision part and a mean-field part, possible because the UrQMD model evolves the system in finite time steps and records each hadron's last collision. Comparing the integrated collision and mean-field curves with the freeze-out-time-resolved flow lets the authors locate when and where the final $v_1$ and $v_2$ are generated. The common clock for the three energies is the geometric full-overlap time $t_{\mathrm{overlap}}$, and the geometric object at the centre of the claim is the matter bridge between the separating projectile and target remnants, whose boundary supplies the late potential gradient.

What would settle it

Record the kinetic freeze-out time of each nucleon in the same UrQMD setup, then rerun with the mean-field potential switched off after each nucleon's last collision; if the final midrapidity $v_2$ still matches the full simulation instead of dropping by the reported 27% to 62%, the claim that the late-time potential generates the observed $v_2$ is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at these energies the final midrapidity $v_2$ is caused by the potential, reflects the freeze-out geometry, and can be attributed neither to squeeze-out nor to shadowing. Squeeze-out (stronger out-of-plane than in-plane pressure at the tips of the almond-shaped overlap zone) and shadowing (loss of in-plane momentum through rescattering with spectator nucleons) both appear in the early evolution, but they generate $v_2$ with opposite signs that compensate almost completely until about $1.5\,t_{\mathrm{overlap}}$. The final $v_2$ appears later, when the projectile and target remnants separate while still connected by a matter bridge; the mean-field potential gradient at the bridge boundary accelerates nucleons and shifts some of them across the $|y|<0.25$ rapidity window even after their last collision. The freeze-out analysis gives quantitative fractions of the final midrapidity $v_2$ produced by the potential after kinetic freeze-out: 62% at $0.6A$ GeV, 44% at $1.23A$ GeV, and 27% at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3.0$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole conclusion depends on the model's separation of flow changes into those caused by individual collisions and those caused by the average nuclear potential; if that separation does not correspond to independent physical processes, the late-time attribution breaks down, and the split has so far been tested with only one stiff equation of state and one impact parameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The negative midrapidity $v_2$ seen in this energy regime should not be read as a direct measure of early pressure gradients or spectator absorption strength.
  • The equation-of-state sensitivity of $v_2$ enters through the late-time mean-field phase, so extracting the equation of state from these data requires transport models that keep the potential active after kinetic freeze-out.
  • The fractions 62%, 44% and 27% imply that the potential's role in the final $v_2$ grows as the collision energy decreases across the three studied energies.
  • Because collisions and the potential oppose each other locally and almost cancel, the small final $v_2$ is a delicate balance, and modest changes to the potential range or cross sections can change its magnitude or sign.
  • Reproducing the breakup geometry of the matter bridge is as important as reproducing the compressed overlap zone for describing $v_2$ at these energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct model-level extension would be to include a momentum-dependent potential and in-medium cross sections, which the paper explicitly leaves out; the 62%, 44% and 27% fractions could shift substantially, and this is the most natural stress test of the attribution.
  • The finding that potential gradients move nucleons across the $|y|<0.25$ boundary after their last collision suggests that a measurement with a narrower rapidity window, or with rapidity-differential $v_2$, would separate the post-freeze-out potential effect from the collision-driven part more cleanly.
  • If the final $v_2$ is set by the breakup geometry of the matter bridge, then centrality and system-size scans at fixed beam energy should show a systematic variation of the equation-of-state sensitivity, which the paper does not compute.
  • Because only one hard Skyrme equation of state is used, the mechanism predicts that a soft equation of state would shift the time at which the late potential contribution dominates; comparing hard and soft runs would test the claim without new experimental data.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the origin of the directed and elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at three beam energies (Elab = 0.6A GeV, 1.23A GeV, sqrt(sNN) = 3.0 GeV) using the UrQMD transport model with a hard Skyrme equation of state at a fixed impact parameter b = 7 fm. The authors compute the time evolution of v1 and v2 in coordinate space and, using a decomposition of dvn/dt into collision and mean-field contributions, quantify how each mechanism contributes to the final flow. They conclude that the finally observed midrapidity negative elliptic flow is not due to early-time squeeze-out or spectator shadowing, but is generated late (t > 1.5 toverlap) by the potential interaction acting on nucleons in the matter bridge that connects the projectile and target remnants. Direct flow is attributed to the density gradient of the potential, with collisions counteracting it locally. The paper reports that 62%, 44%, and 27% of the final midrapidity v2 at the three energies is due to the potential interaction after kinetic freeze-out.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper offers a qualitatively new picture of flow generation at SIS/RHIC-FXT energies: early squeeze-out and shadowing contributions cancel, and the measured negative v2 is set late by the mean field and the freeze-out geometry. This would be an important message for the interpretation of HADES, STAR-FXT, and CBM data and for transport-model-based constraints on the high-density equation of state. The paper's strengths include a systematic three-energy comparison, detailed spatial visualization of flow and density, a novel decomposition of dvn/dt into collision and potential parts, and explicit recognition that the quantitative results depend on the potential range, EoS, and cross sections. No parameter is fitted to the flow observables being explained, since the hard Skyrme parameters are taken from earlier work. The main caveat is that the mechanistic conclusion rests on the validity of the additive decomposition of dvn/dt, which is not yet validated in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III C, Figs. 6-8] The quantitative backbone of the paper is the decomposition of dvn/dt(t) = (vn(t)-vn(t-δt))/δt into a collision part and a mean-field part, used in Figs. 6-8 and for the 62%, 44%, and 27% numbers. The text states that UrQMD 'allows to separate dvn/dt from collisions and from the potential interactions within a time step', but it does not specify the algorithm. Since v2 is a nonlinear function of the transverse momentum vector, the changes produced by collisions and by the potential within the same finite time step (δt = 0.2 fm/c, footnote 3) need not add to the total derivative; cross terms can be non-negligible. The authors should demonstrate that the integrated collision and potential curves reproduce the black 'Full system' curve in the middle rows of Figs. 6-8, and should test the sensitivity of the decomposition to δt and to the ordering of collision and potential updates. Without this sum-rule validation, statements such as 'collisions counteract the potential' could be ordering artifacts rather than a physical decomposition.
  2. [Section III C4] The claim that 62%, 44%, and 27% of the final midrapidity v2 is 'due to the potential interaction after freeze-out' conflates two distinct effects: (i) genuine post-freeze-out acceleration of nucleons that remain in the |y| <= 0.25 window, and (ii) nucleons that cross the rapidity boundary after their last collision. The authors acknowledge that the second, rapidity-migration effect is dominant, but the abstract and summary then state that the final v2 is 'caused by the potential' and 'reflects the freeze-out geometry'. This is too strong: the percentage is a net balance involving a selection effect on the rapidity window. To support the causal attribution, the paper should disentangle these two contributions (e.g., by tracking particles with fixed rapidity labels versus migrating particles) or should rephrase the conclusion as describing a net late-time effect rather than pure post-freeze-out potential acceleration.
  3. [Section II A and Section III C] The quantitative percentages and the energy dependence are presented as general conclusions for the SIS18/RHIC-FXT/SIS100 regime, but the study uses a single hard Skyrme potential, a single fixed impact parameter b = 7 fm, no momentum-dependent potential, and no in-medium cross sections. These restrictions are acknowledged in Section II A and Section IV, but the paper does not show that the main conclusion survives even one variation of these choices. A second EoS (e.g., soft or momentum-dependent) and at least one different impact parameter are needed to establish that the late-time potential mechanism is not an artifact of the hard EoS or of the fixed centrality definition. Statistical uncertainties on the key percentages should also be reported. In addition, the statement in Section III C3 that the results 'correspond to the experimental observations shown in Fig. 1' is not substantiated by a direct quantitative comparison of the final UrQMD v1 and v2 values to the HADES/STAR data points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] There are several language errors: 'to a large extend' should be 'to a large extent', and Section III C4 contains 'nucleons, which are are frozen out'.
  2. [Section II A, Eq. (2)] The numerical values of alpha, beta, and gamma used in Eq. (2) are not given in the text; they are only cited to Ref. [78]. For reproducibility, the parameter values should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 11 caption] The caption writes 'at |y| <= 0.25 fm'; rapidity is dimensionless, so the unit 'fm' is incorrect.
  4. [Section III C4] The term 'freeze-out' is used for the last collisional interaction, but nucleons continue to interact through the potential afterward. This definition should be stated explicitly at first use, since the freeze-out versus final-state comparison is central to the interpretation.
  5. [Figs. 6-8] The top x-axis gives time in units of toverlap while the bottom x-axis gives fm/c; the labels are clear but the two-axis format is visually busy. Consider normalizing the time axis in one place or describing the scaling more explicitly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flow attribution is a simulation diagnostic, no fitted parameter enters the explained observable, and the same-author shadowing citation is explicitly contested rather than assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model-based attribution of v2 generation, not a fitted prediction. The hard Skyrme potential parameters are taken from Ref. [78], which is external to the flow data being explained, and no parameter is tuned to reproduce the v1 or v2 values that are later interpreted. The collision-versus-potential decomposition of dvn/dt presented in Section III C is an internal UrQMD diagnostic; its validity is a modeling assumption that could be tested by sum-rule or time-step checks, but this is a robustness concern rather than a circular reduction, because the two contributions are not defined in terms of the final v2 they are used to explain. The shadowing mechanism of Ref. [66] shares a co-author with the present paper, but it is invoked only as the hypothesis that the paper argues against, so it is not load-bearing support for the conclusion. Model-validation citations such as Refs. [84,85,87] also include overlapping authors, but they merely support the general credibility of UrQMD and do not carry the derivation of the late-time potential picture. No equation or quoted step reduces to its own input by construction, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main model dependence comes from the UrQMD framework, the hard Skyrme EoS, the fixed impact parameter, and the analysis cuts, all of which are documented as model choices rather than fitted to the flow results.

free parameters (3)
  • Hard Skyrme EoS parameters (alpha, beta, gamma) in Eq. (2) = Values from Ref. [78], not quoted in paper
    The central mechanism and the percentages (62%, 44%, 27%) of post-freeze-out potential contribution likely depend on the stiffness and range of the potential; only one EoS is tested.
  • Impact parameter b = 7 fm
    Fixed to represent 20-30% centrality without averaging over the centrality bin; conclusions may shift if a realistic b distribution is used.
  • Midrapidity cut |y| <= 0.25 = 0.25 in rapidity
    Chosen to match typical experimental midrapidity acceptance; the late-time potential contribution is quantified within this window.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UrQMD transport model provides a valid description of heavy-ion dynamics at SIS energies
    Used throughout to generate the flow evolution; validity is asserted via citations [84,85,87] and not re-established here.
  • domain assumption The hard Skyrme mean-field potential (Eq. 2) with parameters from [78] adequately represents the nuclear EoS for this flow mechanism study
    The paper deliberately neglects momentum-dependent potentials and in-medium modified cross sections; the late-time potential contribution may be sensitive to this choice.
  • domain assumption The time-step decomposition of dv_n/dt into collision and mean-field terms is physically meaningful
    The central attribution of flow generation depends on separating the two forces within a QMD time step; if the split is algorithmic rather than physical, the conclusion is weakened.
  • domain assumption Kinetic freeze-out is the last collisional interaction, after which only the mean-field potential acts
    Used to compute freeze-out flow and the post-freeze-out potential contribution to v2 (Section III C4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Untangling the interplay of the Equation-of-State and the Collision Term towards the generation of Directed and Elliptic Flow at intermediate energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GAIDKFV2

@misc{pith2026241112908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Untangling the interplay of the Equation-of-State and the Collision Term towards the generation of Directed and Elliptic Flow at intermediate energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GAIDKFV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12908}
}
abstract

The mechanism for generating directed and elliptic flow in heavy-ion collisions is investigated and quantified for the SIS18 and SIS100 energy regimes. The observed negative elliptic flow $v_2$, at midrapidity has been explained either via (in-plane) shadowing or via (out-of-plane) squeeze-out. To settle this question, we employ the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics model (UrQMD) to calculate Au+Au collisions at E$_\mathrm{lab}=0.6A$ GeV, E$_\mathrm{lab}=1.23A$ GeV and $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=3.0$ GeV using a hard Skyrme type Equation-of-State to calculate the time evolution and generation of directed flow and elliptic flow. We quantitatively distinguish the impact of collisions and of the potential on $v_1$ and $v_2$ during the evolution of the system. These calculations reveal that in this energy regime the generation of $v_1$ and $v_2$ follows from a highly intricate interplay of different processes and is created late, after the system has reached its highest density and has created a matter bridge between projectile and target remnant, which later breaks. Initially, we find a strong out-of-plane pressure. Then follows a strong stopping and the built up of an in-plane pressure. The $v_2$, created by both processes, compensate to a large extend. The finally observed $v_2$ is caused by the potential, reflects the freeze-out geometry and can neither be associated to squeeze-out nor to shadowing. The results are highly relevant for experiments at GSI, RHIC-FXT and the upcoming FAIR facility, but also for experiments at FRIB, and strengthens understanding on the Equation-of-State at large baryon densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. [Color online] Summary of experimental data on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. [Color online] Both panels show the time evolution of the directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. [Color online] Both panels show the time evolution of the elliptic flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. [Color online] Both panels show the time evolution of the density weighted directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. [Color online] Both panels show the time evolution of the density weighted elliptic flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. [Color online] Time dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. [Color online] Time dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. [Color online] The figure shows the time evolution of the density weighted directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. [Color online] The figure shows the time evolution of the density weighted elliptic flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. [Color online] The figure shows the time evolution of the density weighted elliptic flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Effects of light-cluster degrees of freedom on collective flows in heavy-ion collisions at FOPI energies

    nucl-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Explicitly propagating light clusters in a Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model substantially modifies predicted proton v1-v4 flows at low FOPI energies (120-400 A MeV) but not above 600 A MeV.

  2. Simultaneous description of high density QCD matter in heavy ion collisions and neutron star observations

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An equation of state selected to match neutron star mass-radius data also describes HADES heavy-ion observables when implemented with momentum-dependent potentials in UrQMD.

  3. Extended Skyrme effective interactions with higher-order momentum-dependence for transport models and neutron stars

    nucl-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors generalize the Skyrme pseudopotential to N5LO with p^10 momentum dependence, fit it to the optical potential up to 2 GeV, and show the resulting interactions reproduce HADES proton flow data.

  4. Toward a Unified Understanding of the Dense Matter Equation of State

    nucl-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of three Bayesian/computational frameworks for combining heavy-ion and astrophysical constraints on the dense-matter equation of state, plus a proposed unified integration workflow.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Afanasievet al.[NA49], Nucl

    S. Afanasievet al.[NA49], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A430, 210-244 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00239-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(99)00239-9 1999

  2. [2]

    K. H. Ackermannet al.[STAR], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499, 624-632 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960- 5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)01960- 2003

  3. [3]

    Adcoxet al.[PHENIX], Nucl

    K. Adcoxet al.[PHENIX], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 469-479 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01950-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)01950-2 2003

  4. [4]

    Gazdzicki [NA61/SHINE], J

    M. Gazdzicki [NA61/SHINE], J. Phys. G 36, 064039 (2009) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/36/6/064039 [arXiv:0812.4415 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE], JINST 3, S08002 (2008) doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08002

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08002 2008

  6. [6]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. [HADES], Eur. Phys. J. A 41, 243-277 (2009) doi:10.1140/epja/i2009-10807-5 [arXiv:0902.3478 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    E. R. Most, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.4, 043034 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043034 [arXiv:2201.13150 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Jakobus, B

    P. Jakobus, B. Müller, A. Heger, S. Zha, J. Powell, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.19, 191201 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.191201 [arXiv:2301.06515 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho and J. M. Lattimer, et al. Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, no.1, L24 (2019) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 [arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous and D. Chakrabarty, et al. Astro- phys. J. Lett.887, no.1, L21 (2019) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ab481c [arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bog- danov, Z. Arzoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer and M. Loewenstein, et al. Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, no.2, L28 (2021) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b [arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V. Bilous, Z. Arzouma- nian, D. Choudhury and J. S. Deneva, et al. Astro- phys. J. Lett.918, no.2, L27 (2021) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ac0a81 [arXiv:2105.06980 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, S. Ransom, P. Demorest and M. Alford, Astrophys. J. Lett.724, L199-L202 (2010) doi:10.1088/2041-8205/724/2/L199 [arXiv:1010.5790 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bonanno and A

    L. Bonanno and A. Sedrakian, Astron. Astrophys. 539, A16 (2012) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117832 [arXiv:1108.0559 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lastowiecki, D

    R. Lastowiecki, D. Blaschke, H. Grigorian and S. Typel, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.5, 535-540 (2012) doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.5.535 [arXiv:1112.6430 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Blaschke and D

    D. Blaschke and D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, AIP Conf. Proc. 1701, no.1, 020013 (2016) doi:10.1063/1.4938602 [arXiv:1503.03834 [astro-ph.HE]]. 17

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A56, no.3, 91 (2020) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050- 020-00100-4 [arXiv:1906.11681 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner and A. Nogga, Few BodySyst. 62, no.4, 105(2021)doi:10.1007/s00601-021- 01684-3 [arXiv:2107.01134 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Blaschke, E

    D. Blaschke, E. O. Hanu and S. Liebing, Phys. Rev. C 105, no.3, 035804 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.035804 [arXiv:2112.12145 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shahrbaf, D

    M. Shahrbaf, D. Blaschke, S. Typel, G. R. Farrar and D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, Phys. Rev. D105, no.10, 103005 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103005 [arXiv:2202.00652 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.16, 161101 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 [arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astro- phys. J. Lett. 892, no.1, L3 (2020) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ab75f5 [arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astro- phys. J. Lett.896, no.2, L44 (2020) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/ab960f [arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bauswein, H

    A. Bauswein, H. T. Janka, K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. D 86, 063001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.063001 [arXiv:1204.1888 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. Stöcker and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.6, 061101 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.061101 [arXiv:1807.03684 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Voloshin and Y

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. C 70, 665-672 (1996) doi:10.1007/s002880050141 [arXiv:hep- ph/9407282 [hep-ph]]

    1996

  19. [27]

    Sorensen, K

    A. Sorensen, K. Agarwal, K. W. Brown, Z. Cha- jęcki, P. Danielewicz, C. Drischler, S. Gandolfi, J. W. Holt, M. Kaminski and C. M. Ko, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134, 104080 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080 [arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]]

    2024

  20. [28]

    P. K. Sahu, W. Cassing, U. Mosel and A. Ohnishi, Nucl. Phys. A672 (2000), 376-386

    2000

  21. [29]

    Adamczewski-Muschet al.[HADES], Eur

    J. Adamczewski-Muschet al.[HADES], Eur. Phys. J. A 59, no.4, 80 (2023) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00936- 6 [arXiv:2208.02740 [nucl-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Andronic, J

    A. Andronic, J. Lukasik, W. Reisdorf and W. Trautmann, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 31-46 (2006) doi:10.1140/epja/i2006-10101-2 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0608015 [nucl-ex]]

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Andronic et al

    A. Andronic et al. [FOPI], Phys. Rev. C 64, 041604 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.64.041604 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0108014 [nucl-ex]]

    2001

  24. [32]

    Andronicet al.[FOPI], Phys

    A. Andronicet al.[FOPI], Phys. Lett. B612, 173-180 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.02.060 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0411024 [nucl-ex]]

    2005

  25. [33]

    Reisdorf et al

    W. Reisdorf et al. [FOPI], Nucl. Phys. A 876, 1-60 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2011.12.006 [arXiv:1112.3180 [nucl-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pinkenburg et al

    C. Pinkenburg et al. [E895], Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1295-1298 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1295 [arXiv:nucl-ex/9903010 [nucl-ex]]

    1999 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Liu et al

    H. Liu et al. [E895], Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5488-5492 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5488 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0005005 [nucl-ex]]

    2000

  28. [36]

    Barrette et al

    J. Barrette et al. [E877], Phys. Rev. C 56, 3254- 3264(1997)doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.56.3254[arXiv:nucl- ex/9707002 [nucl-ex]]

    1997

  29. [37]

    Alt et al

    C. Alt et al. [NA49], Phys. Rev. C 68, 034903 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034903 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0303001 [nucl-ex]]

    2003

  30. [38]

    112, no.16, 162301 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.162301 [arXiv:1401.3043 [nucl-ex]]

    L.Adamczyk et al.[STAR],Phys.Rev.Lett. 112, no.16, 162301 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.162301 [arXiv:1401.3043 [nucl-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 103, no.3, 034908 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.034908 [arXiv:2007.14005 [nucl-ex]]

    2021

  32. [40]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Phys. Lett. B 827, 136941 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136941 [arXiv:2112.04066 [nucl-ex]]

    2022

  33. [41]

    Kashirin et al

    E. Kashirin et al. [NA61/Shine], J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1690, no.1, 012127 (2020) doi:10.1088/1742- 6596/1690/1/012127

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Barretteet al.[E877], Phys

    J. Barretteet al.[E877], Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 2532-2535 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.2532 [arXiv:hep- ex/9405003 [hep-ex]]

    1994

  35. [43]

    Barrette et al

    J. Barrette et al. [E877], Phys. Rev. C55, 1420-1430 (1997) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 56, 2336-2336 (1997)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.55.1420 [arXiv:nucl-ex/9610006 [nucl-ex]]

    1997 arXiv

  36. [44]

    D.Adamova et al.[CERES],Nucl.Phys.A 698, 253-260 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01371-9

    2002 doi

  37. [45]

    M. M. Aggarwalet al.[WA98], Eur. Phys. J. C41, 287- 296 (2005) doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02249-2 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0406022 [nucl-ex]]

    2005

  38. [46]

    B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 81, 024911 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.024911 [arXiv:0909.4131 [nucl-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 86, 054908 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.054908 [arXiv:1206.5528 [nucl-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    B. B. Back et al. [PHOBOS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 122303 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.122303 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0406021 [nucl-ex]]

    2005 arXiv

  41. [49]

    K. G. R. Doss, H. A. Gustafsson, H. Gutbrod, J. W. Harris, B. V. Jacak, K. H. Kampert, B. Kolb, A. M. Poskanzer, H. G. Ritter and H. R. Schmidt, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2720-2723 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2720

    1987 doi

  42. [50]

    H. H. Gutbrod, A. M. Poskanzer and H. G. Ritter, Rept. Prog. Phys. 52, 1267 (1989) doi:10.1088/0034- 4885/52/10/003

    1989 doi

  43. [51]

    Shuryak and I

    E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 88, no.4, 044915 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.044915 [arXiv:1301.4470 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Demir and S

    N. Demir and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 172302 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.172302 [arXiv:0812.2422 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    K. H. Ackermann et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 402-407 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.402 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0009011 [nucl-ex]]

    2001 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. S. Adleret al. [PHENIX], Phys. Rev. C69, 034909 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.034909 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0307022 [nucl-ex]]

    2004

  47. [55]

    Huovinen, P

    P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ru- uskanen and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B503, 58-64 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00219-2 [arXiv:hep- 18 ph/0101136 [hep-ph]]

    2001

  48. [56]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Lett. B 658, 279-283 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.11.019 [arXiv:0709.0742 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172301 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.172301 [arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Luzum and P

    M. Luzum and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. C78, 034915 (2008) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 79, 039903 (2009)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.034915 [arXiv:0804.4015 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Teslyk, L

    M. Teslyk, L. Bravina, O. Panova, O. Vitiuk and E. Zabrodin, Phys. Rev. C 101, no.1, 014904 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.014904 [arXiv:1910.06293 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    I. A. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, H. Petersen and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 91, no.6, 064901 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.064901 [arXiv:1502.01978 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. B. Rose, J. M. Torres-Rincon, A. Schäfer, D. R. Oli- inychenko and H. Petersen, Phys. Rev. C 97, no.5, 055204 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.055204 [arXiv:1709.03826 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Reichert, G

    T. Reichert, G. Inghirami and M. Ble- icher, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136285 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136285 [arXiv:2011.04546 [nucl-th]]

    2021

  55. [63]

    Hammelmann, J

    J. Hammelmann, J. Staudenmaier and H. Elfner, [arXiv:2307.15606 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Omana Kuttan, J

    M. Omana Kuttan, J. Steinheimer, K. Zhou, M. Ble- icher and H. Stoecker, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 792 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11968-z [arXiv:2303.07919 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Le Fèvre, Y

    A. Le Fèvre, Y. Leifels, C. Hartnack and J. Aiche- lin, Phys. Rev. C 98, no.3, 034901 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.034901 [arXiv:1611.07500 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Reichert, O

    T. Reichert, O. Savchuk, A. Kittiratpattana, P. Li, J. Steinheimer, M. Gorenstein and M. Bleicher, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137947 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137947 [arXiv:2302.13919 [nucl-th]]

    2023

  59. [67]

    Y. Wang, B. Gao, G. Wei, P. Li and Q. Li, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.4, 044606 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.044606

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    S. A. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brandstetter, L. Bravina, C. Ernst, L. Gerland, M. Hofmann, S. Hof- mann and J. Konopka,et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41, 255-369 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(98)00058-1 [arXiv:nucl-th/9803035 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Bleicher, E

    M. Bleicher, E. Zabrodin, C. Spieles, S. A. Bass, C. Ernst, S. Soff, L. Bravina, M. Belkacem, H. Weber and H. Stoecker, et al. J. Phys. G 25, 1859-1896 (1999) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909407 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Bleicher and E

    M. Bleicher and E. Bratkovskaya, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 122, 103920 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103920

    2022

  63. [71]

    Aichelin and H

    J. Aichelin and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett. B176, 14-19 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90916-0

    1986 doi

  64. [72]

    Aichelin, Phys

    J. Aichelin, Phys. Rept. 202, 233-360 (1991) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90094-3

    1991 doi

  65. [73]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.26, no.3, 376-385 (1930) doi:10.1017/S0305004100016108

    1930 doi

  66. [74]

    Frenkel, Claredon Press, Oxford (1934)

    J. Frenkel, Claredon Press, Oxford (1934)

    1934

  67. [75]

    A. D. McLachlan, Mol. Phys. 8, no.1, 39-44 (1964) doi:10.1080/00268976400100041

    1964 doi

  68. [76]

    Broeckhove, L

    J. Broeckhove, L. Lathouwers, E. Kesteloot and P. Van Leuven, Chem. Phys. Lett.149, no.5, 547-550 (1988) doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(88)80380-4

    1988 doi

  69. [77]

    Raab, Chem

    A. Raab, Chem. Phys. Lett.319, 674 (2000)

    2000

  70. [78]

    Hillmann, J

    P. Hillmann, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G 45, no.8, 085101 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aac96f [arXiv:1802.01951 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Aichelin, A

    J. Aichelin, A. Rosenhauer, G. Peilert, H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1926-1929 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1926

    1987 doi

  72. [80]

    Danielewicz, Nucl

    P. Danielewicz, Nucl. Phys. A 673, 375-410 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00083-X [arXiv:nucl- th/9912027 [nucl-th]]

    2000

  73. [81]

    J.Mohs, S.SpiesandH.Elfner, [arXiv:2409.16927[nucl- th]]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Steinheimer, T

    J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, Y. Nara and M. Bleicher, [arXiv:2410.01742 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Kireyeu, V

    V. Kireyeu, V. Voronyuk, M. Winn, S. Gläßel, J. Aiche- lin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci and J. Zhao, [arXiv:2411.04969 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Hillmann, J

    P. Hillmann, J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, V. Gaebel, M. Bleicher, S. Sombun, C. Herold and A. Limphirat, J. Phys. G47, no.5, 055101 (2020) doi:10.1088/1361- 6471/ab6fcf [arXiv:1907.04571 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Reichert, A

    T. Reichert, A. Elz, T. Song, G. Coci, M. Winn, E. Bratkovskaya, J. Aichelin, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G 49, no.5, 055108 (2022) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac5dfe [arXiv:2111.07652 [nucl- th]]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    P. Li, Y. Wang, Q. Li and H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B828 (2022), 137019 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137019

    2022

  79. [87]

    Steinheimer, A

    J. Steinheimer, A. Motornenko, A. Sorensen, Y. Nara, V. Koch and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.10, 911 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10894-w [arXiv:2208.12091 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer and M. Ble- icher, Nucl. Phys. A 1041, 122790 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122790 [arXiv:2207.02594 [nucl-th]]

    2024

  81. [89]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, J. Y. Ollitrault, A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 66, 014901 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.66.014901 [arXiv:nucl-th/0202013 [nucl-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Cheng and S

    S. Cheng and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054904 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.054904 [arXiv:nucl- th/0009003 [nucl-th]]

    2001

  83. [91]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 64, 054901 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.64.054901 [arXiv:nucl-th/0105040 [nucl-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  84. [92]

    R. S. Bhalerao, N. Borghini and J. Y. Ol- litrault, Nucl. Phys. A 727, 373-426 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.08.007 [arXiv:nucl- th/0310016 [nucl-th]]

    2003

  85. [93]

    Danielewicz and G

    P. Danielewicz and G. Odyniec, Phys. Lett. B 157, 146-150 (1985) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)91535-7 [arXiv:2109.05308 [nucl-th]]

    1985 arXiv

  86. [94]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671-1678 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671 [arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001 [nucl-ex]]

    1998 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054906 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.054906 19 [arXiv:nucl-th/0007063 [nucl-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  88. [96]

    J. Y. Ollitrault, [arXiv:nucl-ex/9711003 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Kardan [HADES], Nucl

    B. Kardan [HADES], Nucl. Phys. A967, 812-815 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.05.026

    2017 doi

  90. [98]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. [HADES], Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 262301 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.262301 [arXiv:2005.12217 [nucl-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  91. [99]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Phys. Lett. B 827, 137003 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137003 [arXiv:2108.00908 [nucl-ex]]

    2022

  92. [100]

    Alver and G

    B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 82, 039903 (2010)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.039903 [arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042301 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.042301 [arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Petersen, G

    H. Petersen, G. Y. Qin, S. A. Bass and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. C 82, 041901 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.041901 [arXiv:1008.0625 [nucl-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Omana Kuttan, A

    M. Omana Kuttan, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, H. Stoecker, Y. Nara and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.5, 427 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022- 10400-2 [arXiv:2201.01622 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [104]

    J. P. Bondorf, S. I. A. Garpman and J. Zimanyi, Nucl. Phys. A 296, 320-332 (1978) doi:10.1016/0375- 9474(78)90076-3

    1978 doi

  97. [105]

    C. M. Hung and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C57, 1891- 1906 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.57.1891 [arXiv:hep- ph/9709264 [hep-ph]]

    1998

  98. [106]

    Inghirami, T

    G. Inghirami, T. Reichert and M. Bleicher, [arXiv:2106.04543 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  99. [107]

    Y. M. Sinyukov, S. V. Akkelin and Y. Hama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 052301 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.052301 [arXiv:nucl- th/0201015 [nucl-th]]

    2002

  100. [108]

    Knoll, Nucl

    J. Knoll, Nucl. Phys. A 821, 235-250 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2009.01.079 [arXiv:0803.2343 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  101. [109]

    R. J. M. Snellings, H. Sorge, S. A. Voloshin, F. Q. Wang and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2803-2805 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2803 [arXiv:nucl- ex/9908001 [nucl-ex]]

    2000

  102. [110]

    Brachmann, S

    J. Brachmann, S. Soff, A. Dumitru, H. Stoecker, J. A. Maruhn, W. Greiner, L. V. Bravina and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C 61, 024909 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.61.024909 [arXiv:nucl- th/9908010 [nucl-th]]

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.