Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Some insights on the partonic collectivity in heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper asserts that the sign change of elliptic flow $v_2$ plus the breakdown and restoration of number-of-constituent-quarks scaling across collision energy reveals the onset of partonic collectivity in heavy-ion collisions.

desk verdict A clear, honest perspective that restates known conjectures about v2 and NCQ scaling, but with no new analysis and a central attribution that is underdetermined. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11290 v3 pith:TPHMTXKK submitted 2025-01-20 nucl-th hep-ph

Rajeev Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Ld12.38.Mh
keywords ellipticflowNCQscalingpartoniccollectivityquark-gluonplasmaheavy-ioncollisionsbeamenergyscanhadronic-to-partonictransitionv2signchange
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 short article proposes that two flow observables can serve as a signature for when quark-gluon-plasma-like behavior begins in heavy-ion collisions. It argues that below about $\sqrt{s_{NN}}\approx 4$ GeV, the elliptic flow $v_2$ may be negative and number-of-constituent-quarks (NCQ) scaling may break down, signaling a hadron-dominated system. Above that energy, $v_2$ should turn positive and NCQ scaling should gradually return, marking the onset of partonic collectivity. If correct, this would give experiments a clean, flow-based indicator for the hadronic-to-partonic transition in beam-energy-scan data.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two coupled observables. Elliptic flow $v_2$ is the second Fourier harmonic of the azimuthal distribution of final-state particles; its sign indicates whether particles are emitted preferentially in-plane (positive) or out-of-plane (negative), and its magnitude reflects the medium's response to the initial spatial anisotropy. NCQ scaling is the empirical collapse of $v_2/n_q$ onto a universal curve when plotted against transverse kinetic energy per constituent quark, $(m_T-m_0)/n_q$; such a collapse is taken as evidence that flow is built up at the quark level before hadronization. The paper uses the energy-dependent behavior of these two observables — $v_2$ crossing from negative to positive and NCQ scaling breaking then restoring around $\sqrt{s_{NN}}\approx 4$ GeV — as the diagnostic of the hadronic-to-partonic transition. The sign change is additionally linked to spectator shadowing at low energy and to baryon-number transport in a neutron-rich initial state.

What would settle it

Look at identified-hadron $v_2(p_T)$ from Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 3$, $4$, $4.5$, and $7.7$ GeV with beam-energy-scan statistics: the central claim fails if $v_2$ turns positive already at 3 GeV, or if NCQ scaling is fully restored at 4 GeV. It also fails if a purely hadronic transport model, without partonic scatterings, reproduces both the sign change and the NCQ breakdown and restoration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the elliptic flow coefficient $v_2$ and the validity of NCQ scaling together track the effective degrees of freedom of the medium created in heavy-ion collisions. Below $\sqrt{s_{NN}}\approx 4$ GeV, $v_2$ may be negative and NCQ scaling may break down; above 4 GeV, $v_2$ should become positive and NCQ scaling should gradually reappear. This crossover is presented as the observable fingerprint of the transition from hadronic to partonic collectivity, meaning the onset of quark-gluon-plasma-like properties. The paper gathers the existing BES-I evidence — scaling maintained at 7.7 GeV and above, clear breakdown at 3 GeV, and a $\sim 2\sigma$ deviation for the $\phi$-meson at 7.7 and 11.5 GeV — and frames the expected BES-II results as a test of this picture.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the turnaround in flow and in quark-number scaling is caused mainly by the shift from hadron-like to quark-like behavior, rather than by the other effects the paper itself names — shadowing from passing nuclear fragments and the transport of baryon number — whose sizes are not computed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below $\sqrt{s_{NN}}\approx 4$ GeV in Au+Au collisions, $v_2$ should be negative and NCQ scaling broken, reflecting a hadron-dominated equation of state.
  • Above 4 GeV, $v_2$ should turn positive and NCQ scaling should gradually reappear, marking the onset of partonic collectivity.
  • Confirmation of this pattern in beam-energy-scan data would provide evidence for quark-gluon-plasma-like properties in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions.
  • The $\sim 2\sigma$ deviation of the $\phi$-meson $v_2$ at 7.7 and 11.5 GeV identifies where larger data samples are needed to test whether universal NCQ scaling truly holds near the transition.
  • The sign change of the $p_T$-integrated $v_2$ is tied to baryon-number transport and the neutron-rich initial state, so flow measurements of particles versus antiparticles should show an energy-dependent asymmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test the paper leaves implicit: compare $v_2$ for particles and antiparticles across 3–7.7 GeV; if baryon-number transport drives the sign change, the particle–antiparticle splitting should carry the signal, whereas partonic collectivity predicts the same NCQ-scaled curve for both.
  • The 4 GeV threshold could be sharpened by model scans that switch partonic scatterings on and off at fixed collision energy; if the $v_2$ sign flip and NCQ scaling breakdown appear even without partonic interactions, the two observables would be diagnosing hadronic dynamics instead.
  • If the pattern holds, the $v_2$ sign plus NCQ scaling pair could serve as a quick classifier for partonic behavior in other collision systems, such as Cu+Cu or isobar collisions, without requiring a full characterization of the medium.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This short article argues that the energy dependence of the elliptic flow coefficient v2 and of number-of-constituent-quark (NCQ) scaling across the RHIC Beam Energy Scan can serve as signatures of the transition from hadronic to partonic collectivity. Based on STAR BES-I data and expectations from AMPT-HC, the author expects negative v2 and broken NCQ scaling below sqrt(s_NN) ≈ 4 GeV, with positive v2 and gradually restored NCQ scaling above that energy, interpreted as the onset of partonic collectivity and QGP-like properties. The article is a qualitative perspective with no new data, no model calculations, and no quantitative estimates.

Significance. The proposed combined signature—an energy-dependent sign change in v2 plus NCQ scaling breakdown and restoration—is a clear, falsifiable expectation that could help organize BES-II analyses. The paper honestly labels its expectations as conjectures and cites the relevant experimental literature. Its principal weakness is that the central attribution of these trends to partonic collectivity is underdetermined: the author lists spectator shadowing and baryon number transport as alternative mechanisms but does not quantify their contributions or show that they are subdominant. For a perspective article this is acceptable only if the interpretive claim is explicitly framed as a working hypothesis rather than a conclusion, and the current Abstract's phrasing 'marking the onset of partonic collectivity' overstates the support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II] The central claim that the sign change of v2 and the breakdown/restoration of NCQ scaling 'mark the onset of partonic collectivity' is load-bearing but underdetermined. The text mentions spectator shadowing as a cause of negative v2 at low energies and baryon number transport as a mechanism that 'aligns with' the sign change, but it does not quantify either contribution or show that they are subdominant to any partonic signal. A reader cannot distinguish the partonic interpretation from the hadronic alternatives the paper itself raises. The authors should add or cite a quantitative estimate (for example, AMPT-HC results with and without partonic interactions, or a published calculation of shadowing/baryon transport contributions at sqrt(s_NN)=3–4 GeV) or explicitly downgrade the Abstract's 'marking the onset' to 'may indicate' with the caveat that these alternatives are not excluded.
  2. [Introduction and reference [2]] Reference [2] (Dunlop, Lisa, and Sorensen, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 044914) is cited alongside [3–5] as a 'framework of partonic physics', but [2] actually proposes baryon number transport as a mechanism for NCQ scaling violation that does not require partonic collectivity. This mis-citation is not merely cosmetic: it obscures the fact that one of the paper's own references provides a hadronic explanation for the same observable trend. The authors should either remove [2] from that citation group, or better, engage with its argument and explain why the energy-dependent behavior discussed in Section II cannot be fully accounted for by baryon number transport.
  3. [Section II, STAR 3 GeV result] The paper's empirical anchor is the statement that STAR at sqrt(s_NN)=3 GeV shows 'a clear breakdown of NCQ scaling among pi+, K+, and proton v2'. This is cited to [30], but no quantitative details are given: no v2/nq values, no pT range, no centralities, and no statement about the significance of the violation. Since this observation is the only direct low-energy point in the argument, the absence of this information makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate whether the breakdown is robust and species-dependent. Please include the relevant values or a figure, and specify the conditions under which the scaling is broken.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a spacing error: 'col lisions' should be 'collisions'.
  2. [Section II, paragraph 4] There is a grammar error in 'This transition may suggests that the system's dynamics are primarily governed by hadronic rather than partonic interactions'; 'may suggests' should be 'may suggest'.
  3. [Author affiliation] The affiliation contains a typographical artifact 'Bd.Vasile Pˆ arvan' where the circumflex appears to be a LaTeX rendering issue; it should be 'Pârvan'.
  4. [Section II, spectator shadowing] The statement that at low energies 'particles are preferentially emitted orthogonal to the reaction plane. This may result in a negative v2 signal' would benefit from a specific citation to the experimental measurement or model calculation that supports this expectation, since the STAR 3 GeV publication is cited later but not in this context.
  5. [Section III, Outlook] The Outlook section is a single sentence; it would be more useful to the community if it listed concrete testable predictions, such as the expected pT ranges, centralities, and energy bins where the sign change and NCQ scaling restoration should appear in upcoming BES-II data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a perspective grounded in external data and published models, with no fitted-input-as-prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper is a short perspective/synthesis rather than a derivation. Its central expectations—negative v2 below 4 GeV and breakdown followed by restoration of NCQ scaling—are explicitly stated as conjectures awaiting experimental verification, and they are grounded in external STAR measurements and published transport-model results, not in any parameter fitted within this paper. The text contains no equations that define one claimed result in terms of another, and no fitted quantity is later relabeled as a prediction. The references are external experimental papers and model papers, with no load-bearing self-citation by the author. The acknowledged alternative mechanisms (spectator shadowing, baryon number transport) make the physical attribution underdetermined, but underdetermination is a correctness or model-selection concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. Its reasoning rests on domain assumptions about the physical meaning of NCQ scaling and the reliability of cited measurements and models.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption NCQ scaling is a valid indicator of partonic collectivity.
    The paper's interpretive framework equates the presence/absence of NCQ scaling with partonic/hadronic dominance; this is an empirical and model-dependent connection, not a proven theorem.
  • domain assumption The v2 sign change and NCQ scaling breakdown at low energies are caused primarily by the hadronic-to-partonic transition, not by measurement biases or unrelated dynamics.
    The author mentions baryon transport and spectator shadowing but does not quantify their contribution, yet attributes the overall trend to the onset of partonic collectivity.
  • domain assumption Published measurements and the AMPT model provide a reliable basis for the expectations.
    The paper depends on references [24-30] for the empirical status of NCQ scaling and [34] for model behavior; no independent validation is provided in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Some insights on the partonic collectivity in heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TPHMTXKK

@misc{pith2026250111290,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Some insights on the partonic collectivity in heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TPHMTXKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11290}
}
abstract

Elliptic flow and Number of Constituent Quarks scaling provide crucial insights into the underlying dynamics and degrees of freedom in heavy-ion collisions. This article provides some insights on the transition from hadronic to partonic collectivity, revealing possible key signatures of medium evolution. At low energies around ($\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} \leq 4.0$ GeV), $v_2$ may be negative and NCQ scaling might break down. We expect that as the collision energy rises beyond 4.0 GeV, $v_2$ may become positive and NCQ scaling gradually restores. The transition in $v_2$ behavior, coupled with the breakdown and restoration of NCQ scaling, highlights the increasing significance of partonic interactions at higher energies, marking the onset of partonic collectivity and the emergence of quark-gluon plasma (QGP)-like properties.

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. Violation of NCQ scaling in hadron elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3.0-7.7GeV

    nucl-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In AMPT simulations, hadron elliptic flow shows number-of-constituent-quark scaling at and above 3.9 GeV but not at 3.0 GeV, so this scaling is not a reliable QGP signature at RHIC fixed-target energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Constituent qu ark scaling violation due to baryon number transport,

    J. C. Dunlop, M. A. Lisa, and P. Sorensen, “Constituent qu ark scaling violation due to baryon number transport,” Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 044914

    work page 2011

  2. [30]

    Disappearance of partonic collectivity in sNN=3GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC,

    ST ARCollaboration, M. S. Abdallah et al. , “Disappearance of partonic collectivity in sNN=3GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC,” Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 137003

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Hot QCD White Paper,

    M. Arslandok et al. , “Hot QCD White Paper,” arXiv:2303.17254 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Directed and elliptic fl ows of protons and deuterons in HADES Au+Au collisions at sNN=2.4 GeV,

    H. Du, G.-F. Wei, and G.-C. Yong, “Directed and elliptic fl ows of protons and deuterons in HADES Au+Au collisions at sNN=2.4 GeV,” Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137823

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Probing the onset of hydrodynamization in peripheral p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 5.02 TeV

    N. Hatwar, S. Dash, and B. K. Nandi, “Probing the onset of h ydrodynamization in peripheral p-Pb collisions at √ sN N = 5.02 TeV,” arXiv:2410.15671 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [5]

    Violation of NCQ scaling in hadron elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3.0-7.7GeV

    X. Zhu and G.-C. Yong, “Violation of NCQ scaling in hadron elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 3. 0 − 7. 7 GeV,” arXiv:2505.07187 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [6]

    Elliptic flow and incomplete equilibration at RHIC,

    R. S. Bhalerao, J.-P. Blaizot, N. Borghini, and J.-Y. Oll itrault, “Elliptic flow and incomplete equilibration at RHIC,” Phys. Lett. B 627 (2005) 49–54

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Colle ctive phenomena in non-central nuclear collisions,

    S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, “Colle ctive phenomena in non-central nuclear collisions,” Landolt-Bornstein 23 (2010) 293–333

    work page 2010

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    R ole of quantum fluctuations in a system with strong fields: Onset of hydrodynamical flow,

    K. Dusling, T. Epelbaum, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, “R ole of quantum fluctuations in a system with strong fields: Onset of hydrodynamical flow,” Nucl. Phys. A 850 (2011) 69–109

    2011

  2. [9]

    The onset of hydrodynamical flo w in high energy heavy ion collisions,

    T. Epelbaum and F. Gelis, “The onset of hydrodynamical flo w in high energy heavy ion collisions,” Nucl. Phys. A 932 (2014) 179–183

    2014

  3. [10]

    Scaling behavior at high p(T) an d the p / pi ratio,

    R. C. Hwa and C. B. Yang, “Scaling behavior at high p(T) an d the p / pi ratio,” Phys. Rev. C 67 (2003) 034902 , nucl-th/0211010

    2003 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experim ental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration,

    PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. , “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experim ental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration,” Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184–283

    2005

  5. [12]

    Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions,

    ST ARCollaboration, J. Adams et al. , “Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions,” Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102–183

    2005

  6. [13]

    Quark number scaling of v(2) in tran sverse kinetic energy and it’s implications for coalescence models,

    J. Jia and C. Zhang, “Quark number scaling of v(2) in tran sverse kinetic energy and it’s implications for coalescence models,” Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 031901

    2007

  7. [14]

    The quest for the qu ark-gluon plasma,

    P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, “The quest for the qu ark-gluon plasma,” Nature 448 (2007) 302–309

    2007

  8. [15]

    Collective flow and viscosit y in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosit y in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123–151

    2013

  9. [16]

    Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of multistrange hadrons and φ meson in Au+Au collisions at√ sN N = 200 GeV,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow of multistrange hadrons and φ meson in Au+Au collisions at√ sN N = 200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 6, (2016) 062301

    2016

  10. [17]

    Probing parton dynamics of QCD matter with Ω and φ production,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Probing parton dynamics of QCD matter with Ω and φ production,” Phys. Rev. C 93 no. 2, (2016) 021903

    2016

  11. [18]

    Measurement of elliptic flow of light nuclei at√ sN N = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5, and 7.7 GeV at the BNL Relativi stic Heavy Ion 4 Collider,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Measurement of elliptic flow of light nuclei at√ sN N = 200, 62.4, 39, 27, 19.6, 11.5, and 7.7 GeV at the BNL Relativi stic Heavy Ion 4 Collider,” Phys. Rev. C 94 no. 3, (2016) 034908

    2016

  12. [19]

    Measurement of D0 Azimuthal Anisotropy at Midrapidity in Au+Au Collisions at √ sN N=200 GeV,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Measurement of D0 Azimuthal Anisotropy at Midrapidity in Au+Au Collisions at √ sN N=200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 no. 21, (2017) 212301

    2017

  13. [20]

    Flow and interferometry results from Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 4. 5 GeV,

    ST ARCollaboration, J. Adam et al. , “Flow and interferometry results from Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 4. 5 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 103 no. 3, (2021) 034908

    2021

  14. [21]

    The phase diagram of dense QCD,

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, “The phase diagram of dense QCD,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 74 (2011) 014001

    2011

  15. [22]

    Mapping the Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics with Beam Energy Scan,

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, “Mapping the Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics with Beam Energy Scan,” Phys. Rept. 853 (2020) 1–87

    2020

  16. [23]

    A Study of the Propert ies of the QCD Phase Diagram in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions,

    X. Luo, S. Shi, N. Xu, and Y. Zhang, “A Study of the Propert ies of the QCD Phase Diagram in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions,” Particles 3 no. 2, (2020) 278–307

    2020

  17. [24]

    Scaling properties of azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at s(NN) = 200-GeV,

    PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “Scaling properties of azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at s(NN) = 200-GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 162301

    2007

  18. [25]

    Deviation from quark-number scaling of the anisotropy parameter v2 of pions, kaons, and protons in Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 200 GeV,

    PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al. , “Deviation from quark-number scaling of the anisotropy parameter v2 of pions, kaons, and protons in Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 064914

    2012

  19. [26]

    Inclusive charged hadron elliptic flow in Au + Au collisions at √ sN N = 7.7 - 39 GeV,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Inclusive charged hadron elliptic flow in Au + Au collisions at √ sN N = 7.7 - 39 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 054908

    2012

  20. [27]

    Observation of an Energy-Dependent Difference in Elliptic Flow between Particles and Antiparticles in Rel ativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Observation of an Energy-Dependent Difference in Elliptic Flow between Particles and Antiparticles in Rel ativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 no. 14, (2013) 142301

    2013

  21. [28]

    Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 7.7-62.4 GeV

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at √ sN N = 7.7-62.4 GeV” Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 014902

    2013

  22. [29]

    Centrality dependence of identified particle elliptic flow in relativistic heavy ion collisions at √ sN N=7.7–62.4 GeV,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Centrality dependence of identified particle elliptic flow in relativistic heavy ion collisions at √ sN N=7.7–62.4 GeV,” Phys. Rev. C 93 no. 1, (2016) 014907

    2016

  23. [31]

    C omparison of chemical freeze-out criteria in heavy-ion collisions,

    J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, “C omparison of chemical freeze-out criteria in heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 034905

    2006

  24. [32]

    Hadr on production in central nucleus-nucleus collisions at chemical freeze-out,

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, and J. Stachel, “Hadr on production in central nucleus-nucleus collisions at chemical freeze-out,” Nucl. Phys. A 772 (2006) 167–199

    2006

  25. [33]

    Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Sca n Program,

    ST ARCollaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. , “Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Sca n Program,” Phys. Rev. C 96 no. 4, (2017) 044904

    2017

  26. [34]

    A Mult i-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions,

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, “A Mult i-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901 . 5

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.