Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 86 references

An MLE analysis on the relationship between the initial-state granularity and final-state flow factorization

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that flow factorization is a more sensitive probe of initial-state granularity than flow harmonics themselves.

desk verdict The MLE-plus-tube-model scan of flow factorization is new and worth a look, but the central claim is not yet supported: the N_tube trend could be a multiplicity-dependent plug-in bias. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05737 v1 pith:XBICOLI6 submitted 2025-02-09 nucl-th

Shui-Fa Shen , Chong Ye , Dan Wen , Lina Bao , Jin Li , Yutao Xing , Jiaming Jiang , Wei-Liang Qian This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Ld
keywords heavy-ioncollisionsflowfactorizationmaximumlikelihoodestimatorperipheraltubemodelinitial-statefluctuationsharmonicsmulti-particlecumulants
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tests whether the small-scale lumpiness, or granularity, of the initial fireball in a heavy-ion collision leaves a measurable imprint in the final particle azimuthal distribution. Using a peripheral tube model to create initial conditions with different numbers of high-energy tubes, and a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) to extract flow, it finds that the usual flow harmonics $v_2$ and $v_3$ barely change as granularity varies. By contrast, flow factorization ratios, Pearson correlations of flow vectors at different transverse momenta, change substantially with tube number and with the estimator used. The paper concludes that flow factorization is the more sensitive observable for quantifying initial-state fluctuations, and that MLE is a viable estimator for such higher-moment observables.

What carries the argument

Two tools carry the argument. The peripheral tube model builds the initial energy density as a smooth background plus $N_{\rm tube}$ Gaussian high-energy tubes near the surface, with $N_{\rm tube}$ quantifying the granularity of the initial state. The maximum likelihood estimator treats each event's azimuthal angles $\phi_1,\dots,\phi_M$ as independent, identically distributed draws from the single-particle distribution $f_1(\phi)=\frac{1}{2\pi}(1+2\sum_n v_n\cos n(\phi-\Psi_n))$ and estimates the flow parameters by maximizing the log-likelihood. Flow factorization is then computed as a Pearson correlation of flow vectors at two transverse momenta, and because the MLE is equivariant, every function of the estimated parameters, including these ratios, is obtained by direct substitution. The load-bearing identity is the product-form likelihood of Eq. (12), which is what lets the paper move from flow harmonics to higher-moment observables.

What would settle it

Generate artificial events from a known joint azimuthal distribution with specified per-event flow vectors and event-plane correlations, so the true factorization ratio is known analytically, and apply both the paper's MLE and a multi-particle cumulant estimator. If the MLE factorization ratio deviates from the known truth in a way that depends on the assumed independent likelihood while the cumulant estimator does not, the paper's attribution of the difference to initial-state granularity would be falsified; if MLE reproduces the known truth, the claim survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that distinct initial conditions with the same gross shape but different granularity can produce almost identical differential flow harmonics, yet measurably different flow factorization. The factorization ratio $r_n(p_T^a,p_T^t)$, defined through two-particle correlations of flow vectors at different transverse momenta, varies with the number of peripheral tubes: fewer tubes give stronger factorization breaking, while $v_2(p_T)$ and $v_3(p_T)$ remain essentially unchanged. The paper also finds that MLE and multi-particle cumulant estimators, although consistent for $v_n$, disagree for factorization ratios involving higher moments, so the estimator choice matters for these observables. It argues that MLE's equivariance allows access to correlators that are otherwise hard to construct, such as mixed-harmonic combinations whose azimuthal indices do not satisfy $m=k+n$.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that all azimuthal angles in an event can be treated as independent, identical draws from a single-particle distribution, even though the factorization observables are two-particle correlations that exist precisely because particles are not independent; if that independence is badly wrong, MLE's unbiasedness does not automatically carry over to the factorization ratios.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, flow factorization can separate initial-state models that produce identical global flow harmonics, giving experiment a direct handle on granularity.
  • MLE-based and multi-particle-cumulant-based estimates of higher-moment factorization ratios are not interchangeable, so comparisons between theory and data must specify the estimator.
  • The peripheral tube model with many tubes reproduces the elliptic-flow factorization trend of realistic Au+Au initial conditions, suggesting granularity controls the degree of factorization breaking.
  • MLE can evaluate correlators whose index combinations do not satisfy the usual cancellation condition, expanding the set of measurable flow observables.
  • Global differential flow, being robust to granularity, is insufficient by itself to determine the initial state; factorization adds the missing discriminating power.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test would measure factorization ratios in collision systems where initial-state granularity is expected to differ while global eccentricities are matched; the paper's claim predicts the factorization breaking would track the granularity difference.
  • The i.i.d. likelihood assumption is a potential source of estimator dependence: a synthetic study with a known joint azimuthal distribution could separate physical sensitivity to granularity from artifacts of the assumed likelihood.
  • The result suggests factorization breakdown could serve as a model-discrimination metric in Bayesian parameter estimation for initial-state models, not just a qualitative diagnostic.
  • If the i.i.d. approximation proves adequate at LHC multiplicities, MLE could become a standard estimator for flow factorization and other multi-particle correlators where nonflow and finite-statistics biases are controlled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) to extract flow harmonics and flow-factorization ratios from NeXSPheRIO hydrodynamic simulations whose initial conditions are modeled by a smooth background plus a variable number of peripheral tubes (Ntube = 1 to 100). The central finding is that differential flow harmonics v2 and v3 are nearly independent of Ntube, whereas the factorization ratio r_n defined in Eq. (6), as well as mixed-harmonic generalizations in Eqs. (23) and the non-conserving-index cases of Fig. 5, vary appreciably with Ntube and also differ between the MLE and multi-particle cumulant estimators. The authors conclude that flow factorization is more sensitive than flow harmonics to the granularity of the initial state, and that MLE provides a useful alternative for such higher-moment observables.

Significance. If established, the claim that factorization ratios can discriminate initial-state models that produce nearly identical global flow harmonics would be a valuable methodological and phenomenological result. The paper has several strengths: it uses a systematic, physically motivated tube model to vary granularity while keeping the background geometry fixed; it extends the MLE framework beyond harmonic coefficients to correlated observables that are not trivially accessible through standard multi-particle correlators; and it explicitly compares MLE with cumulant-based estimates. The tube parameters are calibrated to NeXuS/EPOS initial-condition profiles rather than to the flow observables used in the conclusions, so the central comparison is not circular in an obvious way. However, the paper currently provides no statistical uncertainties on any factorization ratio, no multiplicity information, and no quantitative test of finite-sample estimator bias, so the advertised sensitivity of factorization to granularity is not yet supported at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3, Eq. (6)] The central Ntube-dependent trend in r_n may be, at least in part, a finite-multiplicity artifact of the MLE plug-in estimator. Each per-event flow vector Vhat_n(pT) = vhat_n(pT) exp(-inPsihat_n(pT)) carries estimation noise of order (M(pT) I1)^{-1/2}. In the ratio (6), the denominator E|Vhat_n|^2 contains the true <|V_n|^2> plus a positive noise-variance contribution, while the numerator <Vhat_n(p_a) Vhat_n^*(p_t)> is approximately unbiased if the estimation errors in different pT bins are independent. The net effect is an attenuation of rhat_n toward zero that is stronger for smaller per-bin multiplicity. Because increasing Ntube adds energy density and therefore increases multiplicity, the observed monotonic rise of r_n toward unity as Ntube grows could reflect a multiplicity-dependent bias rather than a genuine increase of event-plane correlation. The paper reports no per-bin multiplicities, no statistical uncertainties, and no resolution correction, so this competing explanation is not ruled out. This directly affects the main claim that factorization is a sensitive probe of initial-state granularity, and it should be addressed quantitatively, for example by matching multiplicities across Ntube or by a closure test on events with known true V_n.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (12)] The likelihood in Eq. (12) assumes that all azimuthal angles in an event are i.i.d. draws from the single-particle distribution f1(phi; theta). The asymptotic normality and unbiasedness stated in Eqs. (14)-(17) apply to the MLE of the parameter vector theta under a correctly specified model; they do not automatically transfer to the plug-in estimator of the ratio in Eq. (6), which is a nonlinear function of noisy per-event flow vectors. Since the factorization observables are two-particle correlations, the very objects that make r_n interesting are correlations that the i.i.d. likelihood does not model. The manuscript contains no demonstration that the finite-M plug-in bias is negligible in the regime studied, nor a comparison with an unbiased estimator such as a direct two-particle correlation with known analytic noise corrections. This is a load-bearing gap for the MLE-versus-cumulant comparisons in Figs. 4 and 5.
  3. [Secs. IV and V, Figs. 4-5] The paper repeatedly states that differences between MLE and multi-particle cumulants are 'significant' and that factorization is 'more sensitive' to initial-state fluctuations, but no statistical uncertainties are shown for any of the plotted quantities. Without error bars or at least the number of events and the pT-bin widths, the reader cannot distinguish genuine physical sensitivity from finite-event fluctuations or from the method-specific biases discussed above. The conclusion that MLE 'offers a compelling alternative' also requires a comparison against a known ground truth or an uncertainty estimate; agreement between two imperfect estimators is not sufficient evidence that either correctly captures the underlying flow factorization.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The comparison with the NeXuS-generated initial conditions, shown with black filled squares, is qualitative. The text says the Ntube=100 tube results are 'reminiscent' of the realistic NeXuS case and approach the Au+Au results, but no quantitative measure of agreement or discrepancy is provided, and the apparent difference could be within the (unreported) statistical uncertainty. A quantitative metric, such as the chi-squared per degree of freedom between the tube-model and NeXuS curves, would strengthen the claim that very granular IC reproduce realistic factorization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typographical spacing error: 'initial-sta te' should be 'initial-state'.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that the results are for Ntube = 100, while the surrounding text and the figure legend describe multiple values of Ntube (e.g., 1, 5, 7, 10, 100). The caption should list all Ntube values and clarify which curves correspond to the NeXuS reference.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The estimator in Eq. (5) is written as v_n^2, but the right-hand side is an average over pairs of particles; the notation should be defined explicitly as an estimator of v_n^2 and distinguished from a direct estimate of v_n.
  4. [Sec. IV, discussion around Eq. (23)] The text does not specify how the MLE is applied per pT bin, how the estimated event-plane angles enter the mixed-harmonic ratio of Eq. (23), or how the pT integration of the associated particle is performed. These implementation details are needed for reproducibility.
  5. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The statement that the two-particle correlation equals v_n^2 in Eq. (4) ignores event-by-event flow fluctuations; this is of course a standard simplification, but it could be stated explicitly to avoid confusion with the later discussion of fluctuation effects.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the factorization claims are genuine outputs of a self-contained simulation and estimation chain.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The peripheral-tube initial-condition parameters (Sec. III, Eqs. 18-21 and Table I) are calibrated to average NeXuS/EPOS initial energy-density profiles, not to any final-state flow or factorization observable; the N_tube dependence of r_n in Figs. 3-5 is therefore an output rather than an input. The MLE construction (Sec. II, Eqs. 9-17) is standard likelihood theory applied to azimuthal angles, and the factorization ratios in Eq. (6) are computed from estimated flow vectors without any fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The NeXuS comparison in Fig. 3 is an external benchmark, not a fit to the tube model. Self-citations exist ([65], [74], [85], [79], and the author-overlapping [32]/[50]), but they support the MLE method, prior tube-model phenomenology, or the already known insensitivity of harmonics; the paper's central claim about granularity sensitivity is not justified solely by those citations and is additionally supported by the paper's own Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. The possible per-bin MLE plug-in bias in r_n is a statistical validity concern rather than a circularity of the form where a prediction equals its input by construction, so it does not change this verdict. The only explicitly acknowledged limitation, computational cost, is also not a circular-input issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on calibrated tube parameters and strong statistical assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unexamined premise is the i.i.d. likelihood, which is structurally mismatched to the two-particle factorization observables the paper aims to extract.

free parameters (2)
  • Peripheral tube model parameters (K, L, M, a, b, c, A_tube, R_tube) = 9.33, 7.0, 2.0, 0.41, 0.186, 0.9, 12.0, 2.3
    Calibrated to average ICs from NeXuS and EPOS models (Sec. III); they fix the background and tube profiles and are not fitted to the flow observables studied here, but the central results depend on them.
  • Tube placement distributions (r0, theta) = r0 ~ U(0, 0.546), theta ~ U(0, 2pi)
    Chosen ad hoc for tube placement and not optimized to target data; they control the granularity realizations and thus directly affect the factorization results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Particle azimuthal angles are i.i.d. draws from the single-particle distribution f1(phi; theta)
    Eq. (12) constructs the likelihood as a product of f1, ignoring two-particle correlations; this is the basis for all MLE results and is questionable for factorization observables that are sensitive to correlations.
  • domain assumption The peripheral tube model captures the granularity of realistic ICs
    Sec. III; the paper varies Ntube to represent different granularities and compares to NeXuS, but no quantitative validation of the IC power spectrum or eccentricity distributions is given.
  • domain assumption Asymptotic normality of the MLE applies under the assumed likelihood
    Sec. II Eqs. (14)-(17); the Cramer-Rao bound and asymptotic distribution require regularity conditions and correct specification that are not checked for the i.i.d. product likelihood.
  • standard math MLE equivariance: the MLE of a function is the function of the MLE
    Invoked in Sec. IV to construct factorization ratios from MLE estimates of flow vectors; this is a standard statistical result, though its finite-sample behavior is not examined.
  • domain assumption NeXSPheRIO hydrodynamic evolution provides a faithful model of final-state flow
    Sec. IV; details of the equation of state, transport coefficients, and freeze-out prescription are not provided, so the quantitative flow predictions rest on an unstated hydrodynamic setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An MLE analysis on the relationship between the initial-state granularity and final-state flow factorization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBICOLI6

@misc{pith2026250205737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An MLE analysis on the relationship between the initial-state granularity and final-state flow factorization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBICOLI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05737}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we employ the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) to investigate the relationship between initial-state fluctuations and final-state anisotropies in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The granularity of the initial state, reflecting fluctuations in the initial conditions (IC), is modeled using a peripheral tube model. Besides differential flow, our analysis focuses on a class of more sensitive observables known as flow factorization. Specifically, we evaluate these observables using MLE, an asymptotically normal and unbiased tool in standard statistical inference. Our findings show that the resulting differential flow remains essentially unchanged for different IC defined by the peripheral tube model. The resulting harmonic coefficients obtained using MLE and multi-particle cumulants are found to be consistent. However, the calculated flow factorizations show significant variations depending on both the IC and the estimators, which is attributed to their sensitivity to initial-state fluctuations. Thus, we argue that MLE offers a compelling alternative to standard methods such as multi-particle correlators, particularly for sensitive observables constructed from higher moments of the azimuthal distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05737 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The temporal evolutions of different IC configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Event-by-event averaged elliptic and triangular di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The obtained flow factorization ratio rn, flow harmonics and event-plane correlations as functions of p a T − p t T for event￾by-event fluctuating IC generated by randomly casting Ntube = 100 peripheral tubes. The results are also compared against event-by-event fluctuating IC generated by the NeXuS, shown by black filled squares. The numerical calculations have been carried out using the MLE method. The three colum… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The mixed harmonic factorization ratios as function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The mixed harmonic factorization ratios as function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Romatschke, Int

    P. Romatschke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E19, 1 (2010), arXiv:0902.3663

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    U. W. Heinz and R. Snellings, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Hirano, P

    T. Hirano, P. Huovinen, K. Murase, and Y. Nara, Prog. Part . Nucl. Phys. 70, 108 (2013), arXiv:1204.5814

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Kodama, H

    T. Kodama, H. Stocker, and N. Xu, J. Phys. G41, 120301 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Derradi de Souza, T

    R. Derradi de Souza, T. Koide, and T. Kodama, Prog. Part. N ucl. Phys. 86, 35 (2016), arXiv:1506.03863

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Florkowski, M

    W. Florkowski, M. P. Heller, and M. Spalinski, Rept. Prog . Phys. 81, 046001 (2018), arXiv:1707.02282

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Ollitrault, Phys

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46, 229 (1992)

    1992

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Voloshin and Y

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. C 70, 665 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9407282

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ollitrault, Nucl

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Nucl. Phys. A 638, 195 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9802005

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Borghini, P

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

    2001 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Takahashi et al

    J. Takahashi et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 242301 (2009), arXiv:0902.4870

    2009 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Luzum, Phys

    M. Luzum, Phys. Lett. B 696, 499 (2011), arXiv:1011.5773

    2011 arXiv

  6. [15]

    STAR, K. H. Ackermann et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 402 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0009011

    2001 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Arsene et al

    BRAHMS, I. Arsene et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

    2005 arXiv

  8. [17]

    PHOBOS, B. B. Back et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022

    2005 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Adams et al

    STAR, J. Adams et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    2005 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Aad et al

    ATLAS, G. Aad et al. , Phys. Rev. C 86, 014907 (2012), arXiv:1203.3087

    2012 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Chatrchyan et al

    CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al. , Phys. Rev. C 87, 014902 (2013), arXiv:1204.1409

    2013 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Chatrchyan et al

    CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 022301 (2012), arXiv:1204.1850

    2012 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Holtermann, J

    A. Holtermann, J. Noronha-Hostler, A. M. Sickles, and X . Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064901 (2023), arXiv:2307.16796

    2023 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Aad et al

    ATLAS, G. Aad et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3157 (2014), arXiv:1408.4342

    2014 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Aaboud et al

    ATLAS, M. Aaboud et al. , JHEP 01, 051 (2020), arXiv:1904.04808

    2020 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C83, 064904 (2011), arXiv:1010.1876

    2011 arXiv

  17. [27]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C85, 024908 (2012), arXiv:1111.6538

    2012 arXiv

  18. [30]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, P. Ishida, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ol litrault, Phys. Rev. C100, 054905 (2019), arXiv:1906.03045

    2019 arXiv

  19. [31]

    Fu, Phys

    J. Fu, Phys. Rev. C92, 024904 (2015)

    2015

  20. [33]

    Floerchinger and U

    S. Floerchinger and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. C88, 044906 (2013), arXiv:1307.7611. 13

    2013 arXiv

  21. [34]

    C. E. Coleman-Smith, H. Petersen, and R. L. Wolpert, J. P hys. G40, 095103 (2013), arXiv:1204.5774

    2013 arXiv

  22. [35]

    Floerchinger and U

    S. Floerchinger and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Lett. B728, 407 (2014), arXiv:1307.3453

    2014 arXiv

  23. [36]

    Y. Hama, R. P. G. Andrade, F. Grassi, and W.-L. Qian, Nonl in.Phenom.Complex Syst. 12, 466 (2009), arXiv:0911.0811

    2009 arXiv

  24. [37]

    Y. Hama, R. P. G. Andrade, F. Grassi, W. L. Qian, and T. Kod ama, Acta Phys. Polon. B 40, 931 (2009), arXiv:0901.2849

    2009 arXiv

  25. [38]

    R. P. G. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, and W.-L. Qian, Phys .Lett. B712, 226 (2012), arXiv:1008.4612

    2012 arXiv

  26. [39]

    Y. Hama, T. Kodama, and W.-L. Qian, J. Phys. G48, 015104 (2021), arXiv:2010.08716

    2021 arXiv

  27. [40]

    Andrade, F

    R. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, and W.-L. Qian, J.Phys.G G37, 094043 (2010), arXiv:0912.0703

    2010 arXiv

  28. [41]

    Andrade, F

    R. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, and W.-L. Qian, Nucl.Phy s. A854, 81 (2011), arXiv:1008.0139

    2011 arXiv

  29. [42]

    S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, Lando lt-Bornstein 23, 293 (2010), arXiv:0809.2949

    2010 arXiv

  30. [43]

    Alver and G

    B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010), arXiv:1003.0194, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 82 , 039903 (2010)]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [44]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044908 (2012), arXiv:1206.1905

    2012 arXiv

  32. [45]

    Niemi, G

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

    2013 arXiv

  33. [46]

    Qian et al

    W.-L. Qian et al. , J. Phys. G 41, 015103 (2013), arXiv:1305.4673

    2013 arXiv

  34. [47]

    Yan, J.-Y

    L. Yan, J.-Y. Ollitrault, and A. M. Poskanzer, Phys. Let t. B 742, 290 (2015), arXiv:1408.0921

    2015 arXiv

  35. [48]

    Fu, Phys

    J. Fu, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024904 (2015)

    2015

  36. [49]

    Yan and J.-Y

    L. Yan and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 744, 82 (2015), arXiv:1502.02502

    2015 arXiv

  37. [50]

    Wen et al

    D. Wen et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 222 (2020), arXiv:2004.00528

    2020 arXiv

  38. [51]

    Hama et al

    Y. Hama et al. , Phys. Atom. Nucl. 71, 1558 (2008), arXiv:0711.4544

    2008 arXiv

  39. [52]

    R. S. Bhalerao, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Re v. C 84, 034910 (2011), arXiv:1104.4740

    2011 arXiv

  40. [53]

    Heinz, Z

    U. Heinz, Z. Qiu, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034913 (2013), arXiv:1302.3535

    2013 arXiv

  41. [54]

    Grönqvist, J.-P

    H. Grönqvist, J.-P. Blaizot, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phy s. Rev. C 94, 034905 (2016), arXiv:1604.07230

    2016 arXiv

  42. [55]

    R. S. Bhalerao, J.-Y. Ollitrault, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024909 (2013), arXiv:1307.0980

    2013 arXiv

  43. [56]

    G. S. Denicol, C. Gale, S. Jeon, J. F. Paquet, and B. Schen ke, (2014), arXiv:1406.7792

    2014 arXiv

  44. [57]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

    1998 arXiv

  45. [58]

    Danielewicz and G

    P. Danielewicz and G. Odyniec, Phys. Lett. B 157, 146 (1985), arXiv:2109.05308

    1985 arXiv

  46. [59]

    Bilandzic, R

    A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044913 (2011), arXiv:1010.0233

    2011 arXiv

  47. [60]

    J. Jia, M. Zhou, and A. Trzupek, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034906 (2017), arXiv:1701.03830

    2017 arXiv

  48. [61]

    Borghini, P

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

    2001 arXiv

  49. [62]

    R. S. Bhalerao, N. Borghini, and J. Y. Ollitrault, Nucl. Phys. A 727, 373 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0310016

    2003 arXiv

  50. [63]

    R. S. Bhalerao, N. Borghini, and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 580, 157 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0307018

    2004 arXiv

  51. [64]

    Bilandzic, C

    A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Han sen, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 89, 064904 (2014), arXiv:1312.3572

    2014 arXiv

  52. [65]

    Ye, W.-L

    C. Ye, W.-L. Qian, R.-H. Yue, Y. Hama, and T. Kodama, Phys . Rev. C 108, 024901 (2023), arXiv:2304.00336

    2023 arXiv

  53. [66]

    Chajecki and M

    Z. Chajecki and M. Lisa, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034908 (2009), arXiv:0807.3569

    2009 arXiv

  54. [67]

    Aamodt et al

    ALICE, K. Aamodt et al. , Phys. Lett. B 708, 249 (2012), arXiv:1109.2501

    2012 arXiv

  55. [68]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 87, 031901 (2013), arXiv:1211.0989

    2013 arXiv

  56. [69]

    Acharya et al

    ALICE, S. Acharya et al. , Phys. Rev. C 107, L051901 (2023), arXiv:2206.04574

    2023 arXiv

  57. [70]

    Zhou, Nucl

    ALICE, Y. Zhou, Nucl. Phys. A 931, 949 (2014), arXiv:1407.7677

    2014 arXiv

  58. [71]

    Khachatryan et al

    CMS, V. Khachatryan et al. , Phys. Rev. C 92, 034911 (2015), arXiv:1503.01692

    2015 arXiv

  59. [72]

    Acharya et al

    ALICE, S. Acharya et al. , JHEP 09, 032 (2017), arXiv:1707.05690

    2017 arXiv

  60. [73]

    Barbosa et al

    L. Barbosa et al. , (2021), arXiv:2105.12792

    2021 arXiv

  61. [74]

    Ye et al

    C. Ye et al. , (2024), arXiv:2408.14347

    2024 arXiv

  62. [75]

    Luzum and H

    M. Luzum and H. Petersen, J. Phys. G 41, 063102 (2014), arXiv:1312.5503

    2014 arXiv

  63. [76]

    Ollitrault and F

    J.-Y. Ollitrault and F. G. Gardim, Nucl. Phys. A 904-905, 75c (2013), arXiv:1210.8345

    2013 arXiv

  64. [77]

    Borghini, Eur

    N. Borghini, Eur. Phys. J. C 30, 381 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302139

    2003 arXiv

  65. [78]

    Borghini, PoS LHC07, 013 (2007), arXiv:0707.0436

    N. Borghini, PoS LHC07, 013 (2007), arXiv:0707.0436

    2007 arXiv

  66. [79]

    Qian et al

    W.-L. Qian et al. , Universe 9, 67 (2023), arXiv:2304.00403

    2023 arXiv

  67. [80]

    Drescher, S

    H. Drescher, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, P hys. Rev. C65, 054902 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0011219

    2002 arXiv

  68. [81]

    Drescher, M

    H. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, and K . Werner, Phys.Rept. 350, 93 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0007198

    2001 arXiv

  69. [82]

    Werner, F.-M

    K. Werner, F.-M. Liu, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. C74, 044902 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506232

    2006 arXiv

  70. [83]

    Werner, I

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 122004 (2011), arXiv:1011.0375

    2011 arXiv

  71. [84]

    Werner, M

    K. Werner, M. Bleicher, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pie rog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 232301 (2014), arXiv:1307.4379

    2014 arXiv

  72. [85]

    Y. Hama, R. P. Andrade, F. Grassi, J. Noronha, and W.-L. Q ian, Acta Phys.Polon.Supp. 6, 513 (2013), arXiv:1212.6554

    2013 arXiv

  73. [86]

    Y. Hama, T. Kodama, and O. Socolowski Jr., Braz. J. Phys. 35, 24 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407264

    2005 arXiv

  74. [87]

    Ollitrault, A

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, A. M. Poskanzer, and S. A. Voloshin, P hys. Rev. C80, 014904 (2009), arXiv:0904.2315

    2009 arXiv

  75. [88]

    Chatrchyan et al

    CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al. , JHEP 02, 088 (2014), arXiv:1312.1845

    2014 arXiv

  76. [89]

    J. Qian, U. Heinz, R. He, and L. Huo, Phys. Rev. C 95, 054908 (2017), arXiv:1703.04077

    2017 arXiv

  77. [90]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034905 (2018), arXiv:1711.07773

    2018 arXiv

  78. [91]

    Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inferenc e, 1 ed

    L. Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inferenc e, 1 ed. (Springer, 2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.