Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Imprints of octupole collectivity in uranium-238 on relativistic heavy-ion flow observables

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modest pear-shape deformation in uranium-238 should reverse the ordering of triangular flow between uranium and gold in ultra-central collisions.

desk verdict Solid and specific octupole-flow prediction, but the abstract over-claims an experimental confirmation and the gold baseline needs a qualifier. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15245 v3 pith:4IBRBOCP submitted 2025-04-21 nucl-th nucl-ex

Chunjian Zhang , Jiangyong Jia , Jinhui Chen , Chun Shen , Lumeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Ld
keywords octupoledeformationtriangularflowuranium-238heavy-ioncollisionsnuclearshapeimagingquark-gluonplasmainitialconditionshydrodynamicmodeling
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

High-energy collisions of deformed nuclei respond collectively to the shape of the initial overlap region, so nuclear structure parameters normally measured at low energy should leave measurable imprints in the flow of produced particles. This paper argues that the known modest octupole collectivity of uranium-238, usually thought of as soft or vibrational rather than a rigid pear shape, will show up in the ratio of triangular flow $\langle v_3^2\rangle$ between $^{238}\mathrm{U}+{}^{238}\mathrm{U}$ and $^{197}\mathrm{Au}+{}^{197}\mathrm{Au}$ collisions. In ultra-central 0–2% events the ratio is predicted to exceed unity, reversing the ordering expected from system-size fluctuations alone, and the closely related $\langle v_3^2\delta p_T\rangle$ ratio should be suppressed in a centrality-dependent way. These are concrete, testable signatures: a future measurement with sub-percent precision can confirm or rule out the octupole interpretation of the uranium shape.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair of ratio observables $R_{\langle v_3^2\rangle}$ and $R_{\langle v_3^2\delta p_T\rangle}$, defined from multi-particle azimuthal correlations and taken between $^{238}$U+$^{238}$U and $^{197}$Au+$^{197}$Au collisions so that final-state hydrodynamic and hadronic effects largely cancel. In the absence of deformation the first ratio is less than one because the smaller gold system has stronger fluctuation-driven triangularity; octupole deformation adds a $\beta_3^2$ term that reverses it in ultra-central events. The second ratio is suppressed through a term proportional to $\beta_2\beta_3^2$, which is why the large prolate deformation of uranium is what makes the observable work. The calculations use a deformed Woods-Saxon nuclear density, evolved through a fluctuating initial-state model, viscous hydrodynamics, and hadronic transport, generating the event-by-event mapping from shape parameters to observed flow.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of the $\langle v_3^2\rangle$ ratio between U+U and Au+Au in 0–2% centrality with sub-percent precision: if the ratio is at or below unity, the octupole-induced reversal is ruled out for the assumed magnitude, while a value in the predicted 1.05–1.12 window supports $\beta_{3,U}\approx 0.078$–$0.10$. A companion check in the 5–15% centrality range isolates the hexadecapole contribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a modest octupole deformation $\beta_{3,U}\approx 0.1$ in $^{238}$U turns the triangular-flow ratio $R_{\langle v_3^2\rangle} = \langle v_3^2\rangle_{UU}/\langle v_3^2\rangle_{AuAu}$ in the 0–2% ultra-central bin from below unity to about 1.05–1.12, matching the range $\beta_{3,U}=0.078$–$0.10$ suggested by low-energy structure data. The mechanism is a linear response: $\beta_3$ adds a term $b_{3,3}\beta_{3,U}^2$ to $\langle v_3^2\rangle$, while the fluctuation-driven baseline is larger in smaller gold nuclei, so the sign of the ratio flips. The companion observable $\langle v_3^2\delta p_T\rangle$ is suppressed by $\beta_3$, becoming negative for strong pear shapes ($\beta_{3,U}>0.15$), and hexadecapole deformation $\beta_4$ shifts the ratios only outside the ultra-central region. Full event-by-event hydrodynamic calculations with a deformed Woods-Saxon initial state support these parametric expectations and show the ratios are insensitive to transverse-momentum cuts.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes gold-197 has zero octupole and hexadecapole deformation, so the reported constraints are only a clean measure of uranium's octupole deformation if that reference is perfectly symmetric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reversal is seen, it would put an octupole constraint on $^{238}$U from a completely different energy scale than low-energy spectroscopy.
  • A measured ratio in the predicted 1.05–1.12 window would quantitatively support $\beta_{3,U}\approx 0.078$–$0.10$.
  • Combining the two ratios separates $\beta_3$ and $\beta_4$, since $\beta_4$ acts mostly outside ultra-central collisions while $\beta_3$ acts everywhere.
  • Negative $\langle v_3^2\delta p_T\rangle$ values for stronger pear shapes provide a qualitative, centrality-dependent test of the same deformation.
  • The insensitivity of the ratios to transverse-momentum cuts means the measurement can be made with inclusive tracks, simplifying the experimental analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gold reference turns out to have nonzero octupole or hexadecapole deformation, the extracted uranium value would have to be reinterpreted as a difference; measuring the same ratios against a second reference nucleus, such as lead, would test whether the gold assumption is safe.
  • The per-event sign of $\langle v_3^2\delta p_T\rangle$ could be used as an additional statistic: for strong pear shapes the paper predicts negative values, so the fraction of events with negative correlation is a sharper test than the mean alone.
  • Because the simulations imprint a static deformed shape, they do not distinguish a rigid octupole deformation from a soft octupole vibration; a future measurement sensitive to orientation or excitation energy would be needed to settle that nuclear-structure question.
  • The same ratio method should transfer to other predicted octupole-deformed nuclei, and testing a nucleus with larger $\beta_3$ would make the reversal easier to see while calibrating how much of the effect is hydrodynamic response versus initial-state shape.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the IP-Glasma+MUSIC+UrQMD framework to simulate 238U+238U at 193 GeV and 197Au+197Au at 200 GeV with deformed Woods-Saxon nucleon distributions carrying quadrupole, octupole, and hexadecapole deformations. It studies two ratios: Rv3^2 = <v3^2>_U+U / <v3^2>_Au+Au and Rv3^2δpT, and claims that for β3,U ≈ 0.078–0.10 the former reverses its hierarchy in 0–2% ultra-central collisions (Rv3^2 ≈ 1.05–1.12), while the latter is suppressed in a centrality-dependent way. The paper proposes these ratios as benchmarks for STAR and as a route to constrain β3,U and β4,U.

Significance. Strengths: event-by-event IP-Glasma plus viscous hydrodynamics plus UrQMD with 100k–400k events per configuration, checks across four pT intervals, explicit cancellation of final-state effects through ratios, a mention of transport-model cross-checks, and a transparent statement of the zero higher-order deformation assumption for 197Au. If the predictions are borne out, they would demonstrate a new observable sensitivity to odd-order nuclear shape and complement low-energy probes of octupole collectivity. The central numerical predictions are, however, conditional on the gold baseline being spherical in β3 and β4, and on Eq. (5) being complete; these conditions require quantitative support before the paper can make its stated quantitative claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Equations (4)-(5), Sec. 'Hydrodynamic model and observables'] Eq. (5) states Rv3^2δpT ≈ a − b β2 β3^2, but the results section for Fig. 3 reports that β4,U = 0.09 alone has a negative contribution comparable to β3,U = 0.10 and proposes adding terms like −β2β3β4 and −β2β4^2 in non-central collisions. This makes Eq. (5) incomplete for the centrality range shown, and since Eq. (5) is used to interpret the observable as an isolated β3 probe, the quantitative formula must be revised or its validity range stated.
  2. [Equations (4)-(5) and Fig. 2] The predicted interval Rv3^2 ≈ 1.05–1.12 and the associated statement that these values correspond to β3,U = 0.078–0.10 assume β3,Au = β4,Au = 0. The text acknowledges this assumption but does not quantify its consequences; a modest β3,Au ≈ 0.05 would enter the denominator through b3,3 β3,Au^2 and would shift the inferred β3,U by an amount comparable to the claimed signal. Please add a sensitivity scan over plausible β3,Au and β4,Au values, or recast the constraints as β3,U^2 − β3,Au^2.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states that a modest octupole collectivity in 238U is 'confirmed by the latest high-energy experimental measurements' and cites STAR:2025elk, but this reference does not appear in the bibliography and the main text repeatedly describes the measurement as upcoming ('can be directly verified', 'upcoming measurement from the STAR Collaboration'). This overstatement should be corrected or replaced by the appropriate citation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract repeats the phrase 'in addition to its large prolate quadrupole collectivity' twice; one instance should be removed.
  2. [Table I] Table I is difficult to read: the β3,U column appears as '0.00, 0.05 0.09, 0 00.10, 0.15 0.20'; please reformat and proofread the values and separators.
  3. [Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The notation 'β2_3' is used ambiguously in Fig. 2 and the text; please use β3^2 for the squared octupole deformation and distinguish it from products such as β2,U β3,U^2.
  4. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) uses the notation 'a−bβ2β2_3' without defining the coefficient b; please clarify whether b multiplies β2,U β3,U^2 and give its definition or fitting origin.
  5. [Results and discussions, cross-check sentence] The sentence 'a similar behavior has also been observed in a multi-phase transport model calculations as cross-checks [64]' is vague; if cross-checks were performed for the present observables, describe them or cite the specific calculation.
  6. [Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction: 'couplies' should be 'couples'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beta3 values are external inputs forwarded through an independent hydrodynamic model, and the gold-baseline limitation is explicitly acknowledged rather than hidden.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical claim is a forward-model prediction, not an extraction fitted to heavy-ion data. The text states: 'Assuming β3,U = 0.078 – 0.10 [26, 29, 30], deduced from the nuclear structure predictions, we predict Rv2 3 ≈ 1.05 – 1.12' — the beta3 values are taken from low-energy nuclear-structure calculations and fed into the independent IP-Glasma+MUSIC+UrQMD framework. The quoted ratios are outputs of that simulation, and the paper explicitly verifies the parametric trends of Eqs. (4)–(5) against the full hydrodynamic results rather than using those formulas to generate the prediction. The authors' earlier work, including [49] and [63], supplies analytic parametrizations of deformation effects on eccentricities, but these are geometry-based relations derived from the deformed Woods-Saxon form and are cross-checked here by an independent event-by-event simulation; they are not fits to the target observable. The one genuinely load-bearing assumption — that 197Au has no higher-order deformations — is stated openly: 'we also assume that 197Au has no higher-order deformations. Otherwise, the constraints derived should be treated as the difference between 238U and 197Au, i.e. we need to replace β2 3 by β2 3,U - β2 3,Au.' This is a robustness limitation affecting the future interpretation of experimental comparisons, not a circular step in the derivation: the predicted Rv3^2 values follow from the model inputs regardless of the gold baseline. The abstract's reference to 'confirmed by the latest high-energy experimental measurements' with a citation missing from the bibliography is an apparent citation/overstatement issue, but it does not make the derivation circular. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: external beta3 values in, hydrodynamic observables out, with no parameter fitted to the predicted observable.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction goes through a deformed Woods-Saxon geometry in Eq. (2), a linear hydrodynamic response, and the cancellation of final-state effects in U/Au ratios. The assumptions about the shape of the baseline nucleus (197Au) and the axial symmetry of 238U are the most fragile inputs; neither is fitted to the present observables.

free parameters (2)
  • beta3,U (238U octupole deformation) = 0.00, 0.05, 0.09, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20 (scanned)
    Input values scanned to map sensitivity; taken from low-energy nuclear structure predictions (Refs. [26,29,30]), not fitted to heavy-ion data in this paper.
  • beta4,U (238U hexadecapole deformation) = 0.00, 0.05, 0.09, 0.10 (scanned)
    Input values scanned to test contamination of the beta3 signal; values from low-energy E4 measurements, not fitted here.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The nuclear density is described by a deformed Woods-Saxon form with only beta2, beta3, and beta4 multipoles (Eq. 2).
    Standard in heavy-ion simulations, but truncates the shape expansion; higher multipoles and non-axial terms for 238U are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper 238U is axially symmetric in the quadrupole sector, gamma = 0 (Table I).
    Contradicts the small triaxiality extracted by STAR [7]; the impact on the shape-sensitive delta-pT correlator is not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper 197Au has no octupole or hexadecapole deformation, beta3,Au = beta4,Au = 0.
    Stated explicitly as an assumption near Eqs. (4)-(5); if violated, the ratio constraints become differences such as beta3,U^2 minus beta3,Au^2.
  • domain assumption Final-state effects cancel in the U/Au ratios of v3 and v3-delta-pT observables, leaving deformation contributions.
    Supported by pT-interval independence in Fig. 4, but the validity depends on similar hydrodynamic response for the two systems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imprints of octupole collectivity in uranium-238 on relativistic heavy-ion flow observables." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IBRBOCP

@misc{pith2026250415245,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imprints of octupole collectivity in uranium-238 on relativistic heavy-ion flow observables},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IBRBOCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15245}
}
read the original abstract

Some atomic nuclei exhibit enhanced octupole collectivity, reflected in finite reflection-asymmetric multipole correlations rather than necessarily in a rigid static pear-shaped ground state. Low-energy studies indicate finite octupole strength in uranium-238, commonly interpreted as soft or vibrational in nature, in addition to its large prolate quadrupole collectivity~\cite{MCGOWAN1994569,KIBEDI:2002wxc}, in addition to its large prolate quadrupole collectivity. Here we investigate how such octupole correlations can be encoded in the initial geometry of relativistic heavy-ion collisions and mapped to final-state flow observables. Using state-of-the-art hydrodynamic calculations, we demonstrate quantitative sensitivity to octupole-induced features encoded in the initial-state geometry and suggest a modest octupole collectivity in uranium-238, confirmed by the latest high-energy experimental measurements~\cite{STAR:2025elk}. These findings provide as a complementary probe of odd-order nuclear collectivity and help constrain quark-gluon plasma initial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15245 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Ratios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Centrality dependence of ratios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ratios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Resummed Hydrodynamic Description of Relativistic Heavy-ion Collisions

    nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A resummed hydrodynamic scheme with tunable caps on shear and bulk viscous stress is introduced; it reduces to standard second-order hydrodynamics for small stresses and is used to quantify flow-observable uncertainti...

  2. Scaling approach to rigid and soft nuclear deformation through flow fluctuations in high-energy nuclear collisions

    nucl-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Triangular flow four-particle cumulants scale linearly with the fourth moment of octupole deformation, allowing the mean and variance of 238U octupole deformation to be extracted separately.

  3. Nuclear Physics Confronts Relativistic Collisions Of Isobars

    nucl-ex 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Shape coexistence in atomic nuclei,

    Kris Heyde and John L. Wood, “Shape coexistence in atomic nuclei,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1467 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Even outside the ultra-central region, over the 5–20% centrality range, v2 3 is still strongly enhanced by β3. 3) The β4 increases the values of v2 3 in 5–15% centrality, but has no impact in the ultra-central 0–2% centrality range, consistent with findings from the initial Glauber model [49]. It should be noted that a similar behavior has also been obser...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The right-hand sides of these equations, linked to two- and three-body nucleon distributions in the intrinsic frame from Eq

    (5) These ratios cancel most of the final state effects and isolate the impact of the deformations. The right-hand sides of these equations, linked to two- and three-body nucleon distributions in the intrinsic frame from Eq. (2), have a simple parametric dependence on shape parame- ters [49, 63]. The a and b terms in Eq. (5) are empirical positive coeffic...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Here, an encodes the system size and centrality dependence for spherical nuclei, while the coefficients bn,m are ex- pected to be A independent

    (1) β4 can affect v2 by its non-linear coupling with β2 [17], while v3 is not expected to be affected by β2 [49]. Here, an encodes the system size and centrality dependence for spherical nuclei, while the coefficients bn,m are ex- pected to be A independent. These relations enable a data-driven method to extract the βn by comparing col- lisions of two spe...

    work page

  5. [5]

    This predicted range of the ratio can be readily checked in the future STAR measurement

    Assuming β3,U = 0.078 – 0.10 [26, 29, 30], deduced from the nuclear structure predictions, we predict Rv2 3 ≈ 1.05 – 1.12 indi- cated by the arrows. This predicted range of the ratio can be readily checked in the future STAR measurement. Experimental results falling within this range could pro- vide direct evidence for octupole deformation in 238U in high...

    work page

  6. [6]

    History of the concept of nuclear shape,

    David Verney, “History of the concept of nuclear shape,” Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 82 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012),

    P. M¨ oller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, “Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012),” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 109-110, 1–204 (2016), arXiv:1508.06294 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart,

    Jiangyong Jia et al. , “Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart,” Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 220 (2024), arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Imaging nuclei by smashing them at high energies: how are their shapes revealed after destruc- tion?

    Jiangyong Jia, “Imaging nuclei by smashing them at high energies: how are their shapes revealed after destruc- tion?” (2025), arXiv:2501.16071 [nucl-th]

    2025

  2. [10]

    Search for the chi- ral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at √sN N=200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,

    Mohamed Abdallah et al. (STAR), “Search for the chi- ral magnetic effect with isobar collisions at √sN N=200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. C 105, 014901 (2022), arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  3. [11]

    Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions,

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), “Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions,” Nature 635, 67–72 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Characterizing the initial conditions of heavy-ion collisions at the LHC with mean transverse momentum and anisotropic flow correlations,

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. (ALICE), “Characterizing the initial conditions of heavy-ion collisions at the LHC with mean transverse momentum and anisotropic flow correlations,” Phys. Lett. B 834, 137393 (2022), arXiv:2111.06106 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Georges Aad et al. (ATLAS), “Correlations between flow and transverse momentum in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb colli- sions at the LHC with the ATLAS detector: A probe of the heavy-ion initial state and nuclear deformation,” Phys. Rev. C 107, 054910 (2023), arXiv:2205.00039 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Impact of Nuclear Deformation on Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: Assessing Consistency in Nuclear Physics across Energy Scales,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Jiangyong Jia, and Chunjian Zhang, “Impact of Nuclear Deformation on Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: Assessing Consistency in Nuclear Physics across Energy Scales,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2105.01638 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Evidence of the triaxial structure of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Benjamin Bally, Michael Bender, Giuliano Giacalone, and Vittorio Som` a, “Evidence of the triaxial structure of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 082301 (2022), arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Separating the Impact of Nuclear Skin and Nuclear De- formation in High-Energy Isobar Collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, Giuliano Giacalone, and Chunjian Zhang, “Separating the Impact of Nuclear Skin and Nuclear De- formation in High-Energy Isobar Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 022301 (2023), arXiv:2206.10449 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Probing the nuclear deformation with three- particle asymmetric cumulant in RHIC isobar runs,

    Shujun Zhao, Hao-jie Xu, Yu-Xin Liu, and Huichao Song, “Probing the nuclear deformation with three- particle asymmetric cumulant in RHIC isobar runs,” Phys. Lett. B 839, 137838 (2023), arXiv:2204.02387 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Influence of Nuclear Structure in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions,

    Yu-Gang Ma and Song Zhang, “Influence of Nuclear Structure in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions,” in Hand- book of Nuclear Physics , edited by Isao Tanihata, Hi- roshi Toki, and Toshitaka Kajino (2022) pp. 1–30, arXiv:2206.08218 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Determination of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Govert Nijs, and Wilke van der Schee, “Determination of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202302 (2023), arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]. 6

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Many-body correlations for nuclear physics across scales: from nuclei to quark-gluon plasmas to hadron distributions,

    Giuliano Giacalone, “Many-body correlations for nuclear physics across scales: from nuclei to quark-gluon plasmas to hadron distributions,” Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 297 (2023), arXiv:2305.19843 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Evidence of Hexadecapole Deformation in Uranium-238 at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,

    Wouter Ryssens, Giuliano Giacalone, Bj¨ orn Schenke, and Chun Shen, “Evidence of Hexadecapole Deformation in Uranium-238 at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 212302 (2023), arXiv:2302.13617 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Probe nuclear structure using the anisotropic flow at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Zhiyong Lu, Mingrui Zhao, Xiaomei Li, Jiangyong Jia, and You Zhou, “Probe nuclear structure using the anisotropic flow at the Large Hadron Collider,” Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 279 (2023), arXiv:2309.09663 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Heavy-ion collisions as probes of nuclear structure,

    Nicolas Mir´ o Fortier, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale, “Heavy-ion collisions as probes of nuclear structure,” Phys. Rev. C 111, L011901 (2025), arXiv:2405.17526 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Exploring the Nuclear Shape Phase Transition in Ultra-Relativistic 129Xe+129Xe Collisions at the LHC,

    Shujun Zhao, Hao-jie Xu, You Zhou, Yu-Xin Liu, and Huichao Song, “Exploring the Nuclear Shape Phase Transition in Ultra-Relativistic 129Xe+129Xe Collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 192301 (2024), arXiv:2403.07441 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Probing nuclear structure of heavy ions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,

    Heikki M¨ antysaari, Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Wenbin Zhao, “Probing nuclear structure of heavy ions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. C 110, 054913 (2024), arXiv:2409.19064 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Revealing the harmonic structure of nuclear two-body correlations in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,

    Thomas Duguet, Giuliano Giacalone, Sangyong Jeon, and Alexander Tichai, “Revealing the harmonic structure of nuclear two-body correlations in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2504.02481 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hexadecapole Deformation of U238 from Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lisions Using a Nonlinear Response Coefficient,

    Hao-jie Xu, Jie Zhao, and Fuqiang Wang, “Hexadecapole Deformation of U238 from Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lisions Using a Nonlinear Response Coefficient,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 262301 (2024), arXiv:2402.16550 [nucl- th]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Systematic investigation of the nuclear multi- pole deformations in U+U collisions with a multi-phase transport model,

    Zaining Wang, Jinhui Chen, Hao-jie Xu, and Jie Zhao, “Systematic investigation of the nuclear multi- pole deformations in U+U collisions with a multi-phase transport model,” Phys. Rev. C 110, 034907 (2024), arXiv:2405.09329 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Reduced Electric-Octupole Transition Probabilities, B(E3:0(1)+ —> 3(1)-), for Even-Even Nu- clides throughout the Periodic Table,

    R. H. Spear, “Reduced Electric-Octupole Transition Probabilities, B(E3:0(1)+ —> 3(1)-), for Even-Even Nu- clides throughout the Periodic Table,” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 42, 55–104 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Oc- tupole deformation in the ground states of even-even nuclei: a global analysis within the covariant density functional theory,

    S. E. Agbemava, A. V. Afanasjev, and P. Ring, “Oc- tupole deformation in the ground states of even-even nuclei: a global analysis within the covariant density functional theory,” Phys. Rev. C 93, 044304 (2016), arXiv:1603.03414 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Rotational bands in 238 U,

    D. Ward et al., “Rotational bands in 238 U,” Nucl. Phys. A 600, 88–110 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Octupole shapes in nuclei,

    I. Ahmad and P. A. Butler, “Octupole shapes in nuclei,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 43, 71–116 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    Coulomb excitation of states in 238U,

    F.K. McGowan and W.T. Milner, “Coulomb excitation of states in 238U,” Nuclear Physics A 571, 569–587 (1994)

    1994

  26. [34]

    REDUCED ELECTRIC- OCTUPOLE TRANSITION PROBABILITIES, B ( E 3;0 1 + →3 1 − )—AN UPDATE,

    T KIB ´EDI and R. H SPEAR, “REDUCED ELECTRIC- OCTUPOLE TRANSITION PROBABILITIES, B ( E 3;0 1 + →3 1 − )—AN UPDATE,” Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 80, 35–82 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Intrinsic reflection asymmetry in atomic nuclei,

    P. A. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, “Intrinsic reflection asymmetry in atomic nuclei,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 349– 421 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    Octupole collectivity in nuclei,

    P. A. Butler, “Octupole collectivity in nuclei,” J. Phys. G 43, 073002 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Possible double- octupole phonon band in U-238,

    S. Zhu, M. P. Carpenter, R. V. F. Janssens, S. Frauen- dorf, I. Ahmad, T. L. Khoo, F. G. Kondev, T. Laurit- sen, C. J. Lister, and D. Seweryniak, “Possible double- octupole phonon band in U-238,” Phys. Rev. C 81, 041306 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles,

    T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. T. Singh, “Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015001 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Self-consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure,

    Michael Bender, Paul-Henri Heenen, and Paul-Gerhard Reinhard, “Self-consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121–180 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    Impact of pear-shaped fission fragments on mass-asymmetric fis- sion in actinides,

    Guillaume Scamps and C´ edric Simenel, “Impact of pear-shaped fission fragments on mass-asymmetric fis- sion in actinides,” Nature 564, 382–385 (2018), arXiv:1804.03337 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams,

    L. P. Gaffney, P. A. Butler,et al., “Studies of pear-shaped nuclei using accelerated radioactive beams,” Nature 497, 199–204 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    US Department of Energy (USDOE), A New Era of Dis- covery: The 2023 Long Range Plan for Nuclear Science , Tech. Rep. (US Department of Energy (USDOE), Wash- ington, DC (United States). Office of Science, 2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear colli- sions,

    Arthur M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, “Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear colli- sions,” Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671–1678 (1998), arXiv:nucl- ex/9805001

    1998

  36. [44]

    A New method for measuring azimuthal distri- butions in nucleus-nucleus collisions,

    Nicolas Borghini, Phuong Mai Dinh, and Jean-Yves Ol- litrault, “A New method for measuring azimuthal distri- butions in nucleus-nucleus collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 63, 054906 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007063

    2001 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,

    Ulrich Heinz and Raimond Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123–151 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Properties of the QCD matter: re- view of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program,

    Jinhui Chen et al. , “Properties of the QCD matter: re- view of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program,” Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Event-by- event fluctuations in a perturbative QCD + saturation + hydrodynamics model: Determining QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions,

    H. Niemi, K. J. Eskola, and R. Paatelainen, “Event-by- event fluctuations in a perturbative QCD + saturation + hydrodynamics model: Determining QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 93, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Trans- verse momentum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collision,

    Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Derek Teaney, “Trans- verse momentum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collision,” Phys. Rev. C 102, 034905 (2020), arXiv:2004.00690 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Transverse- momentum fluctuations in relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions from event-by-event viscous hydrodynamics,

    Piotr Bozek and Wojciech Broniowski, “Transverse- momentum fluctuations in relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions from event-by-event viscous hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. C 85, 044910 (2012), arXiv:1203.1810 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ion collisions,

    B. Alver and G. Roland, “Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 82, 039903 (2010)], arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Triangularity and Dipole Asymmetry in Heavy Ion Collisions,

    Derek Teaney and Li Yan, “Triangularity and Dipole Asymmetry in Heavy Ion Collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 83, 064904 (2011), arXiv:1010.1876 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Collective dy- namics in high-energy proton-nucleus collisions,

    Piotr Bozek and Wojciech Broniowski, “Collective dy- namics in high-energy proton-nucleus collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 88, 014903 (2013), arXiv:1304.3044 [nucl-th]. 7

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Shape of atomic nuclei in heavy ion collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, “Shape of atomic nuclei in heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 105, 014905 (2022), arXiv:2106.08768 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions,

    Bjoern Schenke, Prithwish Tribedy, and Raju Venu- gopalan, “Fluctuating Glasma initial conditions and flow in heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC,

    Heikki M¨ antysaari, Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Prithwish Tribedy, “Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 772, 681–686 (2017), arXiv:1705.03177 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    (3+1)D hydrodynamic simulation of relativistic heavy- ion collisions,

    Bjoern Schenke, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale, “(3+1)D hydrodynamic simulation of relativistic heavy- ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 82, 014903 (2010), arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ellip- tic and triangular flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamics,

    Bjorn Schenke, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale, “Ellip- tic and triangular flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 042301 (2011), arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Production of photons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,

    Jean-Fran¸ cois Paquet, Chun Shen, Gabriel S. Deni- col, Matthew Luzum, Bj¨ orn Schenke, Sangyong Jeon, and Charles Gale, “Production of photons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 93, 044906 (2016), arXiv:1509.06738 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions,

    S. A. Bass et al., “Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41, 255–369 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9803035

    1998 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Relativistic hadron hadron colli- sions in the ultrarelativistic quantum molecular dynam- ics model,

    M. Bleicher et al. , “Relativistic hadron hadron colli- sions in the ultrarelativistic quantum molecular dynam- ics model,” J. Phys. G 25, 1859–1896 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9909407

    1999

  53. [61]

    Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions,

    Bjoern Schenke, Chun Shen, and Prithwish Tribedy, “Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 102, 044905 (2020), arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Nuclear Structure, Vols.I&II,

    Aage Bohr and Ben R Mottelson, “Nuclear Structure, Vols.I&II,” (1998)

    1998

  55. [63]

    The shape of gold,

    B. Bally, G. Giacalone, and M. Bender, “The shape of gold,” Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 58 (2023), arXiv:2301.02420 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Triaxiality in quadrupole de- formed nuclei,

    C. Y. Wu and D. Cline, “Triaxiality in quadrupole de- formed nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 54, 2356–2360 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    E-2 and E- 4 Transition Moments and Equilibrium Deformations in the Actinide Nuclei,

    C. E. Bemis, F. K. McGowan, J. L. C. Ford, W. T. Mil- ner, P. H. Stelson, and R. L. Robinson, “E-2 and E- 4 Transition Moments and Equilibrium Deformations in the Actinide Nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 8, 1466–1480 (1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    E-2 and E-4 Deformations in U-233, U-234, U-235, U- 238,

    J. D. Zumbro, E. B. Shera, Y. Tanaka, C. E. Bemis, R. A. Naumann, M. V. Hoehn, W. Reuter, and R. M. Steffen, “E-2 and E-4 Deformations in U-233, U-234, U-235, U- 238,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1888–1892 (1984)

    1984

  59. [67]

    Deformation probes for light nu- clei in their collisions at relativistic energies,

    Hai-Cheng Wang, Song-Jie Li, Lu-Meng Liu, Jun Xu, and Zhong-Zhou Ren, “Deformation probes for light nu- clei in their collisions at relativistic energies,” Phys. Rev. C 110, 034909 (2024), arXiv:2409.02452 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ultrarelativistic Energies,

    Chunjian Zhang and Jiangyong Jia, “Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ultrarelativistic Energies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022301 (2022), arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Multisys- tem bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of qcd matter,

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE Collaboration), “Multisys- tem bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of qcd matter,” Phys. Rev. C 103, 054904 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions,

    Govert Nijs, Wilke van der Schee, Umut G¨ ursoy, and Raimond Snellings, “Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 202301 (2021), arXiv:2010.15130 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.