Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Directed and elliptic flow of light nuclei and hypernuclei in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=3$ GeV: Coalescence vs. Statistical Fragmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 Directed flow of light nuclei and hypernuclei scales approximately with mass number, matching measured data at 3 GeV.

desk verdict Solid, useful model-data comparison; the v1/A scaling claim is real for light clusters but the hypernuclei anchor is statistically weak. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17389 v1 pith:FFUSJY3O submitted 2025-04-24 nucl-th nucl-ex

Tom Reichert , Manjunath Omana Kuttan , Apiwit Kittiratpattana , Nihal Buyukcizmeci , Alexander Botvina , Jan Steinheimer , Marcus Bleicher This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords directedflowellipticlightnucleihypernucleicoalescencestatisticalmultifragmentationUrQMDmassnumberscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the directed and elliptic flow of light nuclei and hypernuclei produced in Au+Au collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 3 GeV can be described by a transport model paired with two different cluster-formation mechanisms. It shows that both coalescence and statistical multi-fragmentation reproduce the measured directed flow of protons, deuterons, tritons, helium-3, helium-4, lambdas, hypertriton, and hyperhydrogen-4, and that $v_1$ approximately scales with mass number $A$, in line with the experimental results. The result matters because it identifies $v_1/A$ as a robust observable for probing the equation of state and hyperon-nucleon interactions at low beam energies. It also predicts that this mass scaling improves at higher beam energies accessible to future fixed-target programs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the UrQMD transport model with a density- and momentum-dependent potential from the Chiral-Mean-Field model, paired with two alternative cluster-formation prescriptions applied at kinetic freeze-out: phase-space coalescence with fitted coalescence parameters ($\Delta r_{\rm max}$, $\Delta p_{\rm max}$) and a statistical multi-fragmentation model (SMM) with fixed fragmentation inputs. The central identity is the approximate mass-number scaling of the directed-flow slope, $dv_1/dy \propto A$ at midrapidity, which indicates that all clusters follow a common velocity field set by the bulk matter. The work of this machinery is to generate the event-by-event phase space from which clusters are formed, with the scaling serving as the observable that connects cluster flow to the underlying expansion geometry.

What would settle it

A measurement of $v_1/A$ for light nuclei or hypernuclei at a beam energy near 4.5 GeV that deviates significantly from the predicted scaling curves—or a higher-precision measurement at 3 GeV that breaks the approximate $A$-scaling—would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the directed flow $v_1$ of light clusters and hypernuclei, when divided by mass number $A$, follows an approximately universal rapidity dependence in both the UrQMD+coalescence and UrQMD+SMM frameworks, and this agrees with the measured data for p, d, t, $^3$He, $^4$He, $\Lambda$, $^3_\Lambda$H, and $^4_\Lambda$H. The agreement holds because both cluster-formation schemes capture the same underlying space-momentum correlations at kinetic freeze-out, even though they differ in how clusters are assembled. The paper further predicts that the quality of $v_1/A$ scaling improves as beam energy increases from 2.4 to 5.5 GeV, which will allow cleaner extraction of cluster formation properties in future experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions for beam energies above 3 GeV assume that the coalescence parameters and the statistical multi-fragmentation inputs, fitted to measured midrapidity yields at 3 GeV, remain valid at all higher energies up to 5.5 GeV, with no data at those energies yet to check that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $v_1/A$ becomes a robust observable for comparing cluster-production mechanisms and for constraining the equation of state at high baryon density.
  • Hypernuclei flow measurements from future fixed-target experiments can use the predicted $v_1/A$ behavior to separate formation-time effects from the underlying flow field.
  • The predicted improvement of mass scaling with beam energy gives a concrete target for upcoming measurements in the 3–5.5 GeV range.
  • The observed $v_2$ mass scaling in the simulations, which the experimental data do not show, marks a residual discrepancy that may discriminate between formation mechanisms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By extension, if $v_1/A$ scaling holds across species, the same underlying velocity field could be extracted from proton flow alone, making cluster measurements a consistency check rather than an independent probe.
  • The fixed coalescence parameters, fitted only at 3 GeV midrapidity, may not transfer to higher energies; a dedicated test would simulate cluster yields at 4.5 GeV before relying on the scaling prediction.
  • The $v_2$ discrepancy between models and data suggests that cluster formation time or the treatment of resonance decays needs revision, a question the paper does not settle.
  • A testable extension would compare $v_1/A$ for hypernuclei with different binding energies to see whether the scaling breaks with separation energy, revealing formation-mechanism sensitivity.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the UrQMD transport model with two independent cluster-formation mechanisms, phase-space coalescence and statistical multi-fragmentation (SMM), to compute the directed and elliptic flow of protons, light nuclei (d, t, 3He, 4He), and hypernuclei (3ΛH, 4ΛH) in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=3 GeV. The authors compare their results with STAR data and find that the directed flow v1 approximately scales with mass number A in both model frameworks, in agreement with experimental trends. They also present predictions for the energy dependence of v1/A and v2/A scaling from 2.4 to 5.5 GeV, relevant for the RHIC-FXT and FAIR programs.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides nontrivial evidence that both coalescence and SMM capture the space-momentum correlations at freeze-out in the high-baryon-density regime, and it offers concrete predictions for upcoming FAIR measurements. The paper is valuable for its direct comparison of two cluster-formation mechanisms, its benchmarking against measured yields and flow, and its transparent listing of model parameters. The strengths are the two independent model implementations, the reproduction of hypernucleus-to-nucleus ratios, and the falsifiable predictions for higher beam energies. However, the significance is tempered by acknowledged discrepancies in v2 scaling, the statistically weak 4ΛH anchor point, and the absence of quantified uncertainties on the model curves.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.D, Fig. 5] The central scaling claim relies on the 4ΛH slope at midrapidity, yet the text states that 'the 4ΛH lacks decent statistics'. Since the model curves are shown without statistical error bands, the reader cannot assess whether the near-linear A-scaling in Fig. 5 is robust or dominated by a single noisy point. Please provide statistical uncertainties (e.g., from event subsampling) for dv1/dy for all species, especially 4ΛH, and explicitly state whether the scaling and agreement with STAR survive within those uncertainties. If the uncertainty is large, the claim should be softened or the 4ΛH point should be removed from the scaling fit.
  2. [Section III.C, Fig. 3] The paper acknowledges that the STAR data for v2 'seem to indicate a similar value ... which is not in qualitative agreement with the simulations' and that the model mass scaling is 'not ... observed in the data for v2'. This directly limits the general claim that the cluster-formation models capture the measured flow coefficients. The abstract and conclusions should be amended to state explicitly that v2 scaling is not reproduced, and the authors should discuss whether this points to a deficiency in the coalescence/SMM implementation, the transport dynamics, or the experimental pT coverage. As written, the contrast between the successful v1/A scaling and the failed v2/A scaling is a load-bearing tension that requires interpretation.
  3. [Section III.E, Fig. 5] The slope comparison in Fig. 5 mixes different centrality classes (5-40% for hypernuclei versus 10-40% for light nuclei) and different transverse-momentum cuts for each species. The apparent A-scaling could be partly induced by these differing selection criteria rather than by a common velocity field. Please quantify the sensitivity of dv1/dy to the chosen centrality and pT cuts, for instance by repeating the extraction for a common (10-40%) selection or by quoting the systematic shift from these choices. Without this, the 'approximate scaling' statement is not yet established on a controlled footing.
  4. [Section III.F, Figs. 6 and 7] The predictions for the energy dependence of v1/A and v2/A assume that the coalescence parameters of Table I and the SMM parameters (vc=0.22, t=40 fm/c) remain valid at all beam energies up to 5.5 GeV. These parameters were tuned only to STAR yields at 3 GeV, and no data are shown at the higher energies to validate the extrapolation. Since the central predictive message is that mass scaling 'improves significantly' with beam energy, the authors should either provide a sensitivity study varying these parameters, or clearly state that the improvement is a model prediction contingent on energy-independent freeze-out dynamics. As it stands, the prediction is plausible but lacks any uncertainty quantification.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript repeatedly claims 'quantitative agreement' and 'good agreement' based on visual comparison without providing statistical measures or model uncertainties. For the key panels (Figs. 2, 4, 5), please include statistical error bars on the model curves (from finite event statistics) and, where possible, a quantitative goodness-of-fit measure (e.g., chi-square per degree of freedom) against the STAR data. This would also directly address the weight that should be given to the 4ΛH point and would make the comparison reproducible rather than qualitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads 'The elliptic flow v1 as a function of rapidity' but should read 'v2'. This typo appears in the main text as well ('Fig. 3 shows the elliptic flow v1').
  2. [Section II.B, Table I] The text says that for 4ΛH 'the same parameters as for the hypertriton are used', but Table I lists a different Δpmax (0.25 GeV for 4ΛH versus 0.15 GeV for 3ΛH). Please clarify whether the statement refers only to Δrmax and the spin-isospin factor, or list the values explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 5] The label '1/m dv1/dy' in the lower panel is ambiguous; it should be typeset as (1/m) dv1/dy |_{|y|<0.5} to avoid confusion with a derivative of 1/m.
  4. [Section III.B, Eq. (1)] The Fourier expansion in Eq. (1) would benefit from an explicit statement that vn is defined with respect to the reaction plane and that the ensemble average is taken over events and particles; the subsequent text does this, but the equation notation is a bit terse.
  5. [Section III.F] The caption of Fig. 6 says '0.4 < pT/A < 2.0 GeV (√sNN 3.0 GeV, all particles)' but the text uses 0.4 < pT/A < 1.0 GeV for the 3 GeV comparison in Fig. 2. Please reconcile the pT ranges used in the energy-scaling figures with those used in the main comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: cluster flow and its mass scaling are outputs of the transport simulation, not encoded in any fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—approximate A-scaling of dv1/dy for light nuclei and hypernuclei—is a Monte Carlo output. Coalescence parameters (Table I) are explicitly fitted to STAR midrapidity yields and SMM inputs (vc=0.22, t=40 fm/c) are taken from prior benchmarks of multiplicities and spectra; neither enters Eq. (1) nor constrains the azimuthal moments vn=⟨cos(nφ)⟩ used for flow. The 3 GeV model results are compared with, not fitted to, STAR flow data, and the energy dependence in Figs. 6-7 is an extrapolation with frozen parameters tested against HADES. A direct falsification check is the v2 section: the models produce approximate A-scaling for v2 while the paper explicitly states that this scaling 'would not be observed in the data for v2', showing the framework was not tuned to reproduce STAR flow systematics. The admitted low statistics of 4ΛH and large STAR hypernucleus error bars (Sec. III.D) weaken the sharpness of the v1 comparison but are statistical robustness issues, not circularity. Self-citations to UrQMD, the CMF potential, and SMM parameter studies are supported by external benchmarks (HADES flow, astrophysical constraints, prior yield and spectra data) and do not carry the flow prediction by themselves. No equation or fitted parameter reduces the claimed mass scaling to its inputs.

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

The flow calculation is not a derivation from first principles; it inherits model assumptions from UrQMD/CMF, coalescence, and SMM. Most parameters are refits of previous model tunes to STAR yields. The single largest unvalidated step is the energy extrapolation of the cluster-formation parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • deuteron coalescence parameters (P=3/8, Delta_r_max=4.0 fm, Delta_p_max=0.33 GeV) = 3/8, 4.0 fm, 0.33 GeV
    Refitted to describe STAR midrapidity yields in the QMD mode; used for all deuteron flow results.
  • triton/3He coalescence parameters = P=1/12, Delta_r_max=3.5 fm, Delta_p_max=0.45 GeV
    Refitted to STAR yields; applied to t and 3He.
  • 4He coalescence parameters = P=1/96, Delta_r_max=3.5 fm, Delta_p_max=0.55 GeV
    Refitted to STAR yields.
  • 3LambdaH coalescence parameters = P=1/12, Delta_r_max=9.5 fm, Delta_p_max=0.15 GeV
    Refitted to STAR midrapidity yield of hypertriton.
  • 4LambdaH coalescence parameters = P=1/96, Delta_r_max=9.5 fm, Delta_p_max=0.25 GeV
    Same parameters as hypertriton, not separately fit to data.
  • SMM primary cluster recognition parameters = vc=0.22, t=40 fm/c
    Taken from prior SMM studies; chosen by hand and fixed time, not fit in this paper, but they set the fragment source.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption UrQMD transport with geometric cross sections and the CMF-derived density and momentum dependent potential reliably describes the bulk evolution at sqrt(s_NN)=3 GeV.
    The whole flow signal is generated by this model; validated against HADES and STAR flow in prior work, but assumed here.
  • domain assumption Cluster formation occurs at kinetic freeze-out by phase-space coalescence (Section II.B).
    The coalescence prescription is justified by suppression of clusters in the hadronic medium; used for all light nuclei and hypernuclei.
  • domain assumption The SMM description of the coexistence region (T approx 5-10 MeV, rho approx 0.1-0.3 rho0) applies after UrQMD is stopped at t=40 fm/c (Section II.C).
    SMM is valid if local chemical equilibrium is reached in the fragments, which is assumed from prior multifragmentation studies.
  • domain assumption The first-order event plane used by STAR approximates the true reaction plane, so simulation vn with Psi_RP=0 is comparable to data (Section III.B).
    STAR used first-order event plane; the paper assumes this is a good approximation at 3 GeV.
  • domain assumption Hyperon potentials are momentum dependent and consistent with nuclear-matter hyperon potentials (Section III.D).
    The Lambda and hypernuclei flow depends on these potentials; the paper notes Lambda v2 sensitivity to sigma_pLambda inelasticity (footnote 2).
  • ad hoc to paper Coalescence and SMM parameters calibrated at 3 GeV remain valid at higher energies (Section III.F).
    The predictions for RHIC-FXT and FAIR energies rely on unchanged cluster-formation parameters without validation at those energies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Directed and elliptic flow of light nuclei and hypernuclei in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=3$ GeV: Coalescence vs. Statistical Fragmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFUSJY3O

@misc{pith2026250417389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Directed and elliptic flow of light nuclei and hypernuclei in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrts_\mathrmNN=3$ GeV: Coalescence vs. Statistical Fragmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFUSJY3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17389}
}
abstract

The harmonic flow coefficients of light nuclei and hypernuclei in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=3$ GeV are investigated using the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics transport model. For the Equation-of-State we employ a density and momentum dependent potential from the Chiral-Mean-Field model. Light nuclei and hypernuclei production is described at kinetic freeze-out via a coalescence mechanism or with a statistical multi-fragmentation calculation. The directed flow $v_1$ of p, d, t, $^3$He, $^4$He as well as the $\Lambda$, $^3_\Lambda$H and $^4_\Lambda$H is shown to approximately scale with mass number $A$ of the light cluster in both calculations. This is in agreement with the experimental results for the directed flow measured by STAR. Predictions for the directed and elliptic flow of (hyper)nuclei at further RHIC-FXT and FAIR energies show that the scaling properties should improve as the beam energy is increased.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. [Color online] The rapidity dependence of the ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. [Color online] The directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. [Color online] The slope of the directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. [Color online] The directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. [Color online] The slope of the directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.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. Modifications in clusterization procedures for heavy-ion collisions: minimum spanning tree, simulated annealing, coalescence

    nucl-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The Common Clusterization Library (CCL) provides open-source MST, simulated-annealing, and coalescence cluster finders with a new stable-cluster tracking algorithm, tested against ALADiN and NA49 data.

  2. Wigner Phase-Space Densities of Nuclear Clusters and Hypernuclei

    nucl-th 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors calculate Wigner phase-space densities for clusters from deuteron to double-Lambda hyperhelium using hyperspherical-harmonic solutions of the Schrödinger equation.

  3. Study on the equation-of-state with light clusters and hypernuclei

    nucl-th 2025-09 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of transport-model constraints on the nuclear equation of state from flow of protons, light clusters, and hypernuclei, concluding that soft momentum-dependent potentials fit few-GeV data best.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    Bonanno and A

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

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Lastowiecki, D

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

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    High-mass twins & resolution of the reconfinement, masquerade and hyperon puzzles of compact star interiors

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Haidenbauer, S

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U. G. Meiss- ner, A. Nogga and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 915, 24-58 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.06.008 [arXiv:1304.5339 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.3, 91 (2020) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020- 00100-4 [arXiv:1906.11681 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Haidenbauer, U

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

    arXiv 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Friedman and A

    E. Friedman and A. Gal, Phys. Lett. B 837, 137669 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137669 [arXiv:2204.02264 [nucl-th]]. 8

    2023

  2. [10]

    Jinno, K

    A. Jinno, K. Murase, Y. Nara and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C 108, no.6, 065803 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.065803 [arXiv:2306.17452 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Danysz and J

    M. Danysz and J. Pniewski, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 44:350, 348-350, (1953)

    1953

  4. [12]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 97, no.5, 054909 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.054909 [arXiv:1710.00436 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [STAR], Nature Phys. 16, no.4, 409-412 (2020) doi:10.1038/s41567-020-0799-7 [arXiv:1904.10520 [hep-ex]]

    2020

  6. [14]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.20, 202301 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202301 [arXiv:2110.09513 [nucl-ex]]

    2022

  7. [15]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 754, 360-372 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.040 [arXiv:1506.08453 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 797, 134905 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134905 [arXiv:1907.06906 [nucl-ex]]

    2019

  9. [17]

    Abou Yassine et al

    R. Abou Yassine et al. [HADES], EPJ Web Conf. 271, 08004 (2022) doi:10.1051/epjconf/202227108004

    2022

  10. [18]

    Spies [HADES], Acta Phys

    S. Spies [HADES], Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 16, no.1, 1-A146 (2023) doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.16.1-A146

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel and H. Stocker, Phys. Lett. B 697, 203-207 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.01.053 [arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aboona et al

    B. Aboona et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, no.21, 212301 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.212301 [arXiv:2211.16981 [nucl-ex]]

    2023

  13. [21]

    Rowley et al

    J. Rowley et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.27, 272303 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.272303 [arXiv:2108.03134 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gl¨ aßel, V

    S. Gl¨ aßel, V. Kireyeu, V. Voronyuk, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, V. Kolesnikov and M. Winn, Phys. Rev. C 105, no.1, 014908 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014908 [arXiv:2106.14839 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 107, no.1, 014912 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014912 [arXiv:2210.11876 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Kozhevnikova and Y

    M. Kozhevnikova and Y. B. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. C 109, no.3, 034901 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.034901 [arXiv:2401.04991 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gyulassy, K

    M. Gyulassy, K. Frankel and E. a. Remler, Nucl. Phys. A 402, 596-611 (1983) doi:10.1016/0375-9474(83)90222-1

    1983 doi

  18. [26]

    Mattiello, H

    R. Mattiello, H. Sorge, H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 55, 1443-1454 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.55.1443 [arXiv:nucl-th/9607003 [nucl-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sombun, K

    S. Sombun, K. Tomuang, A. Limphirat, P. Hill- mann, C. Herold, J. Steinheimer, Y. Yan and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 99, no.1, 014901 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014901 [arXiv:1805.11509 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. P. Bondorf, A. S. Botvina, A. S. Ilinov, I. N. Mishus- tin and K. Sneppen, Phys. Rept. 257, 133-221 (1995) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00097-M

    1995 doi

  21. [29]

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

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bleicher, E

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

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bleicher and E

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

    2022

  24. [32]

    Steinheimer, T

    J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, Y. Nara and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G 52, no.3, 035103 (2025) doi:10.1088/1361- 6471/adab0b [arXiv:2410.01742 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Steinheimer, M

    J. Steinheimer, M. Omana Kuttan, T. Reichert, Y. Nara and M. Bleicher, [arXiv:2501.12849 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gaebel, M

    V. Gaebel, M. Bonne, T. Reichert, A. Burnic, P. Hillmann and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, no.2, 55 (2021) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00307-5 [arXiv:2006.12951 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kittiratpattana, T

    A. Kittiratpattana, T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, C. Herold, A. Limphirat, Y. Yan and M. Ble- icher, Phys. Rev. C 106, no.4, 044905 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044905 [arXiv:2206.01625 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Buyukcizmeci, A

    N. Buyukcizmeci, A. S. Botvina, R. Ogul and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.8, 210 (2020) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00217-6

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Buyukcizmeci, T

    N. Buyukcizmeci, T. Reichert, A. S. Botvina and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 108, no.5, 054904 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 110, no.4, 049901 (2024)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.054904 [arXiv:2306.17145 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Reichert and J

    T. Reichert and J. Aichelin, [arXiv:2411.12908 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. T. Butler and C. A. Pearson, Phys. Rev. 129, 836-842 (1963) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.129.836

    1963 doi

  32. [40]

    Hillmann, J

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

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Hillmann, J

    P. Hillmann, J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, V. Gaebel, M. Bleicher, S. Sombun, C. Herold and A. Limphirat, J. Phys. G 47, no.5, 055101 (2020) doi:10.1088/1361- 6471/ab6fcf [arXiv:1907.04571 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hillmann, K

    P. Hillmann, K. K¨ afer, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G 49, no.5, 055107 (2022) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac5dfc [arXiv:2109.05972 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kireyeu, J

    V. Kireyeu, J. Steinheimer, J. Aichelin, M. Ble- icher and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 105, no.4, 044909 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.044909 [arXiv:2201.13374 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kireyeu, G

    V. Kireyeu, G. Coci, S. Glaessel, J. Aichelin, C. Blume and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 109, no.4, 044906 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044906 [arXiv:2304.12019 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. S. Botvina, N. Buyukcizmeci and M. Ble- icher, Phys. Rev. C 103, no.6, 064602 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.064602 [arXiv:2012.07679 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. S. Botvina, J. Steinheimer, E. Bratkovskaya, M. Bleicher and J. Pochodzalla, Phys. Lett. B 742, 7-14 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.060 [arXiv:1412.6665 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. S. Botvina and J. Pochodzalla, Phys. Rev. C 76, 024909 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.024909 9 [arXiv:0705.2968 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. [STAR], JHEP 10, 139 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)139 [arXiv:2407.10110 [nucl- ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

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

    2022

  42. [50]

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

    2022

  43. [51]

    Y. Nara, A. Jinno, K. Murase and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C 106, no.4, 044902 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044902 [arXiv:2208.01297 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

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

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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