Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Higher-order anisotropic flow correlations in Xe-Xe collisions at $\mathrm{\sqrt{s_{NN}}= 5.44 TeV}$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In HYDJET++ simulations of deformed Xe-Xe collisions, the higher-order flow harmonics v4-v7 are produced entirely by v2-v3 mode-mixing, and the resulting centrality-dependent scaling ratios match ALICE and CMS data.

desk verdict A competent HYDJET++ extension to v7 in deformed Xe–Xe, but the higher-harmonic correlations are built in by construction and the comparison mixes estimators. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03969 v1 pith:KXJRKIEP submitted 2025-05-06 hep-ph

Saraswati Pandey , B. K. Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 25.75.Ld
keywords anisotropicflowhigher-orderharmonicsHYDJET++Xe-Xecollisionsnonlinearmodemixingpower-lawscalingdeformednucleiresponsecoefficients
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 aims to show that, in the Monte Carlo HYDJET++ model, all higher-order anisotropic flow harmonics $v_4$ through $v_7$ in deformed Xe-Xe collisions at 5.44 TeV are generated exclusively by nonlinear mode-mixing of the elliptic flow $v_2$ and triangular flow $v_3$. Because the model gives these high harmonics no independent event planes of their own, the response of $v_n$ to $v_2$ and $v_3$ can be studied through the power-law scaling ratios $v_n/v_m^m$ as a function of collision centrality. The authors report that these ratios are centrality dependent, that $v_2$ dominates the response, and that the computed $v_n$ agree qualitatively with ALICE and CMS data at mid-rapidity. If the picture holds, the scaling ratios become observables that isolate nonlinear hydrodynamic response coefficients while bypassing uncertainties in modeling the initial state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the nonlinear mode-mixing construction built into HYDJET++: the flow harmonics $v_4$-$v_7$ are generated by superimposing the elliptic ($v_2$) and triangular ($v_3$) deformations of the freeze-out surface and the transverse flow rapidity, so that each $v_n$ with $n\ge 4$ has no intrinsic event plane. The associated diagnostic is the power-law scaling ratio $v_n/v_m^m$, which isolates the individual response of each high harmonic to $v_2$ and $v_3$ across centrality. This construction makes the higher harmonics pure overtones of the lower ones, turning their correlations into a clean probe of nonlinear hydrodynamic response.

What would settle it

Measure the linear and nonlinear parts of $v_5$, $v_6$, and $v_7$ separately in Xe-Xe collisions at 5.44 TeV using event-plane or multiparticle-cumulant methods; if the linear parts are non-negligible, the scaling ratios $v_n/v_m^m$ will differ from the HYDJET++ predictions in a centrality-dependent way.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in deformed Xe-Xe collisions simulated with HYDJET++, the higher Fourier harmonics $v_4$, $v_5$, $v_6$, and $v_7$ are not independent degrees of freedom: they emerge purely from the interference of the lower-order harmonics $v_2$ and $v_3$, with $v_5 \propto v_2 v_3$ and $v_6 \propto (v_2^3 + v_3^2)$. Consequently, the reaction plane of each high harmonic is inherited from the lower-order planes, and the normalized ratios $v_n/v_m^m$ provide a direct measure of the nonlinear response of the system. The paper presents these ratios across seven centrality classes in two pseudorapidity windows and finds a strong centrality dependence driven chiefly by $v_2$, with magnitudes that match ALICE and CMS data but underpredict ATLAS data at forward rapidity.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis assumes that $v_5$, $v_6$, and $v_7$ have no intrinsic event planes, being generated solely by $v_2$-$v_3$ mode-mixing; real collisions with linear contributions would make the reported correlations and scaling ratios artifacts of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The scaling ratios $v_n/v_2^{n/2}$ and $v_n/v_3^{n/3}$ provide a way to extract nonlinear response coefficients that are independent of initial-condition modeling.
  • The observed ordering, with $v_6/v_2^3$ largest and $v_3/v_2^{3/2}$ smallest in the 0-30% centrality interval, is a pattern that experiment can look for directly.
  • The match with ALICE and CMS data at mid-rapidity supports the mode-mixing picture as the dominant source of $v_4$- $v_7$ in Xe-Xe at 5.44 TeV.
  • The failure at high pseudorapidity against ATLAS data identifies a limitation of the Bjorken boost-invariant freeze-out treatment rather than of the mode-mixing idea itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $v_5$, $v_6$, and $v_7$ in real collisions receive linear contributions from their own participant-plane eccentricities, the deviations from the HYDJET++ scaling ratios would be largest in the most central classes, a falsifiable prediction that can be checked with existing LHC data using linear/nonlinear separation techniques.
  • Applying the same $v_n/v_m^m$ analysis to uranium-uranium collisions, where the intrinsic deformation is larger, should produce an even steeper centrality dependence of the response ratios; this is a direct extension the paper does not make.
  • Since HYDJET++ contains no viscous evolution, the agreement with data suggests the scaling ordering is governed by the mode-mixing algebra rather than by specific transport coefficients, so the ratios could serve as model-independent checks in full viscous hydrodynamic simulations.
  • The centrality window below 30% where the $v_6/v_2^3$ ratio is maximal may be the best region to search for sensitivity to the Xe deformation parameter $\beta_2$, because the mode-mixing response is most distinct there.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the Monte Carlo HYDJET++ event generator with a modified Woods-Saxon density profile for a deformed Xe nucleus to compute anisotropic flow harmonics v2 through v7 in Xe-Xe collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 5.44 TeV. The authors report results for seven centrality classes and two kinematic ranges, and compare v_n, response ratios, and power-law scaled ratios v_n / v_m^(n/m) with ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS data. The paper's central claim is that higher-order harmonics v4-v7 are centrality dependent and strongly correlated with v2 and v3, and that the model reproduces the LHC data at mid-rapidity, while failing to describe ATLAS data at larger pseudorapidity.

Significance. If the reported correlations and scaling ratios were emergent predictions of the collision dynamics, this study would provide a useful phenomenological test of nonlinear mode-mixing in a deformed, smaller system at LHC energies. The paper has some strengths: it uses a large event sample (10^6 events per centrality class), presents two kinematic ranges, incorporates nuclear deformation parameters from the nuclear-data literature, and makes explicit comparisons with three LHC experiments. However, the central correlation claim for v5-v7 is not a dynamical prediction because the manuscript itself constructs these harmonics as nonlinear mode-mixing combinations of v2 and v3. The comparison with experimental data is also weakened by the use of different flow estimators in the model and in the data. Reproducibility is limited because the model code and simulation data are not deposited, and the tunable parameters are not given in full. With a clear reframing as a test of the mode-mixing ansatz rather than as an emergent prediction, the study could still be a useful benchmark for HYDJET++, but in its present form the main claim is largely tautological.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1; Abstract; Sec. 3] The central claim that v5-v7 are 'significantly correlated' with v2 and v3 is true by construction, not by dynamical prediction. Section 2.1 states explicitly that in HYDJET++ the harmonics v_n (n>=4) do not generate their own intrinsic event planes, with v5 proportional to v2 times v3 and v6 proportional to (v2^3 + v3^2), and that only rho3u and rho4u are treated independently among the higher-order anisotropy parameters. Consequently, the scaling ratios and response ratios for n=5-7 in Figs. 3-5 reduce to functions of the tuned lower-order harmonics and of the chosen mode-mixing coefficients; they do not constitute independent information about the collision geometry or the hydrodynamic response. The 'suitable match' with ALICE and CMS data for these harmonics is therefore weaker than presented, because the comparison tests the input ansatz and the tuning of v2 and v3 rather than the model's ability to generate higher harmonics from the initial state. I request that the paper be explicitly reframed as a test of the nonlinear-mode-mixing ansatz, that the circularity be acknowledged in the abstract and conclusions, and that any wording implying emergent predictions for v5-v7 be removed.
  2. [Sec. 3; Figs. 2-5] The quantitative comparison of model results with experimental data mixes different flow estimators. The manuscript states that HYDJET++ v2 and v3 are obtained with the reaction-plane method and the higher harmonics via nonlinear mode-mixing, whereas ALICE and CMS data are 2-particle cumulants and ATLAS data are obtained with the scalar-product method. These estimators have different event-plane resolution corrections, different sensitivity to multiplicity fluctuations, and different nonflow contamination, so the agreement seen in Fig. 2 and the scaling comparisons in Figs. 4-5 are not apples-to-apples. Because HYDJET++ generates full events, the same experimental estimators could in principle be computed within the model; without that, the conclusions about 'suitable match' and the degree of agreement with each experiment are not firmly established.
  3. [Data Availability Statement; Sec. 3] The Data Availability Statement says that the model data will not be deposited, and the manuscript does not provide the full set of tuned centrality-dependent parameters (epsilon2(b), delta2(b), epsilon3(b), rho3u(b), rho4u(b)) or the code. Given that the numerical results depend on 10^6 events and on these input parameters, the central results cannot be reproduced or audited by an independent reader. For a model-based paper whose main conclusions depend on the details of the mode-mixing construction, I consider this a load-bearing reproducibility omission. At minimum, complete parameter tables and a description of the event-selection and averaging procedure should be provided, and ideally the modified HYDJET++ code should be released.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and OCR-style corruptions, e.g., equations rendered as '/equal1' and scaling relations written as 'vn/vn/m m'. These need to be corrected in the final version to make the mathematical content readable.
  2. [Summary; Sec. 3] The summary mentions '0 < pT < 5 GeV/c' as a kinematic range, while the body of the paper specifies '0.5 < pT < 60 GeV/c' for the high-pseudorapidity range and 'pT > 0.2 GeV/c' for the mid-rapidity range. This inconsistency should be resolved.
  3. [Sec. 3] The text states that smaller Xe-Xe systems have larger viscous effects, but also states that HYDJET++ uses parameterized ideal hydrodynamics with no dissipative effects. The presentation should clarify which statements are model results and which are motivations from data or viscous-hydrodynamics calculations.
  4. [Figs. 2-5] The figures do not show statistical uncertainties or any sensitivity of the model results to the input parameters. Adding at least statistical error bars, or stating that they are negligible after 10^6 events, would strengthen the quantitative comparisons.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The reported v5-v7 correlations are installed by the model's construction: HYDJET++ sets v5 ∝ v2×v3 and v6 from powers of v2 and v3, so the claimed correlation and scaling results follow from definitions rather than from new dynamics.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.1 (Anisotropic flow v_n in HYDJET++), paragraph defining higher harmonics; echoed in Sec. 4 summary item 1]
    "This is because in HYDJET++ these higher Fourier harmonics do not generate their own intrinsic event planes ψ_RP_n. For instance, v5 is generated by the interference between elliptic and triangular flows (v5 ∝ v2 × v3)."

    The paper's central finding that higher-order coefficients v4-v7 are 'significantly correlated with elliptic and triangular flow' is a direct transcription of the model's defining formulas: v5 is set to v2×v3, v6 to a combination of powers of v2 and v3, and v7 to further cross-talk between v2 and v3. The correlations reported in Figs. 3-5 therefore hold by construction for any values of v2 and v3; there is no independent degree of freedom (e.g., a linear response to eccentricities ε5, ε6, ε7) that could alter these correlations. The scaling ratios v_n/v_m^{n/m} are just functions of the already-tuned lower-order harmonics, so the claimed 'response' of higher harmonics is not an emergent or falsifiable prediction of the model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3 (Results and discussion), first paragraph; Sec. 2.1 after Eq. (7)]
    "It was demonstrated that tuned HYDJET++ model can reproduce LHC data on centrality and transverse momentum dependence of charged particle multiplicity density, transverse momentum pT and anisotropic flow vn(n ≤ 4) spectra up to pT ∼ 5.0 GeV/c and (0–60)% centrality range [22, 23]. ... Here, we have treated the parameters ρ3u(b) and ρ4u(b) independently and varied them with centrality while the higher-order anisotropy determiners are incorporated through the nonlinear mode-mixing."

    The lower-order harmonics entering the mode-mixing formulas are not predicted from first principles in this paper: the tuned HYDJET++ parameters ε2, δ2, ρ3u, and ρ4u were adjusted in the authors' earlier HYDJET++ studies (Refs. [22,23]) to reproduce LHC multiplicity and v2-v4 data. Since v5-v7 are then computed algebraically from v2 and v3, the subsequent 'suitable match' of v4-v7 with ALICE/CMS data is inherited from the fitted v2-v4 inputs, not an independent validation of the mode-mixing mechanism. This is especially limiting because the model excludes linear contributions to v5-v7; the match cannot distinguish mode-mixing from other mechanisms.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its construction: Sec. 2.1 states that in HYDJET++ the higher Fourier harmonics v5-v7 'do not generate their own intrinsic event planes' and are produced by interference of v2 and v3. The abstract and Sec. 3 then present the resulting correlations and v_n/v_m^{n/m} scaling ratios as the main physics result. Because the higher harmonics contain no independent parameters or linear response, these correlations are definitional rather than emergent. In addition, the v2-v4 inputs that feed the mode-mixing formulas are themselves tuned to LHC data in the authors' prior HYDJET++ studies (Refs. [22,23]), so the claimed agreement with ALICE/CMS for v4-v7 is partly a propagation of fitted input. The comparison with ATLAS at large |η|, where the model fails, provides some external check, and the paper does not invoke an unexamined uniqueness theorem; this prevents the highest circularity scores. Still, the central correlation claim reduces, by the paper's own equations, to the model's defining ansatz, warranting a partially circular finding of 6.

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

The central computation relies on HYDJET++'s tuned anisotropy parameters (epsilon2, delta2, epsilon3, rho3u, rho4u), the imported Xe deformation parameters beta2 and beta4, and the built-in assumption that harmonics above v4 are pure mode-mixing products of v2 and v3. No new entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the model's input anisotropies, which are varied with centrality and effectively tuned to flow data.

free parameters (5)
  • pTmin (minimum transverse momentum transfer for hard scatters in HYDJET++) = 0.5 GeV/c (model input, not fitted in this work)
    Separates soft and hard components of the event; taken from the HYDJET++ setup of Ref. [25], and affects the jet contribution to v4.
  • epsilon2(b), delta2(b): spatial and momentum anisotropy for elliptic flow = centrality-dependent, tuned to reproduce v2
    Define the freeze-out surface ellipticity in Eq. (3) and control v2; values are tuned inputs, not derived in this paper.
  • epsilon3(b): spatial triangularity parameter = centrality-dependent, tuned to v3
    Adds triangular deformation to the freeze-out radius in Eq. (5); controls v3.
  • rho3u(b), rho4u(b): transverse-flow rapidity anisotropy for v3 and v4 = centrality-dependent, varied independently
    Explicitly 'treated independently and varied with centrality' in Sec. 2.1, determining v3 and v4 behavior; higher-order rho_nu are set by mode-mixing.
  • beta2, beta4: xenon nuclear deformation parameters = beta2 = 0.162, beta4 = -0.003 from Ref. [48]
    Imported from measured nuclear data tables in the modified Woods-Saxon profile, Eq. (8); they control the deformed shape and hence the centrality trends reported.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fourier decomposition of the azimuthal particle distribution around a reaction plane, Eq. (1), with a well-defined reaction-plane angle.
    Standard definition of anisotropic flow; used throughout.
  • domain assumption HYDJET++'s parameterized freeze-out surface with Bjorken boost-invariant expansion is a valid proxy for the hydrodynamics of Xe-Xe at LHC.
    The model has no evolution stage and only handles final-state anisotropies; the paper relies on this to interpret centrality trends and to compare with data at mid-rapidity.
  • ad hoc to paper Higher harmonics v5-v7 have no intrinsic event planes and are generated solely by nonlinear mode-mixing of v2 and v3.
    This is a built-in assumption of the HYDJET++ framework (Sec. 2.1: v5 proportional to v2 times v3, v6 to combinations of powers of v2 and v3), and it pre-determines the correlations the paper reports.
  • domain assumption The modified Woods-Saxon density with beta2 = 0.162 and beta4 = -0.003 from Möller et al. (Ref. [48]) correctly describes the Xenon deformation.
    The deformation is imported from nuclear data tables; if the deformation values are wrong, the centrality trends in the deformed system would shift.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear response coefficients are independent of the initial density profile, so centrality dependence of the ratios is interpreted as coming from the linear part of flow.
    The paper cites Ref. [19] for this claim and uses it to interpret Figs. 3-5, though the model itself parameterizes the response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-order anisotropic flow correlations in Xe-Xe collisions at $\mathrm{\sqrt{s_{NN}}= 5.44 TeV}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXJRKIEP

@misc{pith2026250503969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-order anisotropic flow correlations in Xe-Xe collisions at $\mathrm\sqrts_NN= 5.44 TeV$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXJRKIEP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03969}
}
abstract

By employing the Monte Carlo HYDJET++ model (HYDrodynamics plus JETs), we produce anisotropic harmonic flow coefficients $v_n$ ($n = 4$-$7$) in deformed Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.44~\mathrm{TeV}$. These harmonics are measured with respect to a plane constructed using the lower-order Fourier harmonics $v_2$ and $v_3$, produced using the reaction plane method. The cross-talk between elliptic and triangular flows in the model generates both even and odd higher-order harmonics. By combining analyses of higher harmonics with those of $v_2$ and $v_3$, one can eliminate uncertainties in modeling anisotropic flow from initial conditions and define quantities that involve only nonlinear hydrodynamic response coefficients. In this context, we study the individual response of higher-order flow coefficients to the lower-order ones through a power-law scaling technique of the form $v_n / v_m^m$, as a function of collision centrality. We report that the higher-order flow coefficients $v_n$ ($n = 4$-$7$) exhibit strong centrality dependence and are significantly correlated with the elliptic and triangular flow. The results are compared with data from recent ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS experiments at the LHC.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heinz, R

    U. Heinz, R. Snellings, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540

    doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540 2013

  2. [2]

    Alver, B.B

    B. Alver, B.B. Back, M.D. Baker, M. Ballintijn, D.S. Barton, R.R. Betts, A.A. Bickley, R. Bindel, W. Busza, A. Carroll et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 242302 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.242302

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.242302 2007

  3. [3]

    Alver, G

    B. Alver, G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054905 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054905

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.81.054905 2010

  4. [4]

    Alver, G

    B. Alver, G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 82, 039903 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.039903

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.82.039903 2010

  5. [5]

    Chatrchyan, V

    S. Chatrchyan, V . Khachatryan, A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, C. Fabjan, M. Friedl et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 89, 044906 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044906

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.89.044906 2014

  6. [6]

    G. Aad, B. Abbott, J. Abdallah, S. Abdel Khalek, O. Abdinov, R. Aben, B. Abi, M. Abolins, O.S. AbouZeid, H. Abramowicz et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 90, 024905 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024905

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.024905 2014

  7. [7]

    Abelev, J

    B. Abelev, J. Adam, D. Adamová, M.M. Aggarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, M. Agnello, A. Agostinelli, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, N. Ahmad et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 90, 054901 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.054901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.054901 2014

  8. [8]

    Adare, S

    A. Adare, S. Afanasiev, C. Aidala, N.N. Ajitanand, Y . Akiba, H. Al-Bataineh, J. Alexander, K. Aoki, Y . Aramaki, E.T. Atomssa et al., Phys. Rev. C (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.051902 123 Eur. Phys. J. Plus (2024) 139:400 Page 9 of 9 400

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.051902 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024901 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024901

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Gardim, F

    F.G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 202302 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.202302

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Z. Qiu, U. Heinz, Phys. Lett. B 717, 261 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Bhalerao, J.-Y

    R.S. Bhalerao, J.-Y . Ollitrault, S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024909 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024909

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Luzum, P

    M. Luzum, P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034915 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.034915

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    Borghini, J.-Y

    N. Borghini, J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 642, 227 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Gardim, F

    F.G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C85, 024908 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024908

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Teaney, L

    D. Teaney, L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C 86, 044908 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.044908

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Teaney, L

    D. Teaney, L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C 90, 024902 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.024902

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Gardim, J

    F.G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, F. Grassi, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034902 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.034902

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Yan, J.-Y

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

    2015

  12. [20]

    J. Qian, U. Heinz, J. Liu, Phys. Rev. C 93, 064901 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.064901

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    J. Qian, U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 94, 024910 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024910

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Pandey, S.K

    S. Pandey, S.K. Tiwari, B.K. Singh, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014903 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014903

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Pandey, B.K

    S. Pandey, B.K. Singh, J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 49, 095001 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/ac81e1

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Bravina, B.H.B

    L. Bravina, B.H.B. Johansson, E.E. Zabrodin, G. Eyyubova, V .L. Korotkikh, I.P. Lokhtin, L.V . Malinina, S.V . Petrushanko, A.M. Snigirev, Phys. Rev. C 89, 024909 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.024909

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Lokhtin, L

    I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, S. Petrushanko, A. Snigirev, I. Arsene, K. Tywoniuk, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 779 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Bravina, I

    L. Bravina, I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, S. Petrushanko, A. Snigirev, E. Zabrodin, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 219 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Amelin, R

    N. Amelin, R. Lednicky, T. Pocheptsov, I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, A. Snigirev, I. Karpenko, Y . Sinyukov, Phys. Rev. C74, 064901 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Amelin, R

    N. Amelin, R. Lednicky, I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, A. Snigirev, I. Karpenko, Y . Sinyukov, I. Arsene, L. Bravina, Phys. Rev. C77, 014903 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Akkelin, P

    S. Akkelin, P. Braun-Munzinger, Y . Sinyukov, Nucl. Phys. A710, 439–465 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01165-X

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    Lokhtin, A.M

    I.P. Lokhtin, A.M. Snigirev, Eur. Phys. J. C Part. Fields 45, 211 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    Lokhtin, S

    I. Lokhtin, S. Petrushanko, A. Snigirev, C.Y . Teplov, arXiv preprintarXiv:0706.0665 (2007)

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lokhtin, L

    I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, S. Petrushanko, A. Snigirev, I. Arsene, K. Tywoniuk, in Proceedings of Science (PoS) LHC08 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Bjorken, Phys

    J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27, 140 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.27.140

    1983 doi

  26. [34]

    Braaten, M.H

    E. Braaten, M.H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D 44, R2625 (1991)

    1991

  27. [35]

    Lokhtin, A

    I.P. Lokhtin, A. Snigirev, Eur. Phys. J. C Part. Fields 16, 527 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Baier, Y .L

    R. Baier, Y .L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, D. Schiff, Phys. Rev. C60, 064902 (1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    Baier, Y .L

    R. Baier, Y .L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, D. Schiff, Phys. Rev. C64, 057902 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Andersson, The Lund Model , vol

    B. Andersson, The Lund Model , vol. 7 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    Tywoniuk, I

    K. Tywoniuk, I. Arsene, L. Bravina, A. Kaidalov, E. Zabrodin, Phys. Lett. B 657, 170 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Gribov, Sov

    V. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP 29, 064905 (1969)

    1969

  33. [41]

    V oloshin, Y

    S. V oloshin, Y . Zhang, Z. Phys. C Part. Fields70, 665 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

    Poskanzer, S.A

    A.M. Poskanzer, S.A. V oloshin, Phys. Rev. C58, 1671 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    Abelev, J

    B. Abelev, J. Adam, D. Adamová, A.M. Adare, M.M. Aggarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, M. Agnello, A.G. Agocs, A. Agostinelli, Z. Ahammed et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 232302 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.232302

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Bravina, B.H

    L. Bravina, B.H. Brusheim Johansson, G. Eyyubova, E. Zabrodin, Phys. Rev. C 87, 034901 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034901

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    Acharya, F

    S. Acharya, F. Acosta, D. Adamová, J. Adolfsson, M. Aggarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ahn et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 784, 82 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Sirunyan, A

    A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 100, 044902 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.044902

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    G. Aad, B. Abbott, D.C. Abbott, A. Abed Abud, K. Abeling, D.K. Abhayasinghe, S.H. Abidi, O.S. AbouZeid, N.L. Abraham, H. Abramowicz et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C101, 024906 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.101.024906

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    Möller, A

    P. Möller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109, 1–204 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Z. Qiu, U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024911 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024911

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    H. Song, U. Heinz, Phys. Lett. B 658, 279 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Song, S.A

    H. Song, S.A. Bass, U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034919 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.89.034919

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C97, 034904 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.034904

    2018 doi

  45. [53]

    Baier, P

    R. Baier, P. Romatschke, D.T. Son, A.O. Starinets, M.A. Stephanov, J. High Energy Phys. 2008, 100 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/ 04/100

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    Romatschke, U

    P. Romatschke, U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 172301 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.172301

    2007 doi

  47. [55]

    Luzum, C

    M. Luzum, C. Gombeaud, J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 81, 054910 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054910 Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or othe...

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.