Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Correlation between particle spectra and elliptic flow

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces v02(pT), a three-particle cumulant that measures how the particle spectrum responds to elliptic-flow fluctuations, and predicts its sign changes and inverted mass ordering differ sharply from v0(pT).

desk verdict The paper introduces a clean, genuinely new differential three-cumulant probe of spectrum-flow correlation; its predictions are qualitative and the low-pT ordering is untested against hadronic rescattering, but the observable is solid and deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18690 v2 pith:LUHARNKW submitted 2025-06-23 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Tribhuban Parida , Rupam Samanta , Jean-Yves Ollitrault This is my paper
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords v02(pT)ellipticflowparticlespectrathree-particlecumulantnonflowsuppressionhydrodynamicsquark-gluonplasmaevent-shapeengineering
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 introduces $v_{02}(p_T)$: a per-momentum observable that measures how much the particle spectrum tilts when a collision's elliptic flow $v_2$ fluctuates. Unlike the recently measured $v_0(p_T)$, which is a pair correlation and therefore contaminated by nonflow (most visibly from jets at high $p_T$), $v_{02}(p_T)$ is a three-particle cumulant, so its nonflow sensitivity drops faster with multiplicity. Hydrodynamic simulations of semi-central Pb+Pb collisions at LHC energies predict that $v_{02}(p_T)$ changes sign twice (positive at small $p_T$), while $v_0(p_T)$ changes sign once (negative at small $p_T$), and that the usual mass ordering of identified-hadron results is inverted at small $p_T$. Because this difference comes specifically from the response of the spectrum to elliptic flow at fixed mean $p_T$, the new observable isolates radial-expansion dynamics and promises a cleaner, differential probe of the quark-gluon plasma's pressure gradients. A reanalysis of ALICE event-shape-engineering data shows a hint of the predicted ordering.

What carries the argument

The central object is $v_{02}(p_T)$, defined in Eq. (2) as a normalized three-particle cumulant correlating the event-by-event normalized spectrum $n(p_T)$ with $v_2^2$. The argument also rests on the two-component model of Eq. (15), which decomposes spectrum fluctuations into a response to variations of mean transverse momentum and a response to variations of $v_2^2$, with response functions $\alpha(p_T)$ and $\beta(p_T)$ that obey sum rules forcing $\alpha$ to change sign once and $\beta$ to change sign twice. The machinery is completed by evaluating $\alpha$ and $\beta$ from smooth initial profiles and injecting them into Eqs. (19)–(20), giving a quantitative account of the difference between the two observables.

What would settle it

Measure $v_{02}(p_T)$ for identified pions, kaons, and protons in 30–40% central Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV with the subevent setup recommended in Appendix A. If $v_{02}(p_T)$ does not show a double sign change with positive small-$p_T$ values, or if the small-$p_T$ ordering of proton vs pion is not inverted, the paper's central hydrodynamic prediction is falsified. A complementary model-level falsifier: rerun the same computation with a bulk viscosity of $\zeta/s=0.08$ and with an initial transverse-flow or hadronic-afterburner correction; if the double sign change disappears, the qualitative claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the correlation between the per-bin particle fraction $n(p_T)$ and $v_2^2$, normalized to the uncorrelated product, defines a measurable observable $v_{02}(p_T)\equiv (\langle n(p_T)v_2^2\rangle-\langle n(p_T)\rangle\langle v_2^2\rangle)/(\langle n(p_T)\rangle\langle v_2^2\rangle)$ that differs qualitatively from $v_0(p_T)$. In 30–40% central Pb+Pb collisions, hydrodynamics predicts $v_{02}(p_T)$ is positive at small $p_T$, crosses zero twice, and, for identified hadrons, shows an inverted mass ordering at small $p_T$—that is, heavier particles have larger $v_{02}$—opposite to the usual ordering of $v_2(p_T)$ and $v_0(p_T)$. The paper further shows that these features arise from a two-component structure in which the spectrum responds independently to event-by-event variations of mean $p_T$ (response $\alpha(p_T)$) and of $v_2^2$ (response $\beta(p_T)$); $v_0(p_T)$ is dominated by $\alpha$, while $v_{02}(p_T)$ receives a comparable contribution from $\beta$, which must change sign twice. By construction it is a three-particle cumulant, so it suppresses nonflow much more effectively than pair-correlation-based $v_0(p_T)$. The predicted pattern matches, within a fit, the ALICE event-shape-engineering spectra, giving an empirical hint that the inverted ordering is real.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted sign changes and inverted mass ordering of $v_{02}(p_T)$ are assumed to survive changes in the hydrodynamic modeling—initial-condition parameters, shear viscosity, bulk viscosity, initial transverse flow, and hadronic rescattering—none of which the paper varies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of $v_{02}(p_T)$ at the LHC or RHIC will discriminate collective from nonflow contributions to spectrum-flow correlations, especially at high $p_T$ where jet back-to-back correlations dominate $v_0$.
  • If the predicted double sign change is confirmed, it implies that spectra respond to $v_2^2$ fluctuations through a channel independent of mean-$p_T$ fluctuations, providing a new handle on the early-time geometry and transport coefficients.
  • The inverted mass ordering at small $p_T$, if confirmed, constrains the radial-velocity profile of the expanding fluid, since it arises from the $\beta$ response that couples to pressure gradients.
  • Because $v_{02}(p_T)$ is a differential version of Bożek's $\rho_2$, the known sensitivity of $\rho_2$ to nuclear deformation and nucleon width carries over to a differential, species-resolved observable.
  • Generalization to triangular flow $v_{03}(p_T)$ is straightforward, so the same three-particle cumulant technique can be applied to other harmonics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct measurement of $v_{02}(p_T)$ in the same ALICE or ATLAS datasets used for $v_0(p_T)$ would test the model's predicted double sign change bin-by-bin; the paper only fits the aggregate ESE spectra.
  • Applying the same three-particle cumulant to triangular flow ($v_{03}(p_T)$) or to heavy-flavor hadrons would probe whether the $\beta$ response is universal across harmonics and quark masses, a question the paper leaves open.
  • Varying the hydrodynamic ingredients (bulk viscosity, nucleon width, initial transverse flow) in the simulation would map the stability region of the inverted mass ordering; the paper asserts but does not demonstrate this stability.
  • The $\beta(p_T)$ response predicted to change sign twice could be isolated experimentally by comparing $v_{02}(p_T)$ at two centralities, since its weight relative to $\alpha(p_T)$ changes with centrality, offering a test that the paper identifies but does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a new observable v02(pT), defined in Eq. (2) as the normalized correlation between the event-by-event single-particle pT spectrum (normalized to unity) and v2^2, and shows in Sec. III that its pT-integrated version is proportional to Bożek's ρ2 correlator between [pT] and v2^2. The authors evaluate v02(pT) in MUSIC hydrodynamic simulations of 30–40% central Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV and predict that, unlike v0(pT), v02(pT) changes sign twice and exhibits an inverted mass ordering at small pT. They interpret this in a two-component model where the spectrum responds linearly to [pT] and v2^2 fluctuations, and they compare the predicted shape with the ALICE event-shape-engineering data of 2.76 TeV, finding a fit with two constants.

Significance. The proposed observable is a genuinely new, nonflow-suppressed differential probe of the correlation between radial and elliptic flow. The definitions and sum rules in Sec. II are clean and exact, and the relation to ρ2 (Sec. III) is elegantly established. The hydrodynamic predictions, although based on an untuned setup, are specific and falsifiable, and the two-component model provides a transparent, semi-quantitative mechanism for the sign changes. The comparison with ALICE data is a useful first hint. The main weakness is the lack of robustness checks of the central mass-ordering prediction against hadronic rescattering and model parameters, and the energy mismatch in the ESE comparison; these need to be addressed before the central claim can be fully trusted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 1] The central qualitative prediction—the double sign change of v02(pT) and the inverted mass ordering at low pT—is obtained with a hydrodynamic setup that neglects hadronic rescattering and uses untuned parameters (nucleon width w=0.5 fm, k=1, η/s=0.08, zero bulk viscosity, no initial transverse flow, freezeout at T=130 MeV). The pT≲1 GeV/c range and the species-by-species decomposition are exactly where hadronic-phase dynamics are known to modify spectra and flow. The robustness claim in Sec. IV ('We expect that these qualitative trends are robust...') is not supported by any parameter variation or afterburner test. Because the headline claim is the mass-ordering inversion, the authors should either include an afterburner test (e.g., a hadronic transport code) or demonstrate that the response function β(pT) and the species ordering are stable under variations of freezeout temperature, η/s, and the TRENTO parameters. Without such a test, the prediction could be a freezeout artifact rather than a robust hydrodynamic feature.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (21), Fig. 2] The comparison to ALICE ESE data is not on equal footing in energy: the data are from √sNN=2.76 TeV Pb+Pb collisions [23] while the v02(pT) used as input in Eq. (21) is computed at 5.02 TeV. This mismatch is not mentioned in the text. Moreover, the fit uses two free constants a and b, so it can only demonstrate consistency, not validate the shape or the mass-ordering inversion. The statement that 'data seem to support the inverted mass ordering predicted by hydrodynamics at low pT' is therefore stronger than what a two-parameter fit at a different energy can establish. Please either present the comparison explicitly as a qualitative hint, discuss the expected energy dependence of v02(pT), or repeat the hydrodynamic calculation at 2.76 TeV. In any case, the fit quality and the uncertainty on a and b should be reported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, footnote 4] The restriction of the sign-change argument to unidentified charged hadrons is easy to overlook. Please state in the conclusions that the explanation of the species-dependent inversion (why heavier particles have larger v02 at low pT) is not provided by the two-component model and remains a challenge for analytic understanding.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The notation N_A(p_T) in Eq. (A8) is not defined; it presumably denotes the number of particles in subevent A that fall into the pT bin. Please define it explicitly.
  3. [Throughout] The model name is written in several variants ('T RENTo', 'TRENTO'); the standard spelling 'TRENTo' should be used consistently. Also, in Sec. III the name 'Bo˙zek' should be typeset as 'Bożek'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: v02(pT) is computed from an independently configured hydrodynamic simulation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

v02(pT) is defined directly from event-by-event spectra and v2 (Eq. 2), and the central prediction is obtained from TRENTo+MUSIC+Cooper-Frye simulations with parameters (p=0, k=1, w=0.5 fm, eta/s=0.08) chosen independently of v02 and not tuned to it. The only fitted quantities in the paper are the constants a and b in the ESE comparison (Eq. 21), which scale the independently computed v02(pT) shape; they do not enter the hydrodynamic prediction, and the pT dependence and species ordering remain model output. The relation v02 = v0 * (sigma_v2^2/<v2^2>) * rho2 (Eq. 13) is an algebraic identity between the new cumulant and Bozek's rho2, not a derivation of the predicted pT dependence. The two-component model (Eq. 15) is a linear-response decomposition used to interpret the hydro result; alpha and beta are computed from separate smooth hydro evolutions and then combined with event-by-event averages, so the dashed curves are not the input definition of v02. Self-citations, including the prior v0 paper by the same authors, are used for context and comparison, not as load-bearing justification: the hydro prediction does not depend on any uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from those papers. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction depends on a specific hydrodynamic model with several untuned parameters and on a two-component interpretation that is only exact for smooth initial conditions. No new physical entities are introduced; v02(pT) is a new observable, not a new matter/force field.

free parameters (7)
  • TRENTO nucleon width w = 0.5 fm
    Chosen value, not tuned to model-to-data comparisons; affects initial-condition fluctuations and hence v2 and v02.
  • TRENTO fluctuation parameter k = 1
    Set with p=0 to give a density profile proportional to sqrt(TA TB).
  • Shear viscosity to entropy ratio eta/s = 0.08
    Assumed minimal viscosity, not tuned to the values favored by global Bayesian analyses.
  • Initial proper time tau0 = 0.4 fm/c
    Starting time for hydrodynamic evolution; chosen rather than derived.
  • Freezeout temperature T = 130 MeV
    Cooper-Frye particlization temperature; affects spectra and response functions.
  • Normalization of initial entropy density = fixed to reproduce ALICE 0-5% multiplicity
    Global calibration to data; sets overall scale but is not fitted to v02.
  • ESE fit parameters a and b = a=1.5, b=0.007
    Fitted to ALICE event-shape-engineered spectra in Eq. (21); no uncertainties reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Approximate boost invariance: the fluid velocity projected on the transverse plane is independent of rapidity in every event.
    Used throughout Secs. I-II to justify long-range correlations and to define v0 and v02; cited as an essential symmetry.
  • domain assumption Hadron spectra are thermal in the local rest frame of the fluid at freezeout.
    Basis for the hydrodynamic description of spectra; invoked in Sec. I and Cooper-Frye freezeout in Sec. IV.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial entropy density is described by the TRENTO model with p=0, k=1, w=0.5 fm.
    Specific model choice in Sec. IV; determines the fluctuating initial conditions that drive v2 and v02.
  • ad hoc to paper The spectrum fluctuation can be decomposed linearly into responses to [pT] and v2^2 fluctuations (Eq. (15)).
    Two-component model in Sec. V; exact for smooth initial conditions with two degrees of freedom, approximate for fluctuating events.
  • ad hoc to paper The ESE spectrum modification is related to v02(pT) by Eq. (21) with constants a and b independent of pT and species.
    Needed for the ALICE data comparison in Sec. VI; a and b are fitted, and b is not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlation between particle spectra and elliptic flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUHARNKW

@misc{pith2026250618690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlation between particle spectra and elliptic flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUHARNKW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18690}
}
abstract

We introduce a new observable to probe the collective nature of the radial expansion of the quark-gluon plasma. This observable, dubbed $v_{02}(p_T)$, represents the correlation of the spectrum with elliptic flow, in the same way as the recently measured $v_0(p_T)$ represents the correlation of the spectrum with the transverse momentum per particle. The advantage of $v_{02}(p_T)$ over $v_0(p_T)$ is that it is measured using a three-particle cumulant, as opposed to a pair correlation, which significantly reduces the sensitivity to nonflow effects. We predict non-trivial differences between $v_{02}(p_T)$ and $v_0(p_T)$ in semi-central Pb+Pb collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the basis of hydrodynamic simulations. A hint of these differences can be seen in the modification of $p_T$ spectra observed by ALICE in event-shape-engineered events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18690 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Hydrodynamic results for unidentified charged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Symbols: relative difference between spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic representation of two possible choices of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Thermal and geometric normal modes of spectral fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Rotated PCA of simulated Pb+Pb spectra separates spectral fluctuations into a coherent thermal mode that fully explains v0(pT) and a double-node geometric mode that drives the low-pT sign change of v02(pT).

  2. Enhanced hydrodynamic predictions for $v_{02}(p_T)$

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Ideal hydrodynamics plus a v2-fitted correction predicts v02(pT): a high-pT decrease for charged hadrons, meson-baryon splitting, and a non-monotonic proton v02 in mid-central Pb+Pb.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [23]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], [arXiv:2410.04578 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018), 339-376 [arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    uniden- tified charged hadrons

    This correlation has been previously introduced by Bo˙ zek [16] in the form of the Pearson correlation coefficient: ρ2 ≡ ⟨[pT ]v2 2⟩ − ⟨pT ⟩⟨v2 2⟩ σpT σv2 2 , (11) where σv2 2 denotes the standard deviation of v2 2: σv2 2 ≡ ⟨v4 2⟩ − ⟨v2 2⟩2 1/2 . (12) The numerators of Eq. (10) and (11) are identical, while the denominators differ. In Eq. (10), we have ch...

    work page

  4. [3]

    With these two differences taken into account, one expects: dN dpT dη (large q2) − dN dpT dη (small q2) dN dpT dη (unbiased) = av02(pT ) + b, (21) where a and b are dimensionless constants, which are independent of pT and particle species, but depend on analysis details. Fig. 2 displays our fit to ALICE data using Eq. (21), where v02(pT ) is taken from th...

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Nature 561 (2018) no.7723, 321-330 [arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    Cooper and G

    F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), 186

    work page 1974

  7. [6]

    S. S. Adler et al. [PHENIX], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003), 182301 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0305013 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [7]

    Dumitru, F

    A. Dumitru, F. Gelis, L. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Nucl. Phys. A 810 (2008), 91-108 [arXiv:0804.3858 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983), 140-151

    1983

  2. [9]

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018), 211-235 [arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) no.3, 034905 [arXiv:2004.00690 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], [arXiv:2503.24125 [nucl-ex]]

  5. [12]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], [arXiv:2504.04796 [nucl-ex]]

  6. [13]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 62 (2000), 034902 [arXiv:nucl-th/0004026 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Feng and F

    Y. Feng and F. Wang, J. Phys. G 52 (2025) no.1, 013001 [arXiv:2407.12731 [nucl-ex]]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Borghini, P

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

    2001 arXiv

  9. [16]

    K. H. Ackermann et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001), 402-407 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0009011 [nucl-ex]]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. [ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), 252302 [arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) no.4, 044908 [arXiv:1601.04513 [nucl-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.12, 985 [arXiv:1907.05176 [nucl-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022), 8 137393 [arXiv:2111.06106 [nucl-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) no.5, 054910 [arXiv:2205.00039 [nucl-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. [STAR], Nature 635 (2024) no.8037, 67-72 [arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    [STAR], [arXiv:2411.12101 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE], Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) no.3, 034916 [arXiv:1507.06194 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Qiu and U

    Z. Qiu and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011), 024911 [arXiv:1104.0650 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Parida, R

    T. Parida, R. Samanta and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 857 (2024), 138985 [arXiv:2407.17313 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Samanta and P

    R. Samanta and P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) no.6, 064910 [arXiv:2308.11565 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Borghini, P

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

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Noronha-Hostler and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) no.5, 054910 [arXiv:1702.01730 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) no.1, 011901 [arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) no.22, 222302 [arXiv:1512.06104 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010), 014903 [arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011), 042301 [arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) no.4, 044906 [arXiv:1509.06738 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Huovinen and P

    P. Huovinen and P. Petreczky, Nucl. Phys. A837 (2010), 26-53 [arXiv:0912.2541 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007), 172301 [arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vredevoogd and S

    J. Vredevoogd and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009), 044915 [arXiv:0810.4325 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kurkela, A

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J. F. Paquet, S. Schlicht- ing and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.12, 122302 [arXiv:1805.01604 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen and P. Tribedy, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) no.4, 044905 [arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Giacalone, [arXiv:2208.06839 [nucl-th]]

    G. Giacalone, [arXiv:2208.06839 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland and S. A. Bass, Nature Phys. 15 (2019) no.11, 1113-1117

    2019

  35. [43]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. [JETSCAPE], Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) no.5, 054904 [arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy and R. Snellings, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) no.5, 054909 [arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Huovinen, P

    P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ruuska- nen and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001), 58-64 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101136 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  38. [46]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011), 192301 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), 139904] [arXiv:1011.2783 [nucl- th]]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. P. G. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, T. Kodama and W. L. Qian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), 112301 [arXiv:0805.0018 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Schukraft, A

    J. Schukraft, A. Timmins and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 719 (2013), 394-398 [arXiv:1208.4563 [nucl-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), 172301 [arXiv:1006.1020 [nucl-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018), 151-162 [arXiv:1709.04723 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) no.4, 044912 [arXiv:1708.01602 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 813 (2021), 136054 [arXiv:2005.11131 [nucl-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 851 (2024), 138584 [arXiv:2307.14097 [nucl-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. D. Muncinelli, F. G. Gardim, D. D. Chinel- lato, G. S. Denicol, A. V. Giannini, M. Luzum, J. Noronha, T. N. da Silva, J. Takahashi and G. Tor- rieri, [arXiv:2406.15208 [nucl-th]]

  47. [55]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.12, 997 [arXiv:1808.03951 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Giacalone, Phys

    G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) no.2, 024901 [arXiv:2004.14463 [nucl-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    J. Jia, S. Huang and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) no.1, 014906 [arXiv:2105.05713 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bally, M

    B. Bally, M. Bender, G. Giacalone and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no.8, 082301 [arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Jia, Phys

    J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) no.4, 044905 [arXiv:2109.00604 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bally, G

    B. Bally, G. Giacalone and M. Bender, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023) no.3, 58 [arXiv:2301.02420 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    S. Zhao, H. j. Xu, Y. Zhou, Y. X. Liu and H. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024), 192301 [arXiv:2403.07441 [nucl- th]]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 111 (2025) no.1, L011901 [arXiv:2405.17526 [nucl-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) no.5, 054913 [arXiv:2409.19064 [nucl- th]]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 862 (2025), 139322 [arXiv:2404.08385 [nucl-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Giacalone, B

    G. Giacalone, B. Schenke and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no.4, 042301 [arXiv:2111.02908 [nucl-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Alver and G

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

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    P. M. Dinh, N. Borghini and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 477 (2000), 51-58 [arXiv:nucl-th/9912013 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) no.3, 034911 [arXiv:1503.01692 [nucl-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.2, 142 [arXiv:1709.02301 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998), 1671-1678 [arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001 [nucl-ex]]

    1998 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Di Francesco, M

    P. Di Francesco, M. Guilbaud, M. Luzum and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) no.4, 044911 [arXiv:1612.05634 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.