Investigating $^{238}$U Deformation via Dilepton Production in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions

Che Ming Ko; Jun Xu; Kai-Jia Sun; Lu-Meng Liu; Wen-Hao Zhou

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

Investigating $^{238}$U Deformation via Dilepton Production in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A normalized dilepton yield ratio between U+U and Au+Au collisions is predicted to depend linearly on $\beta_2^2$, with slopes $|k_2|=0.174$ in the low-mass subregion and $0.225$ in the intermediate-mass region, so that precise dilepton…

desk verdict A genuinely new observable for deformation in U+U, with a clean model demonstration, but the centrality binning makes the quoted slopes unreliable until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18189 v1 pith:ECCFWKMP submitted 2025-07-24 nucl-th

Wen-Hao Zhou , Lu-Meng Liu , Che Ming Ko , Kai-Jia Sun , Jun Xu This is my paper

classification nucl-th PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Dw

keywords nucleardeformationquadrupoleparameterdileptonproductionrelativisticheavy-ioncollisionsuranium-238Nambu-Jona-Lasiniomodelmultiphasetransportintermediate-massdileptons

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 argues that the charged-particle-normalized yield of dileptons produced in central uranium-uranium collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=193$ GeV carries a clean, quantitative imprint of the initial nuclear quadrupole deformation $\beta_2$. Using a multiphase transport model whose partonic stage is evolved with the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model, the authors form a double ratio $R_{U-Au}$ of the U+U dilepton yield per charged particle to the same quantity in Au+Au, and find $R_{U-Au}=k_0+k_2\beta_2^2$ in both the low-mass and intermediate-mass windows, with fitted slopes $|k_2|=0.174$ and $0.225$. Because the intermediate-mass slope is larger, they conclude that partonic-phase dileptons are more deformation-sensitive than hadronic $\rho^0$-decay dileptons, and that a precise measurement of this ratio can determine $\beta_2$ of $^{238}$U without relying on flow observables.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double yield ratio $R_{U-Au}=(dN_{ll}^{U}/dy)/(dN_{ch}^{U}/dy)$ divided by the same ratio for Au+Au, evaluated in a modified multiphase transport model with a Nambu-Jona-Lasinio partonic stage and hadronic rescattering described by a relativistic transport model. The predicted linear $\beta_2^2$ dependence follows from the scaling chain $N_{ll}\propto N_{\rm parton}^2\propto N_{\rm hadron}^2\propto N_{\rm ch}^2$ combined with the hadron-multiplicity scaling $N_{\rm hadron}=a_0+b_0\beta_2^2$ taken from earlier work, so that $N_{ll}/N_{ch}\propto a_0+b_0\beta_2^2$. The deformed Woods-Saxon density profile with a $\beta_2$-dependent radius supplies the initial geometry, and only the two excess dilepton channels are included: leading-order $q\bar{q}\to e^+e^-$ annihilation in the partonic phase and $\pi^+\pi^-\to\rho^0\to e^+e^-$ decays with in-medium $\rho^0$ modification in the hadronic phase.

What would settle it

Measure the double ratio $R_{U-Au}$ in 0\u201310% central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=193$ GeV with percent-level systematic control. At the known $\beta_2\approx0.286$ of $^{238}$U, Eq. (6) with the fitted intermediate-mass slope predicts a deformation-driven enhancement of roughly 2% over the spherical baseline; if the observed ratio shows no such enhancement, or if the intermediate-mass slope comes out smaller than the low-mass slope, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a new observable for nuclear deformation: in the most central U+U collisions, the charged-particle-normalized dilepton yield, divided by the corresponding quantity in Au+Au, depends linearly on $\beta_2^2$ over the tested range $\beta_2\in[-0.4,0.4]$. The linearity appears both in the low-mass subregion ($0.4<M_{ll}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$), where dileptons come mostly from in-medium $\rho^0$ decays, and in the intermediate-mass region ($1<M_{ll}<3$ GeV/$c^2$), where quark-antiquark annihilation in the partonic phase dominates. The fitted slopes are $|k_2|=0.174$ and $0.225$ respectively. The mechanism is geometric: larger $|\beta_2|$ reduces the overlap volume because the nuclear symmetry axis is randomly oriented, producing fewer partons; since the dilepton yield scales roughly as the square of the parton number while the multiplicity scales as $a_0+b_0\beta_2^2$, the normalized yield inherits the linear $\beta_2^2$ behavior, while the later-stage $\rho^0$ decays are less affected.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the scaling chain $N_{ll}\propto N_{\rm parton}^2\propto N_{\rm hadron}^2\propto N_{\rm ch}^2$ together with the earlier result $N_{\rm hadron}=a_0+b_0\beta_2^2$; if either proportionality is only approximate inside the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio transport evolution, the predicted linearity and the ordering of the two slopes would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A measurement of the intermediate-mass ratio in 0\u201310% central U+U collisions at 193 GeV, combined with the fitted slope $|k_2|=0.225$, would give a direct extraction of $\beta_2$ for $^{238}$U.
Dileptons in the 1\u20133 GeV window are the more deformation-sensitive channel, so experiments should prioritize the intermediate-mass region over the $\rho^0$-dominated low-mass window.
The same double-ratio construction can be carried over to isobar collisions such as $^{96}$Ru and $^{96}$Zr to extract their $\beta_2$ values, as the paper itself suggests.
Because the observable depends on $\beta_2^2$, it is insensitive to the sign of the deformation; prolate and oblate shapes with the same $|\beta_2|$ would not be distinguished.
The ratio construction suppresses volume effects, finite-rapidity acceptance effects, and much of the model dependence, making it a cleaner cross-system comparison than raw dilepton yields.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the linear $\beta_2^2$ scaling survives a next-order check, the ratio observable could serve as a cross-check of flow-based $\beta_2$ extractions, since it is insensitive to non-flow resonance decays that complicate flow measurements.
Editorial inference: one could run the same model with $\beta_2$ fixed while varying the Woods-Saxon surface thickness or radius, separating genuine deformation response from trivial size effects; the current normalization suppresses volume effects but does not fully eliminate them.
Editorial inference: at the known $\beta_2\approx0.286$ of $^{238}$U, the predicted intermediate-mass enhancement of $R_{U-Au}$ over the spherical baseline is roughly 2%, a scale that should be testable with high-statistics RHIC dilepton samples if the charged-particle normalization can be controlled at the percent level.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a new and potentially useful observable—dilepton yields normalized by charged multiplicity and double-ratioed to Au+Au as a probe of 238U quadrupole deformation. The NJL-AMPT model demonstration shows a monotonic beta2^2 trend, with IMR more sensitive than LMR. That part is credible and worth taking seriously.

The real soft spot is the centrality definition. The paper defines centrality bins using the beta2=0 multiplicity distribution and applies those same Nhadron cuts to all beta2 values. Since deformation shifts the multiplicity distribution, the "0-10%" events for beta2=0.4 are a different centrality percentile and a different body-body/tip-tip mix than for beta2=0. The fitted slopes |k2|=0.174 and 0.225 are therefore not uniquely a property of dilepton production; they partly encode the binning convention. Normalizing by Nch and taking the U/Au double ratio reduces but does not remove this bias. This is the load-bearing issue, more than the scaling argument in Eq. (7). That argument is also imported rather than derived—Nhadron = a0 + b0 beta2^2 from Ref. [18] and Nll ~ Nparton^2 are assumptions, not consequences demonstrated in this paper.

Other issues are minor but real: no statistical uncertainties on the simulated yields or fitted slopes, only one collision energy, and no code or data released. The Au+Au reference at 200 GeV versus U+U at 193 GeV is a caveat but probably not a big deal. These are addressable, not fatal.

What the paper does well: the double ratio is a sensible way to reduce volume effects; the LMR-sub versus IMR comparison cleanly separates hadronic from partonic sensitivity; and the physical argument that early-stage QGP dileptons should carry more geometry information is clearly stated. The paper is honest about its model assumptions, for example treating only two dilepton channels perturbatively.

Verdict: this deserves a serious referee. A competent referee should ask for (1) centrality bins defined per beta2 via percentile cuts, or at least a robustness check scanning the bin definition; (2) error bars or test-particle fluctuations; (3) a direct test of Eq. (7)'s scaling assumptions within the model. With those, the observable proposal stands. Without them, the quantitative slopes should not be used for extraction. I would bring it to a reading group as an example of a clean model-proposal paper with a fixable methodological flaw.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses an NJL-modified AMPT model to study how the quadrupole deformation parameter beta_2 of 238U affects dilepton production in U+U collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=193 GeV. It defines a double ratio R_U-Au of the per-charged-particle dilepton yield in U+U relative to Au+Au, reports a linear dependence of R_U-Au on beta_2^2 in both a low-mass subregion (LMR_sub, 0.4-0.75 GeV/c^2) and the intermediate-mass region (IMR, 1.0-3.0 GeV/c^2), and extracts fitted slopes |k_2| = 0.174 and 0.225, respectively. The authors interpret the quadratic dependence using a scaling chain from hadron multiplicity to parton number to dilepton yield, and propose the observable as a tool for determining the deformation parameter of 238U.

Significance. If the claimed linear beta_2^2 dependence survives a more careful treatment of centrality selection and uncertainty quantification, the paper offers a genuinely new observable for nuclear-deformation studies that is complementary to flow-based probes, with a plausible physics interpretation in terms of early-stage partonic dynamics. Strengths of the work include the use of a transport model with NJL partonic interactions rather than a purely geometric scaling model, the explicit inclusion of both QGP and rho-meson dilepton channels, the normalization by N_ch and the U/Au double-ratio construction to reduce volume and acceptance effects, and the test of sensitivity to the sign of beta_2. However, the central quantitative output rests on an assumed scaling chain and on a centrality definition that may not be equivalent across beta_2 values; these issues need to be addressed before the slopes can be taken as robust predictions.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Fig. 2 and Eq. (6)] The centrality bins are defined using the beta_2=0 hadron multiplicity distribution and then applied to all beta_2 values. Because deformation shifts the N_hadron distribution, the '0-5%' or '0-10%' events selected for beta_2=0.4 correspond to a different centrality percentile, and a different geometric mixture of orientations, than for beta_2=0. Since the shift in N_hadron with beta_2 is itself part of the deformation effect, the fitted slopes k_2 in Eq. (6) and Fig. 5 may partly reflect this selection mismatch rather than a pure dilepton-per-charged-particle response. Please quantify the effect by repeating the analysis with centrality defined per beta_2 (for example, percentile cuts of each beta_2's own N_hadron distribution) or with fixed N_part or N_coll bins, and report whether the linearity and the slope ordering survive.
[Sec. III, Eq. (7)] The explanation of the quadratic dependence in Eq. (7) is an assumed chain, N_ll proportional to N_parton^2, N_parton proportional to N_hadron proportional to N_ch, together with N_hadron = a_0 + b_0 beta_2^2 imported from Ref. [18]. None of these proportionalities is verified within the NJL-AMPT framework, and the step from N_ll proportional to (a_0 + b_0 beta_2^2)^2 to N_ll/N_ch proportional to a_0 + b_0 beta_2^2 is not a derivation but an assumption that the quadratic form survives the normalization. Please test the chain directly with model output, for example by plotting N_ll versus N_ch or N_hadron versus beta_2^2 from the same simulations, so that the slopes in Eq. (6) do not rest on an imported scaling that may not hold exactly.
[Sec. III, Fig. 5 and Eq. (6)] No statistical uncertainties are reported for the simulated yields, the double ratios, or the fitted slopes k_0 and k_2. With only five beta_2 values and no error bars, the claimed linearity and the ordering |k_2|(IMR) > |k_2|(LMR_sub) cannot be assessed for significance. Please provide uncertainties, for instance from bootstrapping events or from multiple independent runs, and report a goodness-of-fit measure for the linear form in Eq. (6).

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Sec. I] The collision energy is given as 196 GeV in the abstract and 193 GeV in the main text (Sec. I and Fig. 2); please harmonize these values.
[Abstract] The abstract contains 'varried out', which should be 'carried out'.
[Fig. 2 and Fig. 3] The axis labels '0 80%' appear to be missing dashes or parentheses; please clarify the intended notation and ensure the labels are consistent between figures.
[Fig. 3 caption] The labels '$2 = 0 : QGP' and '$2 = 0 : 0'$ are likely missing the beta symbol; please fix the notation.
[Sec. III] The text says 'Figure 5 exams the effect'; this should be 'examines'.
[Sec. III, Fig. 2 vs Fig. 5] The centrality label changes from 0-5% in Fig. 2 to 0-10% in Fig. 5 without explanation; please specify which centrality selection is used for the main result and justify the choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beta_2^2 linearity is a transport-model output, not an input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a transport-model prediction: the deformed Woods-Saxon density (Eq. 2) is an input, but the dilepton spectra are computed from the NJL-AMPT simulation, which includes perturbative q-qbar annihilation and rho-meson decay; the linear R_U-Au vs beta_2^2 relation (Eq. 6) is then fitted to the simulated points. Nothing in the model's equations forces this exact linearity; the simulation could have produced a different dependence. The explanatory chain in Eq. (7) invokes the external published hadron-multiplicity scaling N_hadron = a0 + b0 beta_2^2 [18] and the physical expectation N_ll proportional to N_parton^2; this is an after-the-fact interpretation, and the fitted slopes k2 are not computed from Eq. (7), so the result retains independent content. The centrality bins are explicitly defined using the beta_2 = 0 multiplicity distribution; this is a transparent methodological choice that can affect the numerical slopes, but it is not a circular reduction, since the ratio is not defined in terms of the effect it claims to measure. The authors' prior works cited for the NJL transport model are not load-bearing for the deformation dependence, and no self-citation chain is used to force the result. Therefore no circular step can be identified.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The central prediction rests on established model inputs (NJL parameters, Woods-Saxon geometry, transport cross sections) plus two phenomenological scaling assumptions: the prior hadron multiplicity scaling and the quadratic parton-number dependence of dilepton yields. These assumptions, rather than any new entity, carry the model dependence.

free parameters (4)

NJL model parameters = m_u=m_d=5.5 MeV, m_s=140.7 MeV, G_S*Lambda^2=3.67, K*Lambda^5=12.36, Lambda=602.3 MeV/c
Taken from Refs. [62,63]; these set the partonic equation of state and quark masses that control dilepton production.
Isotropic partonic scattering cross section = 3 mb
Fixed in Section II; controls parton transport and affects the space-time extent of the QGP and hence the dilepton yield.
Woods-Saxon parameters for U and Au = U: R_WS=6.8054 fm, a_WS=0.605 fm, beta_2=0.2863; Au: R_WS=6.38 fm, a_WS=0.535 fm, beta_2=-0.131
Adopted from Ref. [58]; the simulated initial geometry and thus the deformation response depend on these values.
Fitted coefficients k0 and k2 in Eq. (6) = k_2 = 0.225 (IMR), 0.174 (LMRsub)
Obtained from linear fits to the model points in Fig. 5; these are the quantitative sensitivity claims, with no uncertainties quoted.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The NJL model with mean-field and semi-classical transport describes the partonic phase.
Section II; no explicit validation against full quantum transport is provided in this paper.
domain assumption Only q qbar -> e+e- and pi+ pi- -> rho0 -> e+e- channels contribute, treated perturbatively as excess dileptons.
Section II; neglects other sources such as direct photon conversions, Drell-Yan, and charmed hadron decays, which experiments would subtract via cocktail simulations.
domain assumption Hadron multiplicity scales as N_hadron = a_0 + b_0 beta_2^2, taken from Ref. [18].
Used in Eq. (7) to explain the quadratic dependence; not re-derived within the NJL-AMPT framework.
ad hoc to paper N_ll is proportional to N_parton^2 and N_parton is proportional to N_hadron is proportional to N_ch.
Introduced in Section III to connect dilepton yields to measured charged multiplicity; this proportionality is an assumption, not a first-principles derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating $^{238}$U Deformation via Dilepton Production in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECCFWKMP

@misc{pith2026250718189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating $^238$U Deformation via Dilepton Production in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECCFWKMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18189}
}

abstract

Due to their weak coupling to the strongly interacting matter produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, dileptons serve as a sensitive probe of the initial geometry of the colliding nuclei. In this study, we investigate the influence of initial nuclear quadrupole deformation, characterized by the parameter $\beta_2$, on dilepton production in $U+U$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=196$ GeV. The analysis is varried out using a modified multiphase transport model in which partonic interactions are described by the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. We observe a clear linear dependence of dilepton yields on $\beta_2^2$ in both the low-mass region (LMR, $<1 GeV/c^2$) and intermediate-mass region (IMR, $1-3 GeV/c^2$) of the dilepton spectrum for the most central collisions. Also, dilepton production in the IMR region exhibits a stronger sensitivity to nuclear deformation than in the LMR, reflecting the dominance of earlier partonic processes in this mass range. These results suggest that precise measurements of dilepton yields in relativistic heavy-ion collisions can provide a viable means to determine the deformation parameter $\beta_2$ of $^{238}$U.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18189 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** shows the normalized hadron multiplicity distributions for five different values of the deformation parameter β2. The borders of the centrality bins are defined by using the β2 = 0 case. In the most central collisions (0 − 5%), larger |β2| leads to greater suppression in multiplicity compared to the spherical nucleus case (β2 = 0). This is because more deformed nuclei typically have a 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Invariant mass spectra of dileptons in U+U collisions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratio of the integrated invariant mass spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of the dilepton yield in the IMR, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[18]

J. Jia, S. Huang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C105, 014906 (2022), arXiv:2105.05713 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2022
[1]

Bohr and B

A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear structure. Volume II. Nuclear deformations (Addison-Wesley/W. A. Ben- jamin, Inc., Reading, MA, 1975)

work page 1975
[2]

Ring and P

P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, Physics and astronomy online library (Springer, 2004)

2004
[3]

Guidry and Y

M. Guidry and Y. Sun, Symmetry, Broken Symmetry, and Topology in Modern Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2022)

work page 2022
[4]

P. M. Goddard, P. D. Stevenson, and A. Rios, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054610 (2015), arXiv:1504.00919 [nucl-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[5]

Goriely, Phys

S. Goriely, Phys. Lett. B 436, 10 (1998)

1998
[6]

Nuclear Reactions in Evolving Stars

F.-K. Thielemann and T. Rauscher, Handbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2023) pp. 1–56, arXiv:2307.14391 [astro-ph.SR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[7]

Fukushima, D

K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep- ph]

arXiv 2008

Show all 79 references

[8]

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

2010 arXiv
[9]

Deng, X.-G

W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 94, 041901 (2016), arXiv:1607.04697 [nucl- th]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Sun and C

Y. Sun and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 98, 014911 (2018), arXiv:1803.06043 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[11]

Zhao and G.-L

X.-L. Zhao and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 106, 034909 (2022), arXiv:2203.15214 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[12]

Z. Yuan, A. Huang, W.-H. Zhou, G.-L. Ma, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 109, L031903 (2024), arXiv:2310.20194 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[13]

Z. Yuan, A. Huang, G. Xie, W.-H. Zhou, G.-L. Ma, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 111, 044913 (2025), arXiv:2412.09130 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[14]

Cline, Ann

D. Cline, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 36, 683 (1986)

1986
[15]

X. F. Yang, S. J. Wang, S. G. Wilkins, and R. F. Gar- cia Ruiz, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104005 (2023), arXiv:2209.15228 [nucl-ex]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Jia, Phys

J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014905 (2022), arXiv:2106.08768 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Jia and C

J. Jia and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 107, L021901 (2023), arXiv:2111.15559 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Zhang and J

C. Zhang and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 022301 (2022), arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[20]

Ryssens, G

W. Ryssens, G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 212302 (2023), arXiv:2302.13617 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Z. Wang, J. Chen, H.-j. Xu, and J. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034907 (2024), arXiv:2405.09329 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[22]

Giacalone, Phys

G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 202301 (2020), arXiv:1910.04673 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Giacalone, J

G. Giacalone, J. Jia, and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. C 104, L041903 (2021), arXiv:2102.08158 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[24]

Bally, M

B. Bally, M. Bender, G. Giacalone, and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 082301 (2022), arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl- th]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Zhao, H.-j

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

2024 arXiv
[26]

M. I. Abdulhamid et al.(STAR), Nature 635, 67 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

2024 arXiv
[27]

L.-M. Liu, J. Xu, and G.-X. Peng, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137701 (2023), arXiv:2301.07893 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Ding, D.-Q

M.-Q. Ding, D.-Q. Fang, and Y.-G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 211 (2024), arXiv:2409.07059 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Liu, C.-J

L.-M. Liu, C.-J. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Xu, J. Jia, and G.-X. Peng, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137441 (2022), arXiv:2203.09924 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[30]

Giacalone, G

G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202302 (2023), arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Q. Liu, S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034912 (2024), arXiv:2311.01747 [nucl-th]. 6

2024 arXiv
[32]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia, and Y.-G. Ma, (2024), arXiv:2404.08385 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Zhao, G.-L

X.-L. Zhao, G.-L. Ma, Y. Zhou, Z.-W. Lin, and C. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2404.09780 [nucl-th]

2024
[34]

Wang, S.-J

H.-C. Wang, S.-J. Li, L.-M. Liu, J. Xu, and Z.-Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034909 (2024), arXiv:2409.02452 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Liu, S.-J

L.-M. Liu, S.-J. Li, Z. Wang, J. Xu, Z.-Z. Ren, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138724 (2024), arXiv:2312.13572 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[36]

Giacalone et al., (2024), arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

G. Giacalone et al., (2024), arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[37]

Y. Wang, S. Zhao, B. Cao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. C 109, L051904 (2024), arXiv:2401.15723 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[38]

Liu, H.-C

L.-M. Liu, H.-C. Wang, S.-J. Li, C. Zhang, J. Xu, Z.-Z. Ren, J. Jia, and X.-G. Huang, (2025), arXiv:2502.08057 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[39]

Pritychenko, M

B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, and M. Horoi, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 107, 1 (2016), [Erra- tum: Atom.Data Nucl.Data Tabl. 114, 371–374 (2017)], arXiv:1312.5975 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[40]

Bierlich, T

C. Bierlich, T. Sj¨ ostrand, and M. Utheim, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 227 (2021), arXiv:2103.09665 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[41]

M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 107, L061901 (2023)

2023
[42]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 92, 024912 (2015), arXiv:1504.01317 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[43]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 750, 64 (2015), arXiv:1501.05341 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[44]

Seck (STAR), Nucl

F. Seck (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 122005 (2021)

2021
[45]

Adare et al

A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 93, 014904 (2016), arXiv:1509.04667 [nucl-ex]

2016
[46]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 132301 (2018), arXiv:1806.02295 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[47]

H. J. Specht (NA60), AIP Conf. Proc. 1322, 1 (2010), arXiv:1011.0615 [nucl-ex]

2010 arXiv
[48]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 99, 024002 (2019), arXiv:1807.00923 [nucl-ex]

2019 arXiv
[49]

Adamczewski-Musch et al

J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. (HADES), Nature Phys. 15, 1040 (2019)

2019
[50]

Chen et al

J. Chen et al. , Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

2024 arXiv
[51]

J. Luo, X. Li, Z. Tang, X. Wu, and W. Zha, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054906 (2023), arXiv:2308.03070 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[52]

C. Ko, L. Chen, V. Greco, F. Li, Z. Lin, S. Plumari, T. Song, and J. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 24, 50525 (2013)

2013
[53]

C. M. Ko, T. Song, F. Li, V. Greco, and S. Plumari, Nucl. Phys. A 928, 234 (2014), arXiv:1211.5511 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[54]

J. Xu, T. Song, C. M. Ko, and F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 012301 (2014), arXiv:1308.1753 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[55]

Wang and M

X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501 (1991)

1991
[56]

Gyulassy and X.-N

M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83, 307 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9502021

1994 arXiv
[57]

Li and C

B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9505016

1995 arXiv
[58]

Raman, C

S. Raman, C. W. G. Nestor, Jr, and P. Tikkanen, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 78, 1 (2001)

2001
[59]

Giacalone, Phys

G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024901 (2020), arXiv:2004.14463 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[60]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

1961
[61]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)

1961
[62]

Buballa, Phys

M. Buballa, Phys. Rept. 407, 205 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0402234

2005
[63]

Hatsuda and T

T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. 247, 221 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401310

1994 arXiv
[64]

Sun, C.-M

K.-J. Sun, C.-M. Ko, S. Cao, and F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014006 (2021), arXiv:2004.05754 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[65]

K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, F. Li, J. Xu, and L.-W. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 313 (2021), arXiv:2006.08929 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[66]

Li and C

F. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 95, 055203 (2017), arXiv:1606.05012 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[67]

Sun, W.-H

K.-J. Sun, W.-H. Zhou, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, F. Li, R. Wang, and J. Xu, (2022), arXiv:2205.11010 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[68]

C.-Q. Guo, H. Liu, and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 98, 024914 (2018), arXiv:1808.08334 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[69]

Liu, F.-T

H. Liu, F.-T. Wang, K.-J. Sun, J. Xu, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 798, 135002 (2019), arXiv:1908.01156 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[70]

W.-H. Zhou, H. Liu, F. Li, Y.-F. Sun, J. Xu, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 104, 044901 (2021), arXiv:2105.09518 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[71]

Wong, Phys

C.-Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C 25, 1460 (1982)

1982
[72]

Linnyk, W

O. Linnyk, W. Cassing, J. Manninen, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024910 (2012), arXiv:1111.2975 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[73]

Halzen and A

F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, QUARKS AND LEPTONS: AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE IN MODERN PARTI- CLE PHYSICS (1984)

1984
[74]

Li and C

G.-Q. Li and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 582, 731 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9407016

1995 arXiv
[75]

Cassing and E

W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rept. 308, 65 (1999)

1999
[76]

Linnyk, E

O. Linnyk, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and W. Cassing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87, 50 (2016), arXiv:1512.08126 [nucl- th]

2016 arXiv
[77]

B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 79, 034909 (2009), arXiv:0808.2041 [nucl-ex]

2009 arXiv
[78]

Rapp and H

R. Rapp and H. van Hees, Phys. Lett. B 753, 586 (2016), arXiv:1411.4612 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[79]

W.-H. Zhou, C. M. Ko, and K.-J. Sun, (2024), arXiv:2412.18895 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [18]

J. Jia, S. Huang, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C105, 014906 (2022), arXiv:2105.05713 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2022

[2] [1]

Bohr and B

A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear structure. Volume II. Nuclear deformations (Addison-Wesley/W. A. Ben- jamin, Inc., Reading, MA, 1975)

work page 1975

[3] [2]

Ring and P

P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem, Physics and astronomy online library (Springer, 2004)

2004

[4] [3]

Guidry and Y

M. Guidry and Y. Sun, Symmetry, Broken Symmetry, and Topology in Modern Physics(Cambridge University Press, 2022)

work page 2022

[5] [4]

P. M. Goddard, P. D. Stevenson, and A. Rios, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054610 (2015), arXiv:1504.00919 [nucl-th]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[6] [5]

Goriely, Phys

S. Goriely, Phys. Lett. B 436, 10 (1998)

1998

[7] [6]

Nuclear Reactions in Evolving Stars

F.-K. Thielemann and T. Rauscher, Handbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tanihata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2023) pp. 1–56, arXiv:2307.14391 [astro-ph.SR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[8] [7]

Fukushima, D

K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep- ph]

arXiv 2008