Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Impacts of isolated nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that two-nucleon distance correlations, combined with a fixed radial density, quantitatively reproduce the initial-state observables of ab-initio 16O+16O collisions to within a few percent.

desk verdict A promising but underspecified method for injecting ab-initio two-body correlations into initial conditions; the missing one-body density check undermines the central isolation claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00315 v1 pith:3G6KELU2 submitted 2025-08-30 nucl-th nucl-ex

Qi Liu , Hadi Mehrabpour , Bing-Nan Lu This is my paper
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords nucleon-nucleoncorrelationsacceptance-rejectionmethodab-initionuclearmodelsinitial-stategeometryrelativisticheavy-ioncollisions16O+16OeccentricityfluctuationsNLEFTandVMC
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 claims that the two-nucleon distance correlation C(Δr) of a nucleus, combined with a fixed radial density, carries enough nuclear-structure information to reproduce the initial-state observables of relativistic 16O+16O collisions. Using an acceptance-rejection sampling method, the authors reconstruct nucleon configurations that match the eccentricities, energy fluctuations, and correlation ratios of two ab-initio models, NLEFT and VMC, to within a few percent. If true, this reveals that the relevant structural differences between light nuclei lie in angular two-body correlations, not just the radial density. It also provides a simple way to transport ab-initio structure into initial-condition models of heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the acceptance-rejection method (ARM) applied to the two-body distance correlation C(Δr), defined as C(Δr)=1−g(Δr)/g'(Δr), where g is the correlated pair density and g' the uncorrelated pair density. ARM generates candidate nucleon positions from a 3-parameter Fermi radial density with random angles, then accepts or rejects each candidate based on the ratio of the target pair-distance distribution g(Δr) to the proposal distribution g'(Δr) times a constant M. The method's work is to imprint the model's two-body distance correlations onto an otherwise featureless radial profile, so that the differences between configurations are angular in origin.

What would settle it

Compute the one-body radial density ρ(r) of the ARM-accepted configurations and compare it with the input 3pF distribution; if it differs significantly, the claimed isolation of angular correlations fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the acceptance-rejection method (ARM), when seeded with a fixed 3-parameter Fermi radial density and the two-nucleon distance correlation C(Δr) computed from an ab-initio model, produces nucleon configurations whose initial-state observables match those of the original ab-initio configurations to within a few percent. Specifically, the ARM-generated configurations reproduce the eccentricities ε2{2}, ε3{2}, ε4{2}, the energy density variance ⟨δE²⟩, the covariance cov(εn², δE), and the eccentricity fluctuation ratio ε2{4}/ε2{2} for 16O+16O collisions at 200 GeV and 5.36 TeV. The method therefore isolates the angular, two-body part of nuclear structure: differences bet

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the acceptance-rejection sampling leaves the one-body radial density unchanged from the input 3pF profile, a point the paper does not explicitly verify.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The initial-state geometry of 16O+16O collisions—eccentricities, energy variance, and flow-correlation ratios—can be captured without full ab-initio wave functions, using only one-body radial density and the two-body distance distribution.
  • Structural differences between NLEFT and VMC configurations are mostly angular in origin; the fixed 3pF radial profile common to both is not enough to distinguish them.
  • Short-range correlations (Δr ≲ 1 fm), which differ sharply between NLEFT and VMC, are the main source of the deviations in ε2{2} from the 3pF baseline at central collisions.
  • Extending the same sampling to three- or four-body distance distributions should recover the remaining few-percent discrepancy between ARM and the original ab-initio configurations.
  • The method transfers directly to other light nuclei such as 8Be, 12C, and 20Ne, as the paper states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radial profile is truly preserved, the few-percent residual between ARM and the full ab-initio configurations gives a quantitative upper bound on the information carried by three- and four-body correlations—about 1–5% of the initial-state correlators.
  • The same acceptance-rejection pipeline could be inverted: given measured flow correlators in 16O+16O runs at RHIC or the LHC, one could scan over C(Δr) and find the pair-distance distribution the data prefer, turning the method into a model-to-data inversion tool.
  • The collision-energy dependence of the OC-to-ARM ratios (slightly larger deviations at 5.36 TeV) hints that the overlap geometry's sensitivity to radial versus angular structure changes with energy, which could be studied systematically by varying the impact-parameter selection or the entropy deposition parameter p.
  • Because C(Δr) is derived from a specific Hamiltonian, the method offers a route to compare Hamiltonians directly: two ab-initio models that produce the same C(Δr) would be indistinguishable in all the correlators tested here.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an acceptance-rejection method (ARM) to reconstruct nucleon configurations for 16O from a fixed 3-parameter Fermi radial density and a two-body relative-distance distribution C(Δr) extracted from NLEFT and VMC ab-initio configurations. The resulting configurations are used as initial states in TReNTo for 16O+16O collisions at 200 GeV and 5.36 TeV, and compared to the original configurations through initial-state correlators: εn{2}, var(E), cov(εn^2, δE), and ε2{4}/ε2{2}. The central claim is that ARM quantitatively decodes nucleon-nucleon correlations from ab-initio models, and that differences between configurations can be attributed to angular components because the radial density is fixed to 3pF.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a computationally light way to translate two-body correlation information from ab-initio nuclear structure calculations into initial-state observables for relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The non-trivial part is not fitting the correlators—these are genuine predictions once C(Δr) is chosen—and the paper tests a broad set of observables that go beyond the fitted two-body input. The TReNTo simulations are standard and the choice p=0 is clearly stated. The method is simple and applicable to other light nuclei. However, the paper's central interpretation depends on an unverified assumption that the rejection step preserves the one-body radial density; this is a concrete, fixable technical issue rather than a conceptual invalidation. The paper also contains a number of presentation problems that should be corrected.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (4) and the acceptance step] The paper never verifies that the acceptance-rejection procedure preserves the 3pF one-body density. The candidate radius r is drawn from 3pF, but acceptance depends on the relative distance Δr to an already placed nucleon, so the marginal density of accepted radii is p_ARM(r) = Z^{-1} p_3pF(r) A(r), where A(r) is the angular average of the acceptance probability over partner positions. Since the target ratio g/g' in Eq. (3) depends on Δr, A(r) is generally not constant. This is load-bearing: Section III and the Conclusion attribute OC vs. ARM differences to angular information, and the claim that 'we start with the same radial density... any differences... are angular' requires this density preservation. Fig. 1(a) shows only the original VMC/NLEFT and the 3pF input, not the ARM radial density. Please compute and display rho(r) for accepted ARM configurations. If the density is biased, t
  2. [Section II, after Eq. (4)] The choice M = Δr_{biggest} does not appear valid for rejection sampling. The acceptance criterion compares g(Δr') with M g'(Δr'), where g and g' are probability densities over pair distances; the supremum of g/g' is a dimensionless constant. Setting M to a length (fm) is dimensionally inconsistent and no proof is given that this M satisfies the domination inequality. The authors should report the actual value of sup[g(Δr)/g'(Δr)] used in the sampling, with a concrete prescription for how it was computed.
  3. [Section II, ARM algorithm description] The algorithm description is ambiguous about how pair distances are enforced for all pairs. The text says 'we accept other nucleons with relative distances Δr′ from the proposal distribution', but it is not clear whether each new nucleon is accepted based on its distance to one previously placed nucleon, to all previously placed nucleons, or to the closest one. If only one pair per nucleon is constrained, the full two-body distribution of accepted configurations need not match g(Δr). A concise pseudocode or an explicit conditional acceptance rule is needed for reproducibility and for the density-preservation check requested above.
  4. [Section II and Fig. 1] The agreement between ARM and the target C(Δr) in Fig. 1(b,c) is enforced by construction because g(Δr), equivalently C(Δr), is the input to the rejection sampling. Presenting this agreement as evidence that ARM 'captures' the correlations is circular. The non-circular evidence is the agreement in the collision correlators of Figs. 3-6, which are not fitted. The paper should explicitly separate the consistency check (Fig. 1) from the predictive test (Figs. 3-6) and avoid wording that treats the former as independent validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption text says 'results from VMC are depicted in panel (a), while the results from NLEFT are shown in panel (b)', but panel (a) is the one-body density, panel (b) is the VMC two-body distribution, and panel (c) is the NLEFT two-body distribution. The caption should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3 text] The sentence 'we present the results for ε3{2} (middle panels) and ε4{2} (left panels)' should probably read 'right panels' for ε4{2}.
  3. [Section II] Typos: 'Approch' should be 'Approach'; 'staring from the 3pF density' should be 'starting from'; 'without any constrains' should be 'constraints'.
  4. [Section III] Typos and grammar: 'a lager discrepancy' -> 'a larger discrepancy'; 'form NLEFT' -> 'for NLEFT'; 'more consist' -> 'more consistent'.
  5. [Throughout] The paper reports ratios and percentage deviations without statistical uncertainties. For a quantitative claim of 'a few percent' agreement, error bars or at least a statement of sampling statistics would be useful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The ARM reproduction of C(Δr) is enforced by construction, but the main TRENTo correlator comparisons are independent and not fitted.

  1. self definitional [Section II, acceptance-rejection procedure following Eq. (4); Fig. 1(b)-(c) and surrounding text]
    "we accept other nucleons with relative distances ∆r′ as samples from the the target distribution g(∆r′) if U ≤ (g(∆r′)/M · g′(∆r′)) ... As can be seen in Figs.1(c), the configurations obtained by ARM can almost capture the NN correlations of NLEFT."

    The acceptance probability is exactly proportional to g(Δr)/g'(Δr), so rejection sampling guarantees the accepted pair-distance distribution is g(Δr) (the input), up to Monte Carlo noise. Therefore the agreement of ARM with the original C(Δr) in Fig.1 is a self-consistency check of the sampler, not an independent confirmation that NN correlations have been decoded. The actual independent content lies in the TRENTo observables (εn{2}, var(E), cov(εn^2,δE), ε2{4}/ε2{2}), which are not fitted to those correlators.

full rationale

The paper's circular element is limited to the Fig. 1 validation of the two-body distance distribution. Because ARM accepts/rejects candidate nucleons using the very g(Δr) (equivalently C(Δr)) taken from NLEFT/VMC, the reproduction of that distribution is guaranteed by construction; presenting it as a successful reproduction is a sampler check, not evidence for the method's interpretative power. The central quantitative claims, however, are the TRENTo initial-state correlators: eccentricities, energy variance, εn–E covariances, and ε2{4}/ε2{2}. These are computed from the generated configurations and compared with the original ab-initio configurations without using those correlators as acceptance criteria, so they provide independent (and non-circular) tests of whether two-body correlations plus a fixed radial profile encode the relevant structure. The paper does not verify that the rejection step preserves the 3pF one-body density, so the assertion that all differences are angular rests on an unproven premise; this is a correctness/validity concern rather than a circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [11] and [17]) are present but are not load-bearing for the central derivation, and the loaded Ref. [13] is not by the present authors. Overall, one step is circular by construction, but the main derivation has independent content: score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unverified or external assumptions. Most important is the unstated assumption that ARM preserves the one-body density, which is necessary for the angular interpretation. The free parameters (3pF constants, TReNTo p) are inherited from prior fits or chosen by hand, and the rejection constant M is asserted without proof.

free parameters (3)
  • 3pF density parameters = R0 = 2.608 fm, a0 = 0.513 fm, w = -0.051
    Taken from Angeli & Marinova (2013) fits to nuclear charge radii; used to define the one-body radial density in the ARM proposal.
  • TReNTo p parameter = 0
    Chosen to remove entropy deposition bias from uncorrelated nucleons and simplify the geometry; affects the magnitude of initial-state observables.
  • Rejection constant M = Δr_biggest
    Chosen by hand to satisfy the acceptance inequality; presumably affects sampling efficiency and the algorithm's validity but is not justified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NLEFT and VMC configurations faithfully represent the 16O ground state
    The paper uses these external samples as ground truth for the one- and two-body densities; if either model is inaccurate, the comparison is affected.
  • domain assumption 3pF charge density approximates point-nucleon density
    The paper maps electron-scattering charge density parameters to the nucleon position distribution used as the proposal.
  • ad hoc to paper Rejection sampling on pair distances preserves the one-body radial density
    The paper assumes the accepted configurations still have the 3pF radial profile so that OC-ARM differences can be interpreted as angular effects; this is not shown and is generally violated.
  • domain assumption TReNTo with p=0 captures initial-state entropy deposition
    The mapping from thickness functions to entropy density is a standard model choice that affects the correlators.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic response relations (Eqs. 5-8) link initial to final observables
    The paper uses eccentricities and energy fluctuations as proxies for final flow and pT correlators, assuming a linear/quasi-linear hydrodynamic response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impacts of isolated nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3G6KELU2

@misc{pith2026250900315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impacts of isolated nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic $^16$O+$^16$O collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3G6KELU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00315}
}
abstract

Nucleon-nucleon interactions are fundamental to the nuclear forces operating within the nucleus and play a crucial role in shaping the initial conditions of relativistic ion collisions through two-nucleon correlations. In this paper, we introduce an innovative approach to explore these encoded nucleon-nucleon correlations within advanced \textit{ab-initio} models in the context of relativistic $^{16}O$ collisions. Our methodology successfully reproduces the structural properties of the nucleonic configurations generated by these models, as well as the distance correlations between the nucleon pairs, denoted as $C(\Delta r)$. By generating nucleon positions that align with authentic configurations and adhering to the constraints imposed by the probability distribution of relative two-nucleon distances, our goal is to better understand nucleon-nucleon interactions within \textit{ab-initio} frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. One-body (panel (a)) and two-body (panels (b) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The transverse size of the systems in the overlap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The effects of nucleon-nucleon (NN) correlations on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The variance of the total system energy density created in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The results of three-particle correlations are displayed for OC (solid lines) and ARM (dashed lines). The covariances, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relative eccentricity fluctuation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

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.

  1. Nonlinear collective flow reveals the breakdown of quadrupole--hexadecapole scaling in heavy ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The nonlinear flow coefficient ξ6,222 in simulated U+U collisions separates the four (β2, β4) nuclear topology classes, making the sign of the hexadecapole deformation β4 experimentally accessible.

  2. The size of the quark-gluon plasma in ultracentral collisions: impact of initial density fluctuations on the average transverse momentum

    nucl-th 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Volume variation with multiplicity in ultracentral collisions is small when total entropy scales with nuclear mass number, as shown by relating it to initial density fluctuation profiles.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Finding the α-cluster parameters by controlling the radial one-nucleon density and incorporating nucleon-nucleon correlations at short-distances (in- side a given cluster) and long-distances (between two clusters) [17]

    work page

  2. [2]

    In this paper, we use the second approach to study the various structures of 16O 3 using the acceptance-rejection method (ARM) [29]

    Generating samples of nucleons based on a fixed charge density function ρ(r) and the constraints derived directly from the density function g(∆r) of nucleus, which accounts for the separation of nu- cleon pairs ∆ r. In this paper, we use the second approach to study the various structures of 16O 3 using the acceptance-rejection method (ARM) [29]. This met...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Probing the core of the strong nuclear interaction

    A. Schmidt et al. (CLAS), Nature 578, 540 (2020), arXiv:2004.11221 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Freer, H

    M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En’yo, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035004 (2018), arXiv:1705.06192 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Cruz-Torres, D

    R. Cruz-Torres, D. Lonardoni, R. Weiss, N. Barnea, D. W. Higinbotham, E. Piasetzky, A. Schmidt, L. B. We- instein, R. B. Wiringa, and O. Hen, Nature Phys. 17, 306 (2021), arXiv:1907.03658 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Local Two- and Three- Nucleon Interactions Within Chiral Effective Field The- ory,

    M. Piarulli, J. Bub, and I. Tews, “Local Two- and Three- Nucleon Interactions Within Chiral Effective Field The- ory,” in Handbook of Nuclear Physics, edited by I. Tani- hata, H. Toki, and T. Kajino (2022) pp. 1–33

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Effects of Initial Nucleon-Nucleon Correlations on Light Nuclei Production in Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 3\ $ GeV

    Q.-R. Lin, Y.-J. Huang, L.-G. Pang, X.-F. Luo, and X.-N. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2503.01128 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    and 5.36 TeV [32] center-of-mass frame. TRENTo is an initial condition model of heavy ion collisions, where the entropy density can be expressed as: dS dy ∝ TR = ( T p A + T p B 2 ) 1 p , 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 5.36 TeV 200 GeV ● NLEFT ● VMC 0 10 20 30 40 50 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 centralit...

    work page

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Piarulli and I

    M. Piarulli and I. Tews, Front. in Phys. 7, 245 (2020), arXiv:2002.00032 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Giacalone et al., (2025), arXiv:2507.01454 [nucl-ex]

    G. Giacalone et al., (2025), arXiv:2507.01454 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Huang (2023) arXiv:2312.12167 [nucl-ex]

    S. Huang (2023) arXiv:2312.12167 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Citron et al., CERN Yellow Rep

    Z. Citron et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7, 1159 (2019), arXiv:1812.06772 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Brewer, A

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, in Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC(2021) arXiv:2103.01939 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Mehrabpour and A

    H. Mehrabpour and A. Saha, (2025), arXiv:2501.14243 [nucl-th]

    2025

  7. [15]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zhang, J

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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alvioli, H

    M. Alvioli, H. J. Drescher, and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B 680, 225 (2009), arXiv:0905.2670 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Huang, Z

    Y.-J. Huang, Z. Meng, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.00790 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Broniowski and E

    W. Broniowski and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 112501 (2014), arXiv:1312.0289 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mehrabpour, (2025), arXiv:2506.12673 [nucl-th]

    H. Mehrabpour, (2025), arXiv:2506.12673 [nucl-th]

    2025

  13. [21]

    Blaizot and G

    J.-P. Blaizot and G. Giacalone, (2025), arXiv:2504.15421 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hu, H.-j

    J.-Y. Hu, H.-j. Xu, X. Wang, and S. Pu, (2025), arXiv:2507.01493 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B.-N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134863 (2019), arXiv:1812.10928 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Elhatisari, E

    S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ ahde, D. Lee, N. Li, B.-n. Lu, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 222505 (2017), arXiv:1702.05177 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. C. Pieper, and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024326 (2017), arXiv:1705.04337 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Alvioli, C

    M. Alvioli, C. Ciofi degli Atti, and H. Morita, Phys. Rev. C 72, 054310 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0506054

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    V. R. Pandharipande and R. B. Wiringa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 821 (1979)

    1979

  20. [28]

    Rybczy´ nski and W

    M. Rybczy´ nski and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064912 (2019), arXiv:1910.09489 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. C. Pieper, R. B. Wiringa, and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 46, 1741 (1992)

    1992

  22. [30]

    G. Baym, B. Blattel, L. L. Frankfurt, H. Heiselberg, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. C 52, 1604 (1995), arXiv:nucl- th/9502038

    1995

  23. [31]

    Heiselberg, Phys

    H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rept. 351, 161 (2001), arXiv:nucl- th/0003046. 10

    2001

  24. [32]

    Bayesian Ideas and Data Analysis: An Introduction for Scientists and Statisticians,

    R. Christensen, A. Branscum, and T. E Hanson, “Bayesian Ideas and Data Analysis: An Introduction for Scientists and Statisticians,” in Chapman and Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science(2010) 1st ed

    2010

  25. [33]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Loizides, (2025), arXiv:2507.05853 [nucl-th]

    C. Loizides, (2025), arXiv:2507.05853 [nucl-th]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C 86, 034908 (2012), arXiv:1206.6805 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Schenke and S

    B. Schenke and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044907 (2016), arXiv:1605.07158 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Giacalone, F

    G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 103, 024909 (2021), arXiv:2004.01765 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    F. G. Gardim, G. Giacalone, M. Luzum, and J.- Y. Ollitrault, Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121999 (2021), arXiv:2002.07008 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Samanta, S

    R. Samanta, S. Bhatta, J. Jia, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 109, L051902 (2024), arXiv:2303.15323 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bozek and W

    P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044910 (2012), arXiv:1203.1810 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bo˙ zek and W

    P. Bo˙ zek and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014904 (2017), arXiv:1701.09105 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Jia, Phys

    J. Jia, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044905 (2022), arXiv:2109.00604 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Jia et al

    J. Jia et al. , Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 220 (2024), arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Giacalone, Eur

    G. Giacalone, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 297 (2023), arXiv:2305.19843 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Blaizot, W

    J.-P. Blaizot, W. Broniowski, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B 738, 166 (2014), arXiv:1405.3572 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044908 (2016), arXiv:1601.04513 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bozek and H

    P. Bozek and H. Mehrabpour, Phys. Rev. C 101, 064902 (2020), arXiv:2002.08832 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. P. Delaroche, M. Girod, J. Libert, H. Goutte, S. Hi- laire, S. Peru, N. Pillet, and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 81, 014303 (2010), arXiv:0910.2940 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.