Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A 3D Bayesian calibration of RHIC data describes both Au-Au and d-Au collisions, and shows that rapidity-dependent measurements strengthen the inferred shear and bulk viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:19 UTC pith:NW72U3XW

load-bearing objection First joint 3D Bayesian calibration of Au-Au and d-Au at RHIC 200 GeV; the Bayesian machinery is solid, but the headline viscosity result is conditional on the fixed EoS and longitudinal initial-state ansatz. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.17234 v2 pith:NW72U3XW submitted 2026-01-23 nucl-ex hep-phnucl-th

Longitudinal Dynamics of Large and Small Systems from a 3D Bayesian Calibration of RHIC Top-energy Collision Data

A. Mankolli , C. Shen , M. Luzum , J.-F. Paquet , M. Singh , J. Velkovska , S. A. Bass , C. Gale
show 48 more authors
G. A. C. da Silva L. Du L. Kasper G. S. Rocha D. Soeder S. Tuo G. Vujanovic X. Wu W. Zhao M. Chartier Y. Chen R. Datta R. Dolan R. Ehlers H. Elfner R. J. Fries D. A. Hangal B. V. Jacak P. M. Jacobs S. Jeon Y. Ji F. Jonas M. Kordell II A. Kumar R. Kunnawalkam-Elayavalli J. Latessa Y.-J. Lee A. Majumder S. Mak C. Martin H. Mehryar T. Mengel C. Nattrass J. Norman M. Ockleton C. Parker J. H. Putschke H. Roch G. Roland B. Schenke L. Schwiebert A. Sengupta C. Sirimanna R. A. Soltz I. Soudi Y. Tachibana X.-N. Wang J. Zhang (JETSCAPE Collaboration)
This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-phnucl-th
keywords heavy-ion collisionsquark-gluon plasmaBayesian inferencerapidity-dependent observablesspecific shear viscositybulk viscositysmall collision systemshydrodynamic modeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the longitudinal (rapidity) structure of relativistic nuclear collisions carries information that mid-rapidity-only analyses miss, and that it can be extracted with a (3+1)D model that respects global energy-momentum conservation. The authors calibrate a 3D Glauber initial state, Israel-Stewart viscous hydrodynamics, and a hadronic afterburner to a large set of PHENIX, STAR, PHOBOS, and BRAHMS measurements at 200 GeV, and show that the resulting posterior describes both Au-Au and d-Au multiplicity, mean pT, v2, and v3. The quantitative headline is that including forward and backward rapidity data shifts the posterior toward larger specific shear and bulk viscosity, especially at low temperature, and breaks degeneracies among initial-state parameters such as nuclear shadowing and rapidity loss. The calibrated model is then shown to be consistent with p-Au and 3He-Au data, and the apparent STAR/PHENIX disagreement on v3 in d-Au is traced to differences in centrality selection and reference-rapidity acceptance. A sympathetic reader would care because this simultaneously supports the hydrodynamic description of small systems and provides a calibrated 3D background for jet quenching and LHC predictions.

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that one multi-stage model—the 3D Glauber initial state with rapidity-dependent energy deposition and exact energy-momentum conservation, MUSIC viscous hydrodynamics, and a Cooper-Frye + UrQMD final state—can be made to describe, within a single Bayesian posterior, the multiplicity, mean transverse momentum, elliptic flow v2, and triangular flow v3 of both Au-Au and d-Au collisions at RHIC top energy. The novelty lies in the inclusion of rapidity-dependent measurements: their addition visibly narrows the posterior, resolves the y6–α_shadowing degeneracy, and produces a preference for finite η/s and ζ/s at low temperature. The same posterior, without ret

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a chain of model components whose key feature is longitudinal structure: a 3D Monte Carlo Glauber initial state that tracks sub-nucleonic hotspots and collision remnants, deposits energy via strings with a formation time, and conserves energy-momentum globally through a source current J^ν; (3+1)D Israel-Stewart viscous hydrodynamics with temperature-dependent η/s and ζ/s encoded by eight parameters; and a Cooper-Frye particlization with UrQMD afterburner. Around this, the Bayesian infrastructure—Gaussian-process emulators trained on principal components of the observables, followed by MCMC sampling—converts a 20-dimensional parameter space into posterior constra

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction rests on the assumption that the 3D Glauber initial state, Israel-Stewart hydrodynamics with a single fixed equation of state and μ_B = 0, and Cooper-Frye + UrQMD constitute a model family close enough to reality that varying only the 20 parameters spans the true physics; the paper explicitly notes that the equation of state is not varied and that theoretical systematics are not separately estimated.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to compare the model's prediction for d-Au v3 under the two experimental acceptances: the paper claims the STAR/PHENIX difference is explained by centrality selection and reference-rapidity windows. If the two collaborations reanalyzed their data with identical acceptance definitions and the residual gap exceeded the model's posterior band (roughly 10–15%), the claim would be refuted. Alternatively, a future calibration including identified hadron spectra at forward rapidity would test the predicted low-temperature viscosity: too large a bulk-viscosity signature would

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Rapidity-dependent measurements are not redundant: including them resolves degeneracies (e.g., between shadowing and the y6 rapidity-loss parameter) and strengthens the case for finite shear and bulk viscosity near the QCD transition.
  • A single calibrated model describes both Au-Au and d-Au, and its predictions are consistent with p-Au and 3He-Au, supporting a hydrodynamic interpretation of small collision systems.
  • The apparent STAR/PHENIX v3 discrepancy in d-Au is explained by centrality-selection and reference-rapidity windows, implying that experiments must adopt common acceptance definitions before flow coefficients are compared.
  • Flow coefficients at mid-rapidity depend on the rapidity of the reference region, more strongly in small systems and for v3; any precision comparison between experiments or energies must account for the 3D longitudinal structure.
  • The calibrated model supplies a 3D background for jet-energy-loss studies and a starting point for LHC predictions, with the paper providing a re-tuned MAP parameter set for 5.02 TeV Pb-Pb.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the viscosity preference is robust, then identified-particle spectra at forward rapidities—where the fluid spends more time at low temperature—should show clear bulk-viscous signatures; the current analysis did not calibrate on those, so this is a testable consequence.
  • The d-Au-only calibration leaves ζ/s consistent with zero, whereas the Au-Au-only calibration prefers nonzero values; this system-size dependence may reflect different temperature trajectories or sensitivity, and could be sharpened by adding identified-particle data in small systems.
  • The strong dependence on reference-rapidity implies that LHC p-Pb flow measurements with different acceptances will differ by a calculable amount even for identical physics; predicting these differences with the same 3D model would be a direct cross-energy test.
  • Because higher-order flow harmonics and dE_T/dη were excluded from calibration mainly due to emulator limitations, better emulators (e.g., machine-learning surrogates) should allow these observables to be included, potentially tightening the viscosity posteriors further.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Bayesian calibration of a (3+1)-dimensional multi-stage model for Au-Au and d-Au collisions at RHIC 200 GeV, using rapidity- and pT-differential data from PHOBOS, STAR, PHENIX, and BRAHMS. The model includes a 3D Glauber initial state with energy-momentum conserving source terms, MUSIC viscous hydrodynamics, and an UrQMD afterburner. The posterior is sampled via Gaussian-process emulators and MCMC. The paper reports that including forward/backward rapidity data increases the inferred shear and bulk viscosity, and it makes predictions for p-Au and 3He-Au, including a description of the apparent STAR/PHENIX v3 discrepancy. The analysis includes closure tests, emulator validation, and out-of-sample comparisons.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant step: it demonstrates the constraining power of rapidity-dependent data in a fully 3D framework, provides a calibrated baseline for 3D studies, and helps reconcile conflicting small-system measurements. The paper's strengths include a thorough Bayesian workflow with closure tests, transparent treatment of experimental uncertainties (including post-hoc adjustments), and genuine out-of-sample predictions for p-Au and 3He-Au. However, the central viscosity preference is conditional on the fixed equation of state and the specific longitudinal initial-state parametrization, which are not varied or assigned theoretical systematic uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. II.B, III.C, V.A.1] The claim that rapidity-dependent data favor larger shear and bulk viscosity (Fig. 5) is made within a model with a fixed equation of state and a fixed functional form for longitudinal energy deposition (Eq. 2). The paper explicitly states the EoS is not varied and theory systematics are not estimated. Since forward/backward observables depend on the temperature profile, which is set by the interplay between the initial-state rapidity loss and the EoS, a different credible EoS could shift the inferred low-temperature viscosities. The paper should include a sensitivity test with an alternate EoS/hadron-gas matching, or at least a quantitative discussion of the expected shift, before presenting the viscosity preference as a robust constraint.
  2. [Sec. IV.B] The post-hoc uncertainty inflations for STAR v2(eta) (+12%) and PHOBOS v2(eta) (+10%), and the exclusion of the lowest STAR v2(pT) bin, are motivated but are partly data-driven. These choices directly affect the calibration and may influence the viscosity preference. The paper should show that the qualitative conclusions are stable under reasonable variations of these choices—e.g., repeating the default calibration without the STAR v2(eta) dataset, with different inflation factors, or with the lowest v2(pT) bin included but assigned an enlarged model uncertainty. Without such a sensitivity study, the robustness of the headline result remains unclear.
  3. [Appendix E] The closure tests show good recovery for rapidity-loss parameters but weak constraints for viscosity parameters. This is relevant to the claim of a viscosity preference. The paper would benefit from a quantitative closure diagnostic (e.g., coverage probabilities or posterior z-scores for the viscosity parameters) to show that the posterior width is meaningful. As written, the weak closure constraints leave open the possibility that the viscosity preference is driven by model discrepancy rather than by information in the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase '3D Bayesian calibration' is used, but the model is (3+1)D. Consider using '3+1D' consistently to avoid confusion.
  2. [Sec. IV.B] The sentence 'we made reasonable use of what was available' is vague. A brief list of the specific sources (HEPData, collaboration websites) and how missing breakdowns were handled would aid reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. V.A.2] The reference to 'Fig. 2 of [44]' is dated; consider pointing to a specific figure in the present paper or a more recent relevant reference.
  4. [Sec. VI.B] The 'hint of bi-modality' in the p-Au v2 posterior (Fig. 20) is noted but not discussed. A short comment on its possible origin (e.g., different parameter regions) would be valuable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: posterior constraints are fits, out-of-sample predictions are genuinely held out, and self-cited model components are independent prior work.

full rationale

The paper is a Bayesian calibration; its central results are posterior distributions obtained by fitting a 20-parameter model to a calibration dataset. The headline claim that rapidity-dependent data prefer larger low-temperature shear and bulk viscosity is a comparison between two calibrations (full data vs. mid-rapidity-only subset), and the difference is an empirical consequence of adding data, not a quantity defined in terms of itself. The paper explicitly does not use previous posteriors as priors, avoiding one common circularity. Genuinely out-of-sample comparisons include BRAHMS dN/dη, PHENIX dE_T/dη, PHENIX v3/v4 in Au-Au, and all p-Au and 3He-Au observables; these were not in the calibration set and are computed with full model simulations rather than emulator predictions. The fixed equation of state and unvaried model choices are acknowledged limitations that affect interpretation and robustness, but they do not make the derivation circular. Self-citations to the 3D Glauber model and iEBE-MUSIC are to independently published, reusable model components with their own external validations, and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

20 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on 20 free parameters explicitly fitted to RHIC data (Table I/IV), six domain assumptions about the model chain, and no genuinely new physics entities. The paper is transparent about prior ranges and posterior samples, but the fitted parameters and model choices together carry the result.

free parameters (20)
  • y2 = 1.610
    Rapidity loss at incoming rapidity 2; weakly constrained at 200 GeV.
  • y4 = 1.685
    Rapidity loss at incoming rapidity 4; monotonicity y2<=y4<=y6 imposed.
  • y6 = 1.685
    Rapidity loss at incoming rapidity 6; MAP equals y4.
  • sigma_yloss = 0.682
    Variance of rapidity-loss fluctuations.
  • alpha_rem = 0.536
    Scaling of remnant energy deposition relative to strings.
  • alpha_shadowing = 0.001
    String production probability suppression (shadowing); MAP at prior edge.
  • BG = 3.960 GeV^-2
    Width of sub-nucleonic hotspot spatial distribution.
  • sigma_x = 0.207 fm
    Transverse Gaussian smearing width of energy deposition.
  • sigma_eta = 0.458
    Longitudinal flux-tube smearing width.
  • alpha_shift = 0.477
    Modulates longitudinal dependence of string transverse profiles.
  • tau_form = 0.424 fm
    Formation time for energy-momentum source deposition into hydro.
  • (eta/s)_Tkink = 0.206 GeV
    Temperature of kink in eta/s parametrization.
  • m_low = -1.999 GeV^-1
    Slope of eta/s below Tkink; MAP at prior edge.
  • m_high = 1.999 GeV^-1
    Slope of eta/s above Tkink; MAP at prior edge.
  • (eta/s)_kink = 0.108
    Value of eta/s at kink.
  • (zeta/s)_max = 0.092
    Maximum of skewed Cauchy bulk viscosity.
  • (zeta/s)_Tmax = 0.180 GeV
    Temperature of bulk viscosity maximum.
  • w_zeta = 0.067 GeV
    Width of bulk viscosity distribution.
  • lambda_zeta = -0.799
    Asymmetry parameter of bulk viscosity; MAP near prior edge.
  • e_switch = 0.520 GeV/fm^3
    Energy density of Cooper-Frye switching hypersurface.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and Gaussian-process emulator surrogacy
    Posterior inference via MCMC relies on the emulator being an accurate surrogate for the full model (Sec. III B).
  • domain assumption 3D Glauber initial state: Woods-Saxon nucleons, hotspots, strings, remnant energy deposition, global energy conservation
    The longitudinal energy deposition and all posterior constraints on rapidity loss depend on this model (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption Israel-Stewart viscous hydrodynamics in MUSIC correctly describes QGP expansion
    The extracted eta/s and zeta/s posteriors assume this evolution is the true dynamics (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption Fixed lattice+HRG equation of state with mu_B=0
    The EoS is not varied and is stated to be an unaccounted source of uncertainty (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption Cooper-Frye particlization with Grad corrections and UrQMD afterburner describe the final state
    All hadronic observables are computed through this chain (Sec. II C).
  • domain assumption Experimental uncertainties are uncorrelated across bins
    The likelihood uses a diagonal experimental covariance; correlations are only estimated from the emulator (Sec. III C).
invented entities (2)
  • Sub-nucleonic hotspots (three valence-quark hotspots, one soft-gluon hotspot per nucleon) no independent evidence
    purpose: Deposit energy in string-like collisions in the 3D Glauber model; the width BG is fitted
    Borrowed from Shen & Schenke; no independent falsifiable handle outside model-data fits.
  • Strings and collision remnants no independent evidence
    purpose: Carry energy-momentum source terms J^nu; remnants deposit scaled rapidity loss
    Modeling constructs; global energy conservation is imposed, not independently measured.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39675 in / 11331 out tokens · 114674 ms · 2026-08-03T08:19:48.319623+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A comprehensive Bayesian analysis of the 3D dynamics of high-energy nuclear collisions is presented. We perform a systematic model-to-data comparison using simulations of large and small collision systems, and a broad range of measurements from the PHENIX, STAR, PHOBOS, and BRAHMS collaborations spanning nearly two decades of RHIC operations. In particular, we perform fully 3D multi-stage simulations including rapidity-dependent energy deposition with global energy conservation using the 3D Glauber model, along with relativistic viscous hydrodynamics with MUSIC. We calibrate the model on rapidity- and $p_T$-differential observables and analyze the respective constraints on initial state and transport properties they provide. We emphasize the additional constraints provided by rapidity-dependent measurements, the differences in large and small system calibrations, and the tension exhibited by particular observables. We use our calibrated model to make predictions of observables in p-Au and $^3$He-Au collisions. Furthermore, we facilitate direct comparison of experimental measurements by highlighting the dependence of flow measurements on the rapidity of the regions of interest and reference, as well as the importance of the centrality selection. In particular, we examine the apparent differences between the STAR and PHENIX $v_2$ and $v_3$ measurements in small systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17234 by A. Kumar, A. Majumder, A. Mankolli, A. Sengupta, B. Schenke, B. V. Jacak, C. Gale, C. Martin, C. Nattrass, C. Parker, C. Shen, C. Sirimanna, D. A. Hangal, D. Soeder, F. Jonas, G. A. C. da Silva, G. Roland, G. S. Rocha, G. Vujanovic, H. Elfner, H. Mehryar, H. Roch, I. Soudi, J.-F. Paquet, J. H. Putschke, J. Latessa, J. Norman, J. Velkovska, J. Zhang (JETSCAPE Collaboration), L. Du, L. Kasper, L. Schwiebert, M. Chartier, M. Kordell II, M. Luzum, M. Ockleton, M. Singh, P. M. Jacobs, R. A. Soltz, R. Datta, R. Dolan, R. Ehlers, R. J. Fries, R. Kunnawalkam-Elayavalli, S. A. Bass, S. Jeon, S. Mak, S. Tuo, T. Mengel, W. Zhao, X.-N. Wang, X. Wu, Y. Chen, Y. Ji, Y.-J. Lee, Y. Tachibana.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Viscosity parametrization as a function of tempera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The observable prior for the data included in the calibration as well as some not included. The solid markers are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of experimental and emulation un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The observable posterior for the data included in the calibration, plotted in green, as well as predictions for some not [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The posterior for the specific shear (top) and bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The parameter posteriors for the default calibration for the nine parameters related to the initial state and hydrody [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The observable posterior for the mid-rapidity calibration. The data included in the calibration—namely, the subset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The parameter posteriors for the default (green) and the mid-rapidity-only (orange) calibrations for the nine parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The comparison of the STAR v2(η) posterior with the measurement, showing calibrations with various subsets of the data and highlighting the model tension between cer￾tain observables and the fit to the STAR measurement. The top plot shows calibrations using subsets of v2 data only. The bottom plot shows calibrations that include subsets of mul￾tiplicity data. All data in these calibrations are from Au-Au m… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The model posterior for select observables constrained using the Au-Au subset of the default observable set. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The model posterior for select observables constrained using the d-Au subset of the default observable set. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The posterior for the specific shear (left) and bulk (right) viscosity as a function of temperature for three calibrations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The calibrated model calculations for dN/d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The calibrated model calculations for v3(η) in Au￾Au (top) and d-Au (bottom) for two generic choices of the reference rapidity region. The orange calculations use the mid-rapidity region (often used in STAR measurements) and the green calculations use a backward region (the Beam-Beam Counter acceptance used in many PHENIX measurements). The calculations are plotted for five individual parameter samples of… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The PHENIX measurements for the dN/dη in p-Au, d-Au, and 3He-Au compared to a sampling of the posterior calibrated on the default dataset. The calibration dataset includes the dark green data points (d-Au) and does not include the olive green data points (p-Au and 3He-Au). The calculations are plotted for five individual parameter samples of the posterior simulated for ten thousand events each. In additio… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The PHENIX measurements for the v2(η) in p-Au, d-Au, and 3He-Au compared to a sampling of the posterior calibrated on the default dataset. The calibration dataset includes the dark green data points (d-Au) and does not include the olive green data points (p-Au and 3He-Au). The calculations are plotted for five individual parameter samples of the posterior simulated for ten thousand events each. In additio… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The PHENIX (red) and STAR (blue) measurements for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The root mean squared error (RMSE, filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The root mean squared error (RMSE, filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: The distributions of six sample parameters among walkers at particular steps of the MCMC chain following the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: The ratio between the diagonal of the emulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The closure test posteriors for the rapidity loss as a function of incoming beam rapidity, and the shear and bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: a) A portion of the 1D and 2D marginalized parameter posteriors for the default calibration. Together with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: b) The remaining portion of the 1D and 2D marginalized parameter posteriors for the default calibration. Together [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The sensitivity of select observable bins to varying the maximum of the bulk viscosity, the switching energy density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: The observable posterior for the data included in the Au-Au-only calibration, plotted in green, as well as predictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: The observable posterior for the data included in the d-Au-only calibration, plotted in green, as well as predictions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: The posteriors for the twelve model parameters (excluding the viscosity parameters), for three calibrations: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: The calibrated model calculations for flow coef [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: The calibrated model calculations for v2(η) and v3(η) in Au-Au (top) and d-Au (bottom) for the case where the reference rapidity region coincides with the rapidity bin of interest, for all η in bins of 0.5 units. The calculations are shown for sample 3 of the default posterior distribution for 0- 5% most central collisions in both systems. The dashed lines represent the calculation without explicitly subt… view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: The calibrated model calculations for v2(η) and v3(η) in Au-Au (top) and d-Au (bottom) using the generic PHENIX Beam-Beam Counter reference region ([-3.9, -3.1]), for all η in bins of 0.5 units. The calculations are shown for sample 3 of the default posterior distribution for 0-5% most central collisions in both systems. The dashed lines represent the calculation without explicitly subtracting the contrib… view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: The model calculations of the multiplicity as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_35.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Unbiased Data-Driven Determination of the Nuclear Dipole Amplitude in the Color Glass Condensate

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The 208Pb dipole amplitude is learned from R_pPb and coherent J/ψ photoproduction data with the BK equation embedded in training, giving Q²_s0(Pb)/Q²_s0(p) = 3.17 and an MV-type initial condition.

  2. Sequential Bayesian inference with correlated heavy-ion datasets

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Factorized sequential Bayesian updates on correlated pseudo-data produce systematic deviations from the joint posterior that increase with correlation strength, while exact conditional-likelihood updates match the joi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 78 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Arsene et al

    I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS), Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspective from the BRAHMS experiment, Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    B. B. Back et al. (PHOBOS), The PHOBOS perspective on discoveries at RHIC, Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Experimental and theoreti- cal challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the ev- idence from RHIC collisions, Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Muller, J

    B. Muller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wyslouch, First Results from Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 361 (2012), arXiv:1202.3233 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, S. A. Bass, J. Liu, and U. Heinz, Applying Bayesian parameter estima- tion to relativistic heavy-ion collisions: simultaneous characterization of the initial state and quark-gluon plasma medium, Phys. Rev. C94, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1605.03954 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Bernhard, J

    J. Bernhard, J. Moreland, and S. Bass, Bayesian es- timation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark–gluon plasma, Nature Physics15(2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    W. Ke, J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Constraints on rapidity-dependent initial con- ditions from charged particle pseudorapidity densities and two-particle correlations, Phys. Rev. C96, 044912 (2017), arXiv:1610.08490 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Auvinen, J

    J. Auvinen, J. E. Bernhard, S. A. Bass, and I. Karpenko, Investigating the collision energy dependence ofη/s in the beam energy scan at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider using Bayesian statistics, Phys. Rev. C97, 044905 (2018), arXiv:1706.03666 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE), Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport coefficients of QCD mat- 44 ter, Phys. Rev. C103, 054904 (2021), arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE), Phenomenological con- straints on the transport properties of QCD matter with data-driven model averaging, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2010.03928 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Bayesian analysis of heavy ion collisions with the heavy ion computational framework Trajectum, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054909 (2021), arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Transverse Momentum Differential Global Analysis of Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 202301 (2021), arXiv:2010.15130 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Nijs and W

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Hadronic Nucleus- Nucleus Cross Section and the Nucleon Size, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 232301 (2022), arXiv:2206.13522 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Soeder, W

    D. Soeder, W. Ke, J. F. Paquet, and S. A. Bass, Bayesian parameter estimation with a new three- dimensional initial-conditions model for ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions (2023), arXiv:2306.08665 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Virta, J

    M. Virta, J. Parkkila, and D. J. Kim, Enhancing Bayesian parameter estimation by adapting to mul- tiple energy scales in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC and at the LHC, Phys. Rev. C111, 044903 (2025), arXiv:2411.01932 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    J. E. Parkkila, A. Onnerstad, and D. J. Kim, Bayesian estimation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma with additional flow har- monic observables, Phys. Rev. C104, 054904 (2021), arXiv:2106.05019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Yang and L.-W

    Z. Yang and L.-W. Chen, Bayesian inference of the specific shear and bulk viscosities of the quark-gluon plasma at crossover fromϕand Ω observables, Phys. Rev. C107, 064910 (2023), arXiv:2207.13534 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    M. R. Heffernan, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and J.-F. Paquet, Early-Times Yang-Mills Dynamics and the Character- ization of Strongly Interacting Matter with Statisti- cal Learning, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 252301 (2024), arXiv:2306.09619 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    M. R. Heffernan, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and J.-F. Paquet, Bayesian quantification of strongly interacting matter with color glass condensate initial conditions, Phys. Rev. C109, 065207 (2024), arXiv:2302.09478 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    S. A. Jahan, H. Roch, and C. Shen, Bayesian anal- ysis of (3+1)D relativistic nuclear dynamics with the RHIC beam energy scan data, Phys. Rev. C110, 054905 (2024), arXiv:2408.00537 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    C. Shen, B. Schenke, and W. Zhao, Viscosities of the Baryon-Rich Quark-Gluon Plasma from Beam En- ergy Scan Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 072301 (2024), arXiv:2310.10787 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Shen, Chun, Schenke, Bj¨ orn, and Zhao, Wenbin, The effects of pseudorapidity-dependent observables on (3+1)D bayesian inference of relativistic heavy-ion col- lisions, EPJ Web Conf.296, 14001 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    G¨ otz, I

    N. G¨ otz, I. Karpenko, and H. Elfner, Bayesian analy- sis of a (3+1)D hybrid approach with initial conditions from hadronic transport, Phys. Rev. C112, 014910 (2025), arXiv:2503.10181 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Mankolli, Andi, 3D multi-system bayesian calibration with energy conservation to study rapidity-dependent dynamics of nuclear collisions, EPJ Web Conf.296, 05010 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Heffernan, Quantification of the Quark-Gluon Plasma with statistical learning, Ph.D

    M. Heffernan, Quantification of the Quark-Gluon Plasma with statistical learning, Ph.D. thesis, McGill U. (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    D. S. Everett, Quantifying the Quark Gluon Plasma, Ph.D. thesis, The Ohio State University (2021), arXiv:2107.11362 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    J. Parkkila, Quantifying the transport properties of quark-gluon plasma through measurement of higher harmonic flow and their non-linear response, Other thesis, 2021-11-09, Jyvaskyla U (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Paquet, Applications of emulation and Bayesian methods in heavy-ion physics, J

    J.-F. Paquet, Applications of emulation and Bayesian methods in heavy-ion physics, J. Phys. G51, 103001 (2024), arXiv:2310.17618 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Observation of Long- Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton- Proton Collisions at the LHC, JHEP09, 091, arXiv:1009.4122 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of Long-Range Elliptic Azimuthal Anisotropies in √s=13 and 2.76 TeVppCollisions with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 172301 (2016), arXiv:1509.04776 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  32. [32]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Lead Col- lisions at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B718, 795 (2013), arXiv:1210.5482 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long-Range Correlations in√sN N=5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the AT- LAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 182302 (2013), arXiv:1212.5198 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Long-range angular corre- lations on the near and away side inp-Pb collisions at √sN N = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B719, 29 (2013), arXiv:1212.2001 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Quadrupole Anisotropy in Dihadron Azimuthal Correlations in Centrald+Au Col- lisions at √sN N=200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 212301 (2013), arXiv:1303.1794 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 211 (2018), arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    How the heck is it possible that a system emitting only a dozen particles can be described by fluid dynamics?

    U. W. Heinz and J. S. Moreland, Hydrodynamic flow in small systems or: “How the heck is it possible that a system emitting only a dozen particles can be described by fluid dynamics?”, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1271, 012018 (2019), arXiv:1904.06592 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Aidala et al

    C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX), Creation of quark–gluon plasma droplets with three distinct geometries, Nature Phys.15, 214 (2019), arXiv:1805.02973 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Measurement of flow coefficients in high-multiplicityp+Au,d+Au, and 3He+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064902 (2024), arXiv:2312.07464 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Nie (STAR), Energy dependence of longitudinal flow decorrelation from STAR, Nucl

    M. Nie (STAR), Energy dependence of longitudinal flow decorrelation from STAR, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121783 (2021), arXiv:2005.03252 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    J. Jia, S. Huang, C. Zhang, and S. Bhatta, Sources of longitudinal flow decorrelations in high-energy nuclear collisions (2024), arXiv:2408.15006 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    S. A. Bass and A. Dumitru, Dynamics of hot bulk QCD matter: From the quark gluon plasma to hadronic freezeout, Phys. Rev. C61, 064909 (2000), arXiv:nucl- th/0001033

    arXiv 2000

  43. [43]

    Teaney, J

    D. Teaney, J. Lauret, and E. V. Shuryak, A Hydrody- namic Description of Heavy Ion Collisions at the SPS and RHIC (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0110037. 45

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  44. [44]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Hydrodynamic Mod- eling of Heavy-Ion Collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1340011 (2013), arXiv:1301.5893 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Derradi de Souza, T

    R. Derradi de Souza, T. Koide, and T. Kodama, Hydrodynamic Approaches in Relativistic Heavy Ion Reactions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.86, 35 (2016), arXiv:1506.03863 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    J. D. Bjorken, Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Col- lisions: The Central Rapidity Region, Phys. Rev. D27, 140 (1983)

    1983

  48. [48]

    Shen and B

    C. Shen and B. Schenke, Dynamical initial state model for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C97, 024907 (2018), arXiv:1710.00881 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Shen and B

    C. Shen and B. Schenke, Longitudinal dynamics and particle production in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C105, 064905 (2022), arXiv:2203.04685 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    S. Ryu, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, The role of longitudinal decorrelations for measurements of anisotropic flow in small collision systems, EPJ Web Conf.296, 15001 (2024), arXiv:2312.12595 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, (3+1)D hydrodynamic simulation of relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C82, 014903 (2010), arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Elliptic and triangular flow in event-by-event (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042301 (2011), arXiv:1009.3244 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Paquet, C

    J.-F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Production of pho- tons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 044906 (2016), arXiv:1509.06738 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    S. A. Bass et al., Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41, 255 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9803035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  55. [55]

    Bleicher et al., Relativistic hadron hadron colli- sions in the ultrarelativistic quantum molecular dy- namics model, J

    M. Bleicher et al., Relativistic hadron hadron colli- sions in the ultrarelativistic quantum molecular dy- namics model, J. Phys. G25, 1859 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9909407

    arXiv 1999

  56. [56]

    P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe, Holography and off- center collisions of localized shock waves, JHEP10, 070, arXiv:1501.04644 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  57. [57]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Schlichting and D

    S. Schlichting and D. Teaney, The First fm/c of Heavy- Ion Collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 447 (2019), arXiv:1908.02113 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venu- gopalan, QCD thermalization: Ab initio approaches and interdisciplinary connections, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035003 (2021), arXiv:2005.12299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano, and C. Shen, 200 A GeV Au+Au collisions serve a nearly per- fect quark-gluon liquid, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 192301 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 109, 139904 (2012)], arXiv:1011.2783 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Alter- native ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Stein- berg, Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear col- lisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear collisions at the subnucleon level, Phys

    C. Loizides, Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear collisions at the subnucleon level, Phys. Rev. C94, 024914 (2016), arXiv:1603.07375 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Alver, M

    B. Alver, M. Baker, C. Loizides, and P. Stein- berg, The PHOBOS Glauber Monte Carlo (2008), arXiv:0805.4411 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    Loizides, J

    C. Loizides, J. Nagle, and P. Steinberg, Improved ver- sion of the PHOBOS Glauber Monte Carlo, SoftwareX 1-2, 13 (2015), arXiv:1408.2549 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Shen and S

    C. Shen and S. Alzhrani, Collision-geometry-based 3D initial condition for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C102, 014909 (2020), arXiv:2003.05852 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Soudi et al

    I. Soudi et al. (JETSCAPE), Soft-hard framework with exact four-momentum conservation for small systems, Phys. Rev. C112, 014905 (2025), arXiv:2407.17443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions, JHEP04, 065, arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  69. [69]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Equation of state in ( 2+1 )-flavor QCD, Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Cooper and G

    F. Cooper and G. Frye, Comment on the Single Particle Distribution in the Hydrodynamic and Statistical Ther- modynamic Models of Multiparticle Production, Phys. Rev. D10, 186 (1974)

    1974

  71. [71]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, The iEBE-VISHNU code package for rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    Grad, On the kinetic theory of rarefied gases, Com- munications on Pure and Applied Mathematics2, 331 (1949)

    H. Grad, On the kinetic theory of rarefied gases, Com- munications on Pure and Applied Mathematics2, 331 (1949)

    1949

  73. [73]

    Israel, Nonstationary irreversible thermodynamics: A Causal relativistic theory, Annals Phys.100, 310 (1976)

    W. Israel, Nonstationary irreversible thermodynamics: A Causal relativistic theory, Annals Phys.100, 310 (1976)

    1976

  74. [74]

    Israel and J

    W. Israel and J. M. Stewart, Transient relativistic ther- modynamics and kinetic theory, Annals Phys.118, 341 (1979)

    1979

  75. [75]

    Monnai and T

    A. Monnai and T. Hirano, Effects of Bulk Viscos- ity at Freezeout, Phys. Rev. C80, 054906 (2009), arXiv:0903.4436 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  76. [76]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Derivation of transient relativistic fluid dynamics from the Boltzmann equation, Phys. Rev. D85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 039902 (2015)], arXiv:1202.4551 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  77. [77]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. As- tron. Soc. Pac.125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  78. [78]

    Alver et al

    B. Alver et al. (PHOBOS), Phobos results on charged particle multiplicity and pseudorapidity distributions in Au+Au, Cu+Cu, d+Au, and p+p collisions at ultra- relativistic energies, Phys. Rev. C83, 024913 (2011), arXiv:1011.1940 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [79]

    B. B. Back et al. (PHOBOS), Centrality and pseudora- 46 pidity dependence of elliptic flow for charged hadrons in Au+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 72, 051901 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0407012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  80. [80]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 72, 014904 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0409033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

Showing first 80 references.