Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Event-by-event analysis of chiral charge separation in $p^{\uparrow}+$Au collisions within an improved AMPT model

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a difference between two impact-parameter schemes of polarized proton–gold collisions yields an essentially background-free chiral magnetic effect signal that survives the full quark–gluon plasma evolution.

desk verdict The stage-by-stage survival analysis is the real contribution; the quantitative signal size rests on a 7% calibration that the authors do not stress-test. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10496 v1 pith:KACBZRPY submitted 2026-08-11 hep-ph nucl-th

Chen Gao , Gui-Zhen Wu , Yi Xu , Wei-Tian Deng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords chiralmagneticeffectchargeseparationpolarizedproton-goldcollisionsAMPTmodelgammacorrelatorellipticflowsmallcollisionsystemsquark-gluonplasma
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 chiral magnetic effect (CME)—the separation of electric charge along a transient magnetic field in a quark–gluon plasma—can be isolated in collisions of a transversely polarized proton with a gold nucleus by comparing two impact-parameter orientations. Using an improved transport model, the authors inject an event-by-event CME source whose strength scales with the local magnetic field, and they track how the resulting charge-separation correlator survives parton cascading, quark coalescence, and hadronic rescattering. They find that the difference between the two most separated geometry schemes, $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$, remains at the level of $1$–$2\times 10^{-4}$ after full evolution, even though most of the signal is dissipated in the hadronic phase. If correct, this offers an essentially background-free observable for the CME in small systems, free of the elliptic-flow backgrounds that have blocked heavy-ion searches.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carries through three ingredients: (1) four collision-geometry schemes defined by the reaction-plane orientation relative to the proton polarization axis, which pick out well-separated values of the magnetic-field strength $B^2$; (2) an event-by-event CME source in which the fraction of quark pairs whose transverse momentum is exchanged scales as $f = 7\% \times |\mathbf{B}|_{\mathrm{event}}/|\mathbf{B}|_{\mathrm{max}}$, capped at the value calibrated to the Au+Au $\gamma_{\mathrm{SS}}$ correlator; and (3) an impact-parameter-dependent hadron formation-time delay that reduces the peak energy density to a physical $\sim 0.3\,\mathrm{GeV/fm^3}$. The observable is the three-point correlator $\gamma_{\alpha\beta} = \langle \cos(\phi_\alpha + \phi_\beta - 2\Psi_{\mathrm{RP}})\rangle$ and its charge-dependent difference $\Delta\gamma = \gamma_{\mathrm{OS}} - \gamma_{\mathrm{SS}}$; the key identity is that the scheme difference $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ cancels flow-driven backgrounds because the background is small in p+Au, leaving $\Delta\gamma^{\mathrm{CME}}_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma^{\mathrm{CME}}_{\mathrm{II}}$.

What would settle it

Measure $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ in $0$–$5\%$ central $p^\uparrow$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200\,\mathrm{GeV}$ using zero-degree calorimeters to tag the impact-parameter orientation; if the difference is consistent with zero within the expected $1$–$2\times 10^{-4}$ band, the paper's central claim would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the inter-scheme difference $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ — the difference in the charge-dependent azimuthal correlator between two impact-parameter orientations of a polarized proton–gold collision — is an essentially pure CME observable. The paper shows with its improved transport model that while the initial correlator displays a clear hierarchy $|\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{IV}} \gg |\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{I}} \approx |\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{III}} > |\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{II}}$ tracking $B^2$, the parton cascade preserves $80$–$90\%$ of the signal, and it is the subsequent hadron-coalescence and hadronic-rescattering stages that dissipate the bulk, leaving roughly $10$–$30\%$ in the final state. Despite this, the $\gamma_{\mathrm{OS}}/\gamma_{\mathrm{SS}}$ splitting remains visible and the central-value hierarchy survives, so $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ is predicted to remain nonzero (order $1$–$2\times 10^{-4}$) after full evolution. The paper also reports that the correlator is essentially flat in pseudorapidity gap, consistent with a long-range CME source, and that the result is robust against varying the parton cross section by a factor of two.

Load-bearing premise

The magnitude of the predicted signal rests on a single calibration: the $7\%$ ceiling on the quark-exchange fraction, set by reproducing the Au+Au $\gamma_{\mathrm{SS}}$ correlator in $30$–$50\%$ centrality — if that ceiling does not represent the true CME fraction in p+Au, all predicted $\Delta\gamma$ values scale with it, although the scheme ordering itself would survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The difference $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ is predicted to remain nonzero, at the level of $1$–$2\times 10^{-4}$, after full partonic and hadronic evolution, making it measurable with impact-parameter tagging.
  • The scheme hierarchy $|\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{IV}} > |\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{I,III}} > |\Delta\gamma|_{\mathrm{II}}$ should be visible in the final-state correlator, not only at the initial state.
  • The correlator is essentially flat in pseudorapidity gap, distinguishing a long-range CME source from short-range $v_2$-related backgrounds.
  • The result is robust to a factor-of-two change in the parton cross section, suggesting that the pattern is dictated by the magnetic-field geometry.
  • The bulk of the CME signal is lost in the hadronic rescattering phase, so the final-state observable carries only $\sim10$–$30\%$ of the initial charge separation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scheme difference survives in real data, the same geometric tagging could be applied to other small systems such as d+Au or $^3$He+Au, where the field geometry differs, sharpening the test across collision systems.
  • A dedicated experimental limit on $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}} - \Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ could independently bound the $7\%$ calibration: a null result would either put an upper limit on the CME strength in small systems or force a lower ceiling.
  • Because the hadronic phase is the dominant source of dilution, the prediction specifically targets improved hadronic-transport models; hybrid hydrodynamics-plus-cascade codes could confirm whether the $\sim10$–$30\%$ survival is model-specific or generic.
  • The flat $\Delta\eta$ profile at the final state is a distinctive signature that event-shape engineering in existing p+Au data could search for even without polarization tagging.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies CME-induced charge separation in transversely polarized p+Au collisions at 200 GeV using an AMPT string-melting model with two additions: an impact-parameter-dependent hadron formation-time delay, tuned to reduce the peak Bjorken energy density to about 0.3 GeV/fm3 and to reproduce the PHENIX v2(pT) data, and an event-by-event CME source in which the fraction of quark momentum-exchange scales as |B|_event/|B|_max and is capped at a 7% value calibrated to the Au+Au γSS correlator. The authors define four collision-geometry schemes via the reaction-plane orientation relative to the proton polarization axis, and they report an initial scheme hierarchy tracking B^2, a parton-cascade survival of about 80–90%, a hadronic-phase reduction to about 10–30% of the initial signal, and a final-state inter-scheme difference ΔγIV − ΔγII of order 1–2×10^-4, which they propose as an essentially background-free CME observable.

Significance. If the final-state hierarchy and the inter-scheme difference survive realistic partonic and hadronic evolution, the proposal of using p↑+Au inter-scheme differences as a background-suppressed CME probe is interesting and experimentally testable. The paper has concrete strengths: the model is checked against the PHENIX v2(pT) data and the Bjorken energy-density target; the result is robust to a factor-of-two variation in the parton cross section; and the authors are transparent about the ART hadronic cascade being the dominant source of model dependence. However, the central quantitative claim scales linearly with the externally calibrated 7% CME ceiling, which is anchored to an observable that the authors themselves note is background-dominated, and the paper provides no sensitivity analysis, no control run without CME injection, and no statistical uncertainties on the final-state correlators. The significance of the quantitative prediction is therefore contingent on additional robustness checks.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II C / Sec. IV C, Eq. (6)] The quantitative claim that ΔγIV − ΔγII is of order 1–2×10^-4 and 'clearly non-zero' after full evolution scales linearly with the 7% ceiling in Eq. (6). That ceiling is fixed by reproducing the γSS correlator in 30–50% Au+Au [29,43,44], an observable the authors themselves describe as background-dominated, citing the STAR isobar result [25]. If the isobar-constrained CME fraction is smaller than 7%, all quoted Δγ values scale down proportionally and the predicted difference may fall below experimental sensitivity. The paper gives no sensitivity scan over f_max and no isobar-informed upper bound; without such an analysis the central quantitative claim is not established.
  2. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (8)] The assertion that ΔγIV − ΔγII is an 'essentially pure CME observable' is not demonstrated in the improved model. No control run without the CME exchange is presented, and no explicit estimate is given of the v2-related background contribution to the inter-scheme difference. Because the formation-time delay and the reduced parton cross sections modify the hadronic phase relative to Ref. [29], the small-background conclusion from that earlier setup does not automatically carry over; a no-CME control run or an explicit background calculation should be added to support Eq. (8).
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 7–18] The central claims of a 'clearly visible' γOS/γSS splitting and a preserved hierarchy after full evolution are based on central values only; no statistical uncertainties, event counts, or significance tests are reported. Since the final-state effect is at the 10^-4 level, statistical errors are essential to support the word 'clearly' and the 'non-zero' statement in Sec. IV C. Please add error bars or state the number of events and the resulting uncertainty before the detectability claim can be evaluated.
  4. [Sec. IV A / Sec. II C] The initial-state scheme hierarchy |Δγ|IV ≫ |Δγ|I,III > |Δγ|II is largely built in by construction: Eq. (6) makes the exchange fraction f proportional to |B|_event, and the four schemes are defined so that they pick out different |B| distributions. The final paragraph of Sec. V acknowledges this ('By construction...'), but Sec. IV still presents the hierarchy as a physics message. It should be reframed as a consistency check of the injection mechanism rather than as independent validation of the CME geometry.
  5. [Sec. II B / Sec. IV C] The formation-time delay parameters (A, B, C) are hand-tuned to the energy-density target, and no sensitivity study is presented. Because the delay shifts the onset of the hadronic phase, it can affect the ART-stage dilution that is responsible for most of the signal loss; the final-state survival fraction and the visibility of scheme IV could therefore depend on this tuning. A scan over at least A and C, within values still consistent with the PHENIX v2 data, would show whether the final-state conclusions are robust to this choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Please correct typos: Abstract 'illiptic' → 'elliptic'; Sec. II B 'standand' → 'standard' and 'magnetude' → 'magnitude'; Sec. II A and IV A 'oritation' → 'orientation'; Sec. I 'difficulty' → 'difficulty'.
  2. [Sec. IV A] The pair transverse momentum P+ is defined only in the running text; please display it as an equation, e.g. P+ = (pT,α + pT,β)/2, so that the P+ projections in Figs. 7–12 are self-contained.
  3. [Sec. III B] The event-plane resolution correction is described briefly; please specify whether the shown v2 values are already corrected for the FVTX event-plane resolution and provide the resolution magnitude, since this is needed to compare the model output directly with the PHENIX data points.
  4. [Sec. II C] Eq. (6) is the key normalization of the paper, but the text does not state the centrality or event-selection details of the Au+Au calibration beyond '30–50%'; please add the relevant kinematic cuts and the statistical precision of that calibration, since the final prediction inherits it linearly.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the initial scheme hierarchy is injected by construction through Eq. (6), the absolute Δγ scale is calibrated to Au+Au γSS, and the 'background-free' interpretation leans on a self-citation; only the hadronic-phase survival dynamics are independent outputs.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II C, Eq. (6); Sec. IV A; Sec. IV C]
    "The fraction f of such quark pairs that is exchanged in a given event is taken to scale linearly with the magnitude of the magnetic field at the overlap centre, f = 7% × |B|_event/|B|_max ... Because the four schemes pick out very different distributions of |B|, Eq. (6) automatically generates four distinct average exchange fractions ... We find that the initial correlator shows a clear scheme hierarchy tracking B^2."

    By Eq. (6), the injected charge-separation strength is proportional to |B| at the overlap centre, and the four schemes are defined by the orientation of b relative to the polarization axis, i.e., by which part of the |B| distribution is selected. The initial-state hierarchy |Δγ|_IV ≫ |Δγ|_I ≈ |Δγ|_III > |Δγ|_II therefore reproduces the B^2 hierarchy that was put in as the source. The paper itself concedes this in Sec. IV C: the implementation 'automatically inherits the geometric hierarchy of B^2 across the four schemes'. The initial 'finding' is thus a restatement of the input field geometry, not a derived result.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II C, Eq. (6); Sec. IV C; Sec. V]
    "The 7% ceiling is fixed by reproducing the γSS correlator in 30–50% Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV [29,43,44] ... Our results show that this difference remains clearly non-zero after full evolution, with ΔγIV − ΔγII of order 1–2 × 10−4."

    The normalization f = 7% × |B|/|B|_max is chosen so that the most magnetized events match the Au+Au γSS correlator. Because the injected py-exchange fraction and, in this linear setup, the resulting Δγ scale linearly with that 7% ceiling, the reported absolute magnitude of the p+Au inter-scheme difference is essentially a re-expression of the calibration constant, not an independent prediction. Moreover, the paper itself notes in Sec. I, citing the STAR isobar measurement, that the Au+Au γSS correlator is strongly background-dominated, so the 1–2×10^{-4} number inherits all the uncertainty of the assumed CME fraction in that calibrated observable.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IV C, Eq. (8); Introduction]
    "because the background contribution to Δγ in p+Au is small [29], the difference ΔγIV − ΔγII ≈ Δγ^CME_IV − Δγ^CME_II isolates an essentially pure CME observable."

    The step that turns the computed correlator difference into an 'essentially pure CME observable' relies entirely on the claim, cited to Ref. [29] (the authors' own previous paper), that the flow-driven background in p+Au is negligible. The present paper performs no independent background subtraction or estimate beyond this citation, so the core interpretive premise is imported from the authors' prior work rather than established by the present analysis.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine dynamical core: the decomposition of the dissipation into a small ZPC-stage loss (~10–20%) and a large hadronic-phase loss (leaving ~10–30% final survival) is a real simulation output that is not encoded in Eq. (6), and the preservation of the scheme ordering through full evolution is not logically forced. However, the quantitative 'prediction' of the inter-scheme difference is substantially circular in three places. First, the initial-state hierarchy is definitional: f is defined to scale with |B|, the schemes are defined to select different |B| distributions, so the initial ordering necessarily tracks B^2. Second, the absolute scale of ΔγIV − ΔγII (1–2×10^{-4}) is set by the 7% ceiling fitted to the background-dominated Au+Au γSS correlator, so the reported magnitude is a linear rescaling of a fitted input rather than an independent prediction. Third, the interpretation of this difference as 'essentially pure CME' is borrowed from the authors' previous work via Ref. [29], with no independent background estimate in this paper. The self-citations and the by-construction hierarchy weaken the claim that the result is a first-principles prediction, but the hadronic survival dynamics provide independent content, so the appropriate score is 6 rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on the AMPT transport framework, a surrogate CME source, and a calibrated normalization. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main ledger items are hand-tuned model parameters and domain assumptions about the transport description and the background level in p+Au.

free parameters (5)
  • Formation-time delay amplitude A = 1.20 fm/c (sigma=0.3 mb), 1.05 fm/c (sigma=0.7 mb)
    Tuned by hand so the peak Bjorken energy density stays below about 0.3 GeV/fm3 in the central bin; enters Eq. (5).
  • Formation-time delay inflection parameter B = 0.0143 (both cross sections)
    Tuned by hand; controls the width of the central plateau in Eq. (5).
  • Formation-time delay scale C = 0.60 fm (sigma=0.3 mb), 0.50 fm (sigma=0.7 mb)
    Tuned by hand; controls the impact-parameter fall-off in Eq. (5).
  • CME exchange ceiling f_max = 7%
    Fixed by reproducing the gamma_SS correlator in 30-50% Au+Au [29,43,44]; sets the absolute normalization of all predicted CME signals through Eq. (6).
  • Parton cross section sigma = 0.3 mb and 0.7 mb
    Chosen by hand to match the expected partonic mean free path in p+A; varied as a robustness check, not fitted to the CME observable.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AMPT string-melting (HIJING initial conditions, ZPC, coalescence, ART) is an adequate dynamical description of p+Au at 200 GeV for these observables.
    The entire calculation runs inside AMPT; only v2 and the energy density are checked against data, not full particle production or the CME mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper The CME can be represented by swapping py of a fraction f of co-moving quark-antiquark pairs.
    Sec. II C and Eq. (6) introduce this surrogate; it is not derived from chiral anomaly transport equations.
  • domain assumption The 7% ceiling calibrated to Au+Au gamma_SS correctly fixes the CME strength in p+Au.
    Eq. (6) scales the ceiling by |B|/|B|max using a value from Au+Au [29,43,44]; the isobar result [24,25] leaves the CME fraction in Au+Au uncertain.
  • domain assumption Background contribution to Delta_gamma is negligible in p+Au.
    Inherited from Ref. [29] by the same authors; underlies Eq. (8) and the background-free claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Event-by-event analysis of chiral charge separation in $p^{\uparrow}+$Au collisions within an improved AMPT model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KACBZRPY

@misc{pith2026260810496,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Event-by-event analysis of chiral charge separation in $p^\uparrow+$Au collisions within an improved AMPT model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KACBZRPY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10496}
}
abstract

We study the charge separation induced by chiral magnetic effect (CME) in $p^{\uparrow}$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV event-by-event with an improved string-melting AMPT model. In this model, an impact-parameter-dependent formation-time delay is introduced to reduce the peak Bjorken energy density from $\sim$2 to $\sim$0.3 GeV/fm$^3$ and reproduces the illiptic flow $v_2(p_T)$ measured by PHENIX in $p+$Au simultaneously. The event-by-event CME source, whose quark momentum-exchange fraction scales with $|\mathbf{B}|_{\mathrm{event}}/|\mathbf{B}|_{\mathrm{max}}$ and is capped at the 7\% value from Au+Au, transmits the field geometry directly to the observable. We find that the initial correlator shows a clear scheme hierarchy tracking $B^2$. The parton cascade preserves $\sim$80--90\% of the signal, while coalescence and ART hadronic rescattering dissipate the bulk, leaving $\sim$10--30\% in the final state. The $\gamma_{OS}/\gamma_{SS}$ splitting remains visible. These results support the use of the inter-scheme difference $\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{IV}}-\Delta\gamma_{\mathrm{II}}$ as an essentially background-free CME observable as we proposed in previous work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10496 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Illustration of the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Bjorken energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Bjorken energy density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Charged-hadron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Initial-state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Initial-state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Y. Xu, C. Gao, S.-X. Zhang, and W.-T. Deng, Phys. Rev. C 112, 034904 (2025) , arXiv:2502.17232 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [25]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 105, 014901 (2022) , arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Rafelski and B

    J. Rafelski and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 517 (1976)

    1976

  4. [2]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009) , arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [3]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phys. Lett. B 710, 171 (2012), arXiv:1111.1949 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [4]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054911 (2011) , arXiv:1103.4239 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2011

  7. [5]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044907 (2012) , arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [6]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Lett. B 742, 296 (2015) , arXiv:1411.2733 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [7]

    Inghirami, L

    G. Inghirami, L. Del Zanna, A. Beraudo, M. H. Moghaddam, F. Becattini, and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 659 (2016) , arXiv:1609.03042 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Yan and X.-G

    L. Yan and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094028 (2023) , arXiv:2104.00831 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Kharzeev, R

    D. Kharzeev, R. D. Pisarski, and M. H. G. Tyt- gat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 512 (1998) , arXiv:hep- ph/9804221

    1998

  4. [10]

    Kharzeev, Phys

    D. Kharzeev, Phys. Lett. B 633, 260 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ph/0406125

    2006 arXiv

  5. [11]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A 803, 227 (2008) , arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Fukushima, D

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

    2008 arXiv

  7. [13]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 88, 1 (2016) , arXiv:1511.04050 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Liu and X.-G

    Y.-C. Liu and X.-G. Huang, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 31, 56 (2020) , arXiv:2003.12482 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [15]

    D. E. Kharzeev, Annals Phys. 325, 205 (2010) , arXiv:0911.3715 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. War- ringa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 212001 (2010) , arXiv:1002.2495 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Basar, G

    G. Basar, G. V. Dunne, and D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 232301 (2010) , arXiv:1003.3464 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [18]

    S. A. Voloshin, Nucl. Phys. A 749, 287 (2005) , arXiv:nucl-th/0410024

    2005 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Bloczynski, X.-G

    J. Bloczynski, X.-G. Huang, X. Zhang, and J. Liao, Nucl. Phys. A 939, 85 (2015) , arXiv:1311.5451 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    H.-J. Xu, X. Wang, H. Li, J. Zhao, Z.-W. Lin, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022301 (2018) , arXiv:1710.03086 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 89, 044908 (2014) , arXiv:1303.0901 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Wang and J

    F. Wang and J. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 95, 051901 (2017), arXiv:1608.06610 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [23]

    N. N. Ajitanand, R. A. Lacey, A. Taranenko, and J. M. Alexander, Phys. Rev. C 83, 011901 (2011), arXiv:1009.5624 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [24]

    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

  19. [26]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 122301 (2017) , arXiv:1610.00263 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Zhang, X.-Z

    Z.-W. Zhang, X.-Z. Cen, and W.-T. Deng, Chin. Phys. C 46, 084103 (2022) , arXiv:2108.09910 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Wu, Z.-W

    G.-Z. Wu, Z.-W. Zhang, C. Gao, Y. Xu, and W.-T. Deng, Phys. Rev. C 110, L061901 (2024) , arXiv:2408.02939 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aidala et al

    C. Aidala et al. (PHENIX), Nature Phys. 15, 214 (2019) , arXiv:1805.02973 [nucl-ex]

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. D. Orjuela Koop, A. Adare, D. McGlinchey, and J. L. Nagle, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054903 (2015) , arXiv:1501.06880 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhao, Z.-W

    X.-L. Zhao, Z.-W. Lin, Y. Zhou, C. Zhang, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 874, 140254 (2026) , arXiv:2404.09780 [nucl-th] . 14

    2026

  25. [33]

    Zhang, L

    C. Zhang, L. Zheng, S. Shi, and Z.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 104, 014908 (2021) , arXiv:2103.10815 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhang, C

    B. Zhang, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, and Z.-w. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 61, 067901 (2000) , arXiv:nucl- th/9907017

    2000

  27. [35]

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005) , arXiv:nucl-th/0411110

    2005 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wang and M

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

    1991

  29. [37]

    Gyulassy and X.-N

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

    1994

  30. [38]

    Zhang, Comput

    B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 109, 193 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9709009

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Z.-w. Lin, C. M. Ko, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 152301 (2002) , arXiv:nucl-th/0204054

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lin and C

    Z.-w. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 65, 034904 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0108039

    2002 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Li and C

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

    1995 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ma and B

    G.-L. Ma and B. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 700, 39 (2011), arXiv:1101.1701 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 251601 (2009) , arXiv:0909.1739 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 81, 054908 (2010) , arXiv:0909.1717 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Xu and C

    Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064901 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406278

    2005 arXiv

  38. [46]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 777, 86 (2018) , arXiv:1704.03648 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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