Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

For fixed impact parameter, every higher-order mixed cumulant of elliptic and triangular flow is determined, to leading order, by the mean elliptic flow in the reaction plane.

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 22:38 UTC pith:3RKZHVFL

load-bearing objection A clean leading-order framework for mixed v2–v3 cumulants that is internally consistent and generates new, testable ratio predictions — but the paper's own data comparisons are mixed and the abstract overstates the empirical support. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.09283 v3 pith:3RKZHVFL submitted 2025-11-12 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Explaining higher-order correlations between elliptic and triangular flow

Mubarak Alqahtani , Jean-Yves Ollitrault This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.Ld25.75.-q
keywords mixed harmonic cumulantselliptic flowtriangular flowflow fluctuationsreaction planeheavy-ion collisionsinitial state fluctuationscumulant ratios
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 tries to show that the higher-order correlations mixing elliptic flow and triangular flow in Pb+Pb collisions, measured as cumulants of up to eight particles, follow a simple pattern once events are viewed at fixed impact parameter. The authors argue that, to leading order in flow fluctuations, raising the order in v2 multiplies the same intrinsic cumulant by powers of the mean elliptic flow in the reaction plane, with universal numerical coefficients. This leads to parameter-free ratios such as MHC(v2^6,v3^2) / (v2{4}^2 MHC(v2^4,v3^2)) = -6 and a new set of predictions for order-10 cumulants that have not yet been measured. If correct, collisions with fine centrality binning should reproduce these constants, turning the ratios into sharp tests of the fluctuation structure of the quark-gluon plasma.

Core claim

The central claim is that the lab-frame generating function of mixed harmonic cumulants is an orientational average of an intrinsic-frame generating function, and a power-counting expansion in the fluctuation size V makes each MHC(v2^{2m}, v3^{2q}) dominated, to leading order, by \bar V2^{2m-2} times intrinsic cumulants such as c_0111. The unknown intrinsic cumulants cancel in ratios, giving exact leading-order identities: MHC(v2^6,v3^2)/(v2{4}^2 MHC(v2^4,v3^2)) = -6, MHC(v2^8,v3^2)/(v2{4}^2 MHC(v2^6,v3^2)) = -11, and a combination involving order-10 cumulants equal to 6, with explicit formulas for those unmeasured cumulants. The structure rests on independent local fluctuations and on the c

What carries the argument

The intrinsic frame (a coordinate system fixed to the reaction plane, with the impact parameter along the x-axis) plus a power-counting rule for intrinsic cumulants, c_mpqr ~ O(V^{2(m+p+q+r-1)+|m-p+3/2(q-r)|}). This reduces the large expansions of the lab-frame generating function to a few dominant terms built from \bar V2 and non-Gaussian intrinsic cumulants, which then cancel in ratios.

Load-bearing premise

All events in a centrality class share the same impact parameter; if impact parameter fluctuates within the bin, the universal ratios are no longer valid and the leading-order expansions break down.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio in Eq. (15) using centrality bins of about 1% width in Pb+Pb collisions; if it does not approach -6 within the expected few-percent accuracy, the central claim fails. A complementary check is a fixed-impact-parameter hydrodynamic simulation with fluctuating initial conditions: if it does not reproduce -6 and -11, the leading-order derivation is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • The ratio MHC(v2^6,v3^2) / (v2{4}^2 MHC(v2^4,v3^2)) should equal -6; measured values with wide centrality bins are smaller in magnitude, and the paper attributes this to bin-width effects.
  • The ratio MHC(v2^8,v3^2) / (v2{4}^2 MHC(v2^6,v3^2)) is predicted to be -11 and is directly checkable with existing analysis techniques.
  • The explicit order-10 predictions in Eq. (14) for MHC(v2^8,v3^2), MHC(v2^6,v3^4), and MHC(v2^4,v3^6) provide new tests.
  • The combination in Eq. (19), involving an order-10 and two order-8 cumulants, is predicted to equal 6 and is more robust because it does not require neglecting kurtosis terms.
  • Agreement with data should improve with finer centrality binning and larger pseudorapidity acceptance, as the paper argues.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive extension: run a fixed-impact-parameter hydrodynamic calculation and check whether the -6 and -11 ratios emerge directly from fluctuating initial conditions.
  • The same power-counting logic could be applied to cumulants involving v4 or to event-plane correlations, where nonlinear response will enter and modify the leading-order pattern.
  • If these ratios hold under fine binning, they would give model-independent probes of linear response and of the magnitude of centrality fluctuations, two quantities that are otherwise hard to separate.

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. The paper studies mixed harmonic cumulants (MHC) of elliptic and triangular flow, as measured by ALICE, using a power-counting expansion in an intrinsic frame in which the impact parameter direction is fixed. Under the assumption that all events in a centrality class share the same impact parameter, the authors argue that to leading order in the small parameter V — the typical magnitude of flow fluctuations — increasing the order in v2 at fixed v3 changes the cumulants only through powers of the mean reaction-plane elliptic flow \bar V2. This yields parameter-free ratio predictions, most notably Eqs. (15), (16), and (19), plus approximate relations Eqs. (17), (18), and (20). The paper compares these relations with ALICE Pb+Pb data and finds rough agreement for some ratios, while acknowledging systematic discrepancies. The authors attribute the discrepancies to wide centrality bins and predict improvement with finer binning, but provide no fine-bin test or quantitative estimate of the centrality-fluctuation effect.

Significance. If the leading-order relations are correct, the paper provides a genuinely novel and elegant organizing principle for a complex set of observables: the mixed cumulants of v2 and v3 are not independent but linked through a single parameter, the reaction-plane elliptic flow. The central derivations appear algebraically consistent and the clean predictions are parameter-free and falsifiable. In particular, Eqs. (15), (16), and (19) are strong, testable statements that go beyond existing analyses. The paper also makes new order-10 predictions. However, the empirical validation is only partial: the data used are from wide ALICE centrality bins, the paper itself notes that classical impact-parameter fluctuations spoil the underlying assumption, and no quantitative account of this violation is given. The abstract overstates the agreement with CMS data that do not appear in the body. Overall, the theoretical core is significant, but the empirical support is conditional and needs to be either strengthened or appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The arXiv abstract states that the derived relations are 'in good agreement with recent data from the CMS Collaboration,' but the manuscript's body compares exclusively with ALICE data (Ref. [29]) in Figs. 4 and 5 and cites no CMS measurement of the mixed cumulants. The full-text abstract is more modest, saying only 'some of these relations are in reasonable agreement with existing data.' This is a material overclaim. The abstract should be corrected to match the actual data comparisons, or CMS data should be added.
  2. [Sec. III B and Sec. V (Figs. 4-5)] The central predictions (15), (16), and (19) are derived under the explicit Sec. III B assumption that 'all events in a centrality class have the same impact parameter.' The ALICE data used for validation are in wide centrality bins, and the paper itself states that 'classical fluctuations of impact parameter spoil this simplicity' and that 'it is therefore essential to work with fine centrality bins.' No quantitative estimate of the centrality-fluctuation correction is given, and no fine-bin test is performed. The measured ratios in Fig. 4 are systematically smaller in magnitude than the predicted -6 and -2, with deviations far exceeding the claimed percent-level accuracy. Thus the empirical support for the paper's central claim—that increasing the v2 order at fixed v3 order is governed solely by \bar V2—is not yet established. The authors should either provide a fine-bin analysis or an
  3. [Sec. V, Eqs. (18) and (20)] The approximations leading to Eqs. (18) and (20) are not controlled. For Eq. (18), the superkurtosis c1122 is neglected even though, by the paper's own power-counting Eq. (10), it is of the same nominal order in V as the terms retained in the relevant linear combination (all are O(V^{10})). No numerical argument analogous to the cited smallness of c1111 is provided. For Eq. (20), the paper itself concludes that 'there is no regime where the term involving c0133 is negligible with respect to the first term,' which directly undermines the derivation of Eq. (20). These two relations should be presented as order-of-magnitude estimates rather than as quantitative predictions, and the figures should be revised to make this distinction clear.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V (after Eq. 16)] The text says 'Neglecting c0011' where the intended quantity is clearly c1111, the kurtosis appearing in Eq. (12). Please correct this typo.
  2. [Conclusions] 'predicions' should be 'predictions.'
  3. [Throughout] There are occasional spacing issues in 'M HC' and 'the kurtosisc'; a proofreading pass would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix A] The statement 'v2{4}=v2{6}=\bar V2' should explicitly remind the reader that this holds only to leading order in the V expansion, as is done informally later in the same paragraph.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: exact leading-order ratio predictions cancel all unknown intrinsic cumulants; only a minor approximate step leans on a prior self-citation.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. V, Eq. (17) and surrounding text]
    "we have shown in a previous paper that the kurtosisc 1111 is significantly smaller in practice, except for central collisions [36] ... Neglectingc 1111, we obtain: MHC(v4_2, v2_3)/(v2{4}^2 MHC(v2_2, v2_3)) ≈ -2."

    The approximate relation (17) is obtained by neglecting the intrinsic kurtosis c_{1111} on the basis of the authors' own prior paper [36]. This is a self-citation supplying an empirical magnitude assumption. It is not a definitional reduction, and the exact leading-order relations (15), (16), and (19) do not rely on this assumption, so the central claim remains independent.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation is self-contained. The leading-order expressions in Eqs. (13)-(14) are obtained from a stated power-counting expansion in the intrinsic frame, and the clean ratio predictions (15), (16), and (19) are derived by algebraically eliminating the unknown intrinsic cumulants (c_{0111}, c_{0122}, etc.). No parameter is fitted to the target ratios; v2{4} is an external measured quantity used only as a proxy for \bar V2, and the predicted constants do not depend on its value. The only reliance on prior work by the same authors is the empirical assertion that the intrinsic kurtosis c_{1111} is small, which affects only the approximate relations (17), (18), and (20) and is explicitly acknowledged as approximate. Data deviations are reported and attributed to wide centrality bins, which is a correctness/interpretation issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central ratios (15), (16), (19) are parameter-free; no constant is fitted to the data used for comparison. The approximate relations (17), (18), (20) depend on unproven hierarchies among intrinsic cumulants, which are the paper's effective free assumptions.

axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Nonflow correlations are negligible in the measured cumulants.
    Sec. I: 'we assume that nonflow correlations are negligible'; if false, the measured MHCs mix jet/other correlations with flow, invalidating the data comparison.
  • domain assumption All events in a centrality class have the same impact parameter.
    Sec. III B: 'we assume that all events in a centrality class have the same impact parameter'; load-bearing for the intrinsic-frame scaling and blamed for data discrepancies.
  • domain assumption Linear hydrodynamic response: V2 and V3 are proportional to initial eccentricities ε2 and ε3.
    Sec. I: 'Relativistic hydrodynamics predicts that they are approximately proportional'; conclusions acknowledge deviations above 30% centrality.
  • domain assumption Flow fluctuations arise from a large number N of independent local fluctuations, giving N^{1-k} scaling of k-th order cumulants.
    Sec. III B: used to assign powers of V to each cumulant; central to the leading-order truncation.
  • domain assumption Mildly broken azimuthal symmetry: \bar V2 is of the same order as the fluctuation scale V.
    Sec. III B: 'we assume that \bar V2 is also of order V'; bookkeeping assumption that lets v2 and v3 be treated on equal footing.
  • ad hoc to paper The kurtosis c1111 is negligible relative to \bar V2 c0111 for non-central collisions.
    Used to obtain Eq. (17); based on prior Ref. [36], not derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The superkurtosis c1122 is negligible in Eq. (18), although it is nominally the same order as kept terms.
    Sec. V: needed for Eq. (18); later acknowledged to be quantitatively wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper c0133 and c1133 are negligible in Eq. (20).
    Sec. V: authors state 'there is no regime where the term involving c0133 is negligible', so Eq. (20) is only an order-of-magnitude estimate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13448 in / 15173 out tokens · 149329 ms · 2026-08-03T22:38:43.089788+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The ALICE and CMS Collaborations have analyzed a number of cumulants mixing elliptic flow ($v_2$) and triangular flow ($v_3$), involving up to $8$ particles, in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC. We unravel an unexpected simplicity in these complex mathematical quantities for collisions at fixed impact parameter. We show that as one increases the order in $v_2$, for a given order in $v_3$, the changes in the cumulants are solely determined by the mean elliptic flow in the reaction plane, which originates from the almond-shaped geometry of the overlap area between the colliding nuclei. We derive simple analytic relations between cumulants of different orders on this basis. These relations are in good agreement with recent data from the CMS Collaboration. We argue that agreement will be further improved if the analysis is repeated with a finer centrality binning. We make quantitative predictions for cumulants of order 10 which have not yet been analyzed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.09283 by Jean-Yves Ollitrault, Mubarak Alqahtani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparison between ALICE [29] and ATLAS [35] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic representation of two collision events with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mixed harmonic cumulants as a function of central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratios in Eqs. (15) and (17). Symbols are ALICE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 4 for the ratios Eqs. (18) and (20). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: As in Fig. 4, the ratio is smaller than our predic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Rapidity-even Dipolar Flow in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    GMC-suppressed rapidity-even dipolar flow correlations in AMPT and HIJING at 200 GeV show sensitivity to partonic transport and initial-state eccentricity correlations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 69 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adleret al.[STAR], Phys

    C. Adleret al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. C66(2002), 034904 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  2. [2]

    The lowest-order mixed cumulant corre- sponds tom=q= 1

    =c 2{2m} M HC(v0 2, v2q 3 ) =c 3{2q}.(3) The mixed cumulants are those for which bothmand qare positive. The lowest-order mixed cumulant corre- sponds tom=q= 1. Expanding the left-hand side of Eq. (2) to orderλλ ∗µµ∗, one obtains its expression in terms of moments: M HC(v2 2, v2

  3. [3]

    intrinsic

    Our goal is to extend this study to higher-order cumulants, of 6 and 8 particles, which have subsequently been measured [29]. Throughout this paper, we assume that nonflow corre- lations are negligible, so that particles in each event are emitted independently according to an underlying prob- ability distribution [37, 38]. LetP(φ) denote the az- imuthal d...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    cumulants

    =⟨v 2 2v2 3⟩ − ⟨v2 2⟩⟨v2 3⟩.(4) It was measured by ALICE in 2016 in Ref. [34], where it was namedSC(3,2). Higher-order cumulants with (m, q) = (2,1),(3,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3) were subse- quently measured in Ref. [29], where their expressions in terms of moments are provided. Deriving these expres- sions is straightforward using Eq. (2). We do not repeat the...

    2016

  5. [5]

    ATLAS denotes this quantity bynsc 2,3{4}

    in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV per nucleon pair, as a function of the collision centrality. ATLAS denotes this quantity bynsc 2,3{4}. ALICE normalizes the cumulants as follows: nM HC(v2m 2 , v2q 3 )≡ M HC(v2m 2 , v2q 3 ) ⟨v2m 2 ⟩⟨v2q 3 ⟩ .(5) This normalization suppresses the sensitivity to kine- matic cuts, and also provides an intuitive, dimension- les...

  6. [6]

    is displayed in Fig. 1. There are sizable differences between the two ex- periments, whose origin is unknown. One possible expla- nation is the wider centrality bins used by ALICE. How- ever, one would typically expect wider bins to increase the value ofnM HC(v2 2, v2

  7. [7]

    Interestingly, ATLAS observes a variation ofnM HC(v2 2, v2

    [49], and ALICE is below AT- LAS for most centralities. Interestingly, ATLAS observes a variation ofnM HC(v2 2, v2

  8. [8]

    going in the same direction as ALICE (down for centralities<40%, up for central- ities>40%) when only particles withp T >2 GeV/c are included. Since these high-p T particles are likely to have sizable nonflow correlations from jet production, it is tempting to postulate that the difference between AT- LAS and ALICE may be due to larger nonflow effects in ...

  9. [9]

    3 precise than ALICE results, and we will take this as an excuse for not understanding precisely the ALICE results on higher-order cumulants in Sec

    reaches 1 in peripheral collisions [29, 35], which is a natural consequence of the non-linear coupling betweenv 2 andv 4 [48]. 3 precise than ALICE results, and we will take this as an excuse for not understanding precisely the ALICE results on higher-order cumulants in Sec. V. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Centrality [%] 10 15 10 13 10 11 10 9 10 7 MHC(v2 2, v2 3)...

  10. [10]

    intrinsic frame

    are positive for the most cen- tral bins, and the three corresponding data points are circled. For our analysis, we will need the un-normalized cu- mulantsM HC(v2m 2 , v2q 3 ). In order to compute them, we evaluate the moments appearing in the denominator of Eq. (5) using standard formulas which are recalled in Ap- pendix A. Results are displayed in Fig. ...

    2000

  11. [11]

    (4) is of order V 4, while the difference is of orderV 6, i.e., much smaller

    =c 1111, each of the moments in the right-hand side of Eq. (4) is of order V 4, while the difference is of orderV 6, i.e., much smaller. This systematic expansion scheme will allow us to single out the dominant contributions to each of the MHCs. IV. RELA TIONS BETWEEN EXPERIMENT AL CUMULANTS AND INTRINSIC CUMULANTS We now relate the two sets of cumulants ...

  12. [12]

    (7) and used the symmetryc mpqr =c pmrq

    =c 1000c0111 +c 0100c1011 +c 1111 = 2 ¯V2c0111 +c 1111 (12) where, in the last equality, we have introduced ¯V2 de- fined by Eq. (7) and used the symmetryc mpqr =c pmrq. For central collisions, ¯V2 = 0 andM HC(v2 2, v2

  13. [13]

    coincides withc 1111, which is of orderV 6 as explained at the end of Sec. III B. For non-central collisions, the first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (12) differs from zero, but is also of orderV 6 according to Eq. (10). We now list the expressions of the higher-order cumu- lants measured by ALICE [29], which we truncate by keeping only the leading t...

  14. [14]

    =−4 ¯V 3 2 c0111 M HC(v6 2, v2

  15. [15]

    = 24 ¯V 5 2 c0111 M HC(v2 2, v4

  16. [16]

    = 2(2c 2 0111 + ¯V2 c0122) +c 1122 M HC(v4 2, v4

  17. [17]

    =−4 ¯V 2 2 (6c2 0111 + ¯V2c0122) M HC(v2 2, v6

  18. [18]

    More generally,M HC(v 2m 2 , v2q 3 ) is of orderV 2m+4q

    = 2(9c0111c0122 + ¯V2c0133) +c 1133.(13) They are respectively of orderV 8,V 10,V 10,V 12,V 14. More generally,M HC(v 2m 2 , v2q 3 ) is of orderV 2m+4q. These orders of magnitude are reflected in the hierar- chy observed in Fig. 2. In particular, they explain why M HC(v6 2, v2

  19. [19]

    Sincev 2 andv 3 are both of orderV, the normalized symmetric cumulant (5) is of orderV 2q

    are of comparable mag- nitude, despite being cumulants of different orders (8 and 6 respectively). Sincev 2 andv 3 are both of orderV, the normalized symmetric cumulant (5) is of orderV 2q. This explains why the magnitude ofnM HC(v2m 2 , v2q 3 ) de- creases strongly asqincreases, as pointed out in Sec. II. We finally provide leading-order expressions for ...

  20. [20]

    =−264 ¯V 7 2 c0111 M HC(v6 2, v4

  21. [21]

    = 24 ¯V 4 2 (10c 2 0111 + ¯V2 c0122) M HC(v4 2, v6

  22. [22]

    =−144 ¯V2 c3 0111 −4 ¯V 2 2 (27c0111c0122 + ¯V2c0133).(14) A first comment on the expressions (12), (13) and (14) is that they only involve the mean elliptic flow in the reac- tion plane, ¯V2, and mixed cumulants of order≥3, which quantify non-Gaussian fluctuations. A second remark is that for a given value ofq,M HC(v 2 2, v2q 3 ) contains more terms than...

  23. [23]

    / (v2{4}2 MHC(v2 2, v2 3)) MHC(v6 2, v2

  24. [24]

    / (v2{4}2 MHC(v4 2, v2 3)) FIG. 4. Ratios in Eqs. (15) and (17). Symbols are ALICE data, where the mixed cumulants are taken from Ref. [29] and v2{4}from Ref. [50], as a function of the collision centrality in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV per nucleon pair. Horizontal lines are our theory predictions. Eqs. (12), (13) and (14) show that to leading order, th...

  25. [25]

    =−6.(15) This prediction is tested against ALICE data in Fig. 4. The experimental ratio in the left-hand side is in rough agreement with the predicted value in the right-hand side, but somewhat smaller in absolute magnitude. Similarly, using Eqs. (13) and (14), we predict: M HC(v8 2, v2 3) v2{4}2M HC(v6 2, v2

  26. [26]

    =−11.(16) This could easily be checked experimentally, as increasing the order inv 2 does not significantly increase errors. Eqs. (15) and (16) are rigorous mathematical results to leading order inV. They generalize the well-known iden- titiesv 2{4}=v 2{6}=v 2{8}(Appendix A) to mixed cumulants. We therefore expect that their accuracy is comparable, at the...

  27. [27]

    superskewness

    ≈ −2.(17) This prediction is also in fair agreement with data, as shown in Fig. 4. The experimental ratio is again system- atically smaller than our prediction in absolute magni- tude. We now move on to the cumulants involvingv 4 3, third and fourth lines of Eq. (13). They involve the mixed skewnessc 0111, and also new, higher-order cumulants: a mixed “su...

  28. [28]

    + 2v2{4}2M HC(v2 2, v4 3) M HC(v2 2, v2 3)2 ≈ −4.(18) Comparison with ALICE data is displayed in Fig. 5. The agreement with our prediction is much worse than in Fig. 4. As in Fig. 4, the ratio is smaller than our predic- tion in absolute magnitude. It decreases monotonically 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Centrality [%] 6 4 2 0 2 4 Eq. 18 Eq. 20 FIG. 5. Same as Fig....

  29. [29]

    (18) is one need not neglect c1111 andc 1122, which do not enter the leading-order ex- pressions of the cumulants involved in Eq

    + 6v2{4}4M HC(v4 2, v4 3) M HC(v4 2, v2 3)2 = 6.(19) The advantage over Eq. (18) is one need not neglect c1111 andc 1122, which do not enter the leading-order ex- pressions of the cumulants involved in Eq. (19). Like Eqs. (15) and (16), Eq. (19) is a rigorous leading-order result, and we expect that it should be fairly accurate with a fine centrality binn...

  30. [30]

    (20) Agreement with data, displayed in Fig

    + 6v2{4}2M HC(v2 2, v4 3)) ≈ 18 16 . (20) Agreement with data, displayed in Fig. 5, is even worse than for Eq. (18). Unlike what was observed with the previous ratios, the left-hand side is not smaller than the right-hand side for all centralities. This is not surprising, as there is no regime where the term involvingc 0133 is negligible with respect to t...

  31. [31]

    Altet al.[NA49], Phys

    C. Altet al.[NA49], Phys. Rev. C68(2003), 034903 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0303001 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  33. [33]

    Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Phys

    K. Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011), 032301 [arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. C87(2013) no.1, 014902 [arXiv:1204.1409 [nucl-ex]]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [35]

    Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. C89(2014) no.4, 044906 [arXiv:1310.8651 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) no.11, 3157 [arXiv:1408.4342 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) no.22, 222301 [arXiv:1505.07812 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Lett. B784(2018), 82-95 [arXiv:1805.01832 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C63(2001), 054906 [arXiv:nucl-th/0007063 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  40. [40]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C64(2001), 054901 [arXiv:nucl-th/0105040 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D46(1992), 229-245

    1992

  42. [42]

    P. M. Dinh, N. Borghini and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B477(2000), 51-58 [arXiv:nucl-th/9912013 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  43. [43]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C62(2000), 034902 [arXiv:nucl-th/0004026 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  44. [44]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V. Koch and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C83(2011), 014905 [arXiv:1008.4919 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  45. [45]

    Y. Feng, J. Zhao, H. Li, H. j. Xu and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. C105(2022) no.2, 024913 [arXiv:2106.15595 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and K. L. Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. A708 (2002), 413-434 [arXiv:hep-ph/0203213 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  47. [47]

    Connors, C

    M. Connors, C. Nattrass, R. Reed and S. Salur, Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018), 025005 [arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl- ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Miller and R

    M. Miller and R. Snellings, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0312008 [nucl- ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Andrade, F

    R. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, T. Kodama and O. Socolowski, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006), 202302 [arXiv:nucl-th/0608067 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    Alveret al.[PHOBOS], Phys

    B. Alveret al.[PHOBOS], Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007), 242302 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0610037 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Alver and G

    B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C81(2010), 054905 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C82(2010), 039903] [arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP11(2013), 183 [arXiv:1305.2942 [hep-ex]]

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP11(2013), 183 [arXiv:1305.2942 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], JHEP07(2018), 103 [arXiv:1804.02944 [nucl-ex]]

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], JHEP07(2018), 103 [arXiv:1804.02944 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    Retinskaya, M

    E. Retinskaya, M. Luzum and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C89(2014) no.1, 014902 [arXiv:1311.5339 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C92(2015) no.1, 011901 [arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Everettet al.[JETSCAPE], Phys

    D. Everettet al.[JETSCAPE], Phys. Rev. C103(2021) no.5, 054904 [arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Lett. B818(2021), 136354 [arXiv:2102.12180 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Niemi, G

    H. Niemi, G. S. Denicol, H. Holopainen and P. Huovinen, Phys. Rev. C87(2013) no.5, 054901 [arXiv:1212.1008 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    Borghini and J

    N. Borghini and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. B642 (2006), 227-231 [arXiv:nucl-th/0506045 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  61. [61]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C85(2012), 024908 [arXiv:1111.6538 [nucl- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Bilandzic, C

    A. Bilandzic, C. H. Christensen, K. Gulbrandsen, A. Hansen and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C89(2014) no.6, 064904 [arXiv:1312.3572 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  63. [63]

    Adamet al.[ALICE], Phys

    J. Adamet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016), 182301 [arXiv:1604.07663 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], JHEP01(2020), 051 [arXiv:1904.04808 [nucl-ex]]

    M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS], JHEP01(2020), 051 [arXiv:1904.04808 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Alqahtani and J

    M. Alqahtani and J. Y. Ollitrault, [arXiv:2507.20315 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  66. [66]

    Luzum, J

    M. Luzum, J. Phys. G38(2011), 124026 [arXiv:1107.0592 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  67. [67]

    J. Y. Ollitrault, Eur. Phys. J. A59(2023) no.10, 236 [arXiv:2308.11674 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Luzum and H

    M. Luzum and H. Petersen, J. Phys. G41(2014), 063102 [arXiv:1312.5503 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Roubertie, M

    E. Roubertie, M. Verdan, A. Kirchner and J. Y. Ol- litrault, Phys. Rev. C111(2025) no.6, 064906 [arXiv:2503.17035 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    R. S. Bhalerao, M. Luzum and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C84(2011), 034910 [arXiv:1104.4740 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [71]

    R. S. Bhalerao, J. Y. Ollitrault and S. Pal, Phys. Lett. B 742(2015), 94-98 [arXiv:1411.5160 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    Bilandzic, R

    A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83(2011), 044913 [arXiv:1010.0233 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [73]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. C108(2023) no.5, 055203 [arXiv:2303.13414 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    S. F. Taghavi, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no.7, 652 [arXiv:2005.04742 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Mehrabpour, Phys

    H. Mehrabpour, Phys. Rev. C102(2020), 064907 [arXiv:2006.16019 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Rev. C90(2014) no.2, 024905 [arXiv:1403.0489 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [77]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C86(2012), 044908 [arXiv:1206.1905 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [78]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum and J. Noronha- Hostler, Phys. Rev. C95(2017) no.3, 034901 [arXiv:1608.02982 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Adamet al.[ALICE], Phys

    J. Adamet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) no.13, 132302 [arXiv:1602.01119 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    Alqahtani, R

    M. Alqahtani, R. S. Bhalerao, G. Giacalone, A. Kirch- ner and J. Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C110(2024) no.6, 064906 [arXiv:2407.17308 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.