Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Higher-order collective flow in ultra-central U+U collisions can isolate the sign of the intrinsic hexadecapole deformation β4, turning heavy-ion collisions into a probe of nuclear multipole structure beyond the quadrupole shape.

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

2026-08-01 14:28 UTC pith:HG5ACAG3

load-bearing objection A clean forward-model result with a genuinely new observable — ξ6,222 separates the four (β2, β4) topologies — but error bars, a model variation, and tempered framing are needed before the 'experimentally accessible' claim lands. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18752 v1 pith:HG5ACAG3 submitted 2026-07-21 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

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

Hadi Mehrabpour , Zahra Sheibani , Li Yan , Chunjian Zhang , Abolfazl Mirjalili This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.Ld21.10.Ky
keywords hexadecapole deformationcollective flownonlinear mode couplingheavy-ion collisionsquark-gluon plasmaflow harmonicsnuclear shapesbeta4 sign
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.

The paper sets out to show that the sign of the intrinsic hexadecapole deformation β4, a stubbornly uncertain property of heavy nuclei, leaves a distinguishable imprint on the anisotropic collective flow produced in ultra-central uranium-uranium collisions. It argues that this information is carried to the final state through two separate channels: the fourth-order harmonic v4 picks up most of its topology dependence through the linear response to the initial geometry, while the sixth-order harmonic v6 receives almost all of its sensitivity through nonlinear mode coupling, specifically via the coefficient ξ6,222. Because that coefficient separates prolate from oblate, and waisted from barrel-like, nuclear topologies by more than 3σ over the explored β4 range, the paper claims the sign of β4 becomes an experimentally accessible test of the common scaling assumption β4 ∝ β2². A reader should care because it would turn relativistic heavy-ion collisions into a direct probe of nuclear multipole structure beyond the familiar quadrupole shape.

Core claim

The central claim is that the sign of β4 survives the quark-gluon plasma expansion and is amplified through nonlinear hydrodynamic response. Using a linear/nonlinear decomposition of flow harmonics, the paper shows that the fourth-order harmonic's topological splitting originates predominantly from the linear response term V4L ∝ E4 + ..., where the initial fourth-order eccentricity already carries independent hexadecapole information; the sixth-order harmonic, by contrast, is barely sensitive to β4 in its linear part, with nearly the entire splitting arising from the nonlinear term ξ6,222 V2³. The authors substantiate this by fitting a third-order polynomial in β2 and β4 to their simulated o

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decomposition of the flow harmonics into linear and nonlinear response terms: V4 = V4L + ξ4,22 V2² and V6 = V6L + ξ6,222 V2³ + ξ6,33 V3² + ξ6,24 V2 V4L, together with the normalized nonlinear response coefficient ξ6,222 = ⟨v2³ v6 cos(6Ψ6 - 6Ψ2)⟩ / ⟨|V2|⁶⟩. This coefficient quantifies the strength of mode coupling from the elliptic flow into the sixth harmonic and is the observable that cleanly splits the four intrinsic nuclear topologies. The analysis is anchored by a polynomial expansion of observables in β2 and β4, truncated at cubic order, which isolates the odd-power terms β4³ and mixed β2²β4 responsible for sign sensitivity. Events are generated with a def

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rely on the assumption that taking ratios of U+U to Au+Au observables cancels final-state hydrodynamic and transport effects, so that the simulated topology splittings survive unchanged in real measurements; if these effects do not cancel, or if the nonlinear coefficients are sensitive to viscosity, the equation of state, or the density profile, the clean separation of the four nuclear topologies could be distorted.

What would settle it

A measurement of ξ6,222 in ultra-central U+U collisions at 193 GeV that fails to show the predicted monotonic separation between prolate and oblate branches (more than 3σ across β4 = -0.10 to 0.10, reaching ~5σ at |β4|=0.10) would falsify the claim. Similarly, a hydrodynamic simulation with different transport parameters showing the prolate/oblate ordering reversed or washed out would rule out the universality of the prediction.

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

If this is right

  • If the predicted splitting of ξ6,222 is observed experimentally, the sign of β4 becomes a measurable quantity rather than a model input, constraining nuclear structure calculations for uranium and neighboring actinides.
  • A measurement of v4{2} showing roughly 25% difference between positive and negative β4 at |β4|=0.10 would provide a complementary, nearly 5-sigma test of the β2–β4 correlation.
  • The framework can be extended to other deformed nuclei (154Sm, 150Nd, 168Er, 176Yb, 208Pb, 232Th) with predicted hexadecapole deformations, turning higher-order flow into a general probe of nuclear multipole structure.
  • The finding that nonlinear mode coupling amplifies subtle geometric information implies that even higher harmonics (v5, v7) may carry similarly clean signatures of exotic nuclear shapes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test: repeat the calculation with a different initial-state model (e.g., energy density functional based densities) to verify that the ξ6,222 splitting is robust; if the splitting shifts, the ratio construction's assumptions need revisiting before quantitative β4 extraction.
  • The linear/nonlinear decomposition could be applied to octupole deformation (β3), where similar parity arguments suggest the sign might be isolated in odd harmonics.
  • A Bayesian joint analysis of v2, v4, v6 and ξ6,222 could extract both β2 and β4 simultaneously, potentially removing degeneracies in existing nuclear structure fits.
  • If experiments measure ξ6,222 and find no separation, that would indicate a failure of the ratio method to cancel final-state effects, rather than necessarily absence of β4 information.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses event-by-event viscous hydrodynamic simulations (iEBE-VISHNU with MC-Glauber initial conditions, η/s=0.08, UrQMD afterburner) of ultra-central 238U+238U collisions at √sNN=193 GeV, with Au+Au at 200 GeV as a reference, to study whether higher-order collective flow can isolate the sign of the hexadecapole deformation β4 and test the approximate scaling β4 ∝ β2². The authors vary β2 = ±0.28 and β4 in [-0.10,0.10], decomposing v4 and v6 into linear and nonlinear response components, and compute ratios of flow harmonics and nonlinear response coefficients ξ4,22 and ξ6,222 between U+U and Au+Au. They report that v4 acquires its topology dependence mainly through linear response, whereas v6 sensitivity is dominated by nonlinear mode coupling, and that ξ6,222 cleanly separates the four (β2,β4) intrinsic nuclear topologies with formal significances reaching 3σ–5σ. A polynomial expansion in β2,β4 (Eq. 3, truncated at cubic order) is used to attribute the splittings to specific odd and mixed deformation terms.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper would establish a genuinely new experimental observable — the nonlinear response coefficient ξ6,222 — for determining the sign of β4 in heavy nuclei, addressing a longstanding nuclear-structure question. The work is a forward-model study: β4 is a simulation input, not a fit parameter, and the reported splittings are direct outputs of event-by-event hydrodynamics, which is a methodological strength. The decomposition of flow into linear and nonlinear components and the polynomial interpretation provide useful physical insight into how initial geometry information is transported by the QGP. However, the significance claims are not backed by propagated uncertainties, the robustness of the result to transport parameters and to the U/Au ratio construction is untested, and the normalization of ξ6,222 introduces a possible degeneracy with v2. These issues limit the current support for the headline 'experimentally accessible signature' claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and discussions, Figs. 2–3] The paper quotes quantitative significances (approximately 2σ, 3σ, 5σ) for topology separations, but no error bars, no definition of σ, and no error-propagation formula are given anywhere in the manuscript or supplementary materials. Because the main claim that ξ6,222 'cleanly separates' the four topologies rests on these significances, the authors should either provide statistical uncertainties (e.g., from the 50k events and oversampling) or remove the σ statements. Without this, the >3σ separation is not independently checkable.
  2. [Model setup; appeal to Ref. [73]] The entire experimental transferability rests on the assumption that the U+U/Au+Au ratio cancels final-state interactions and transport effects. Ref. [73] demonstrated such cancellation for isobar collisions with nearly identical mass and energy; here U+U and Au+Au differ in mass, collision energy (193 vs 200 GeV), and multiplicity, and the cancellation is asserted, not tested. Since the central claim is an experimentally accessible signature, the authors should show at least one variation of η/s (and ideally EOS or initial-condition scheme) to demonstrate that the topological ordering and approximate splittings in R(ξ6,222) are robust. A single-model prediction with untested parameter sensitivity is insufficient to support the stated conclusion.
  3. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 4(a)] ξ6,222 is defined as ⟨v2³v6 cos(6Ψ6−6Ψ2)⟩/⟨|V2|⁶⟩. Fig. 4(a) shows that v2{2}² itself varies by 5–11% across the four topologies. Therefore the reported splitting of R(ξ6,222) could partly be a reflection of the β4 dependence of the denominator ⟨|V2|⁶⟩ rather than a robust property of the nonlinear coupling. The authors should present the unnormalized numerator of ξ6,222 (or the ratio with the denominator variation factored out) to demonstrate that the topology separation originates in the mode-coupling itself. This is load-bearing for the interpretation of Fig. 3(b).
  4. [Eq. (3) and Supplementary Table I] The polynomial expansion is truncated at cubic order, and the supplementary text states that higher-order terms are 'numerically negligible,' but no evidence or convergence test is provided. The fitted coefficients αij are then used to attribute causal mechanisms (e.g., 'β2²β4 contribution is responsible for ...'). Without checking quartic-order terms or reporting fit residuals, the identification of the microscopic origin of the splittings is not fully supported. This is a lesser but still load-bearing point for the interpretive layer of the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] Typographical issues: 'On time scales of order10−23 s, The intrinsic multipole structure' has an extra comma and a capital 'T' after the comma; please fix.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The labels 'V4 L' and 'V6 L w /V4 L' / 'V6 L w /o V4 L' are not defined in the caption and are confusing. Please spell out the decomposition used and define 'w/' and 'w/o'.
  3. [References] Refs. [13] and [15] are the same FRDM(2012) paper and are cited twice with different formatting; please merge. Also check Ref. [4] for completeness of author list.
  4. [Supplementary Materials, Eq. (10)] The decomposition for v2{2}² in Eq. (10) includes α1,2 β2 β4², but the text says 'the mixed linear term β2β4 is approximately consistent with zero' — clarify whether β2β4 terms are omitted from all fits and why α1,2 is retained only for v2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the β4 scan is a forward model calculation, and the polynomial fit is labeled as a fit.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a forward calculation: β2 and β4 are scanned input parameters of the deformed Woods-Saxon density (Eq. 4), and the flow harmonics, cumulants, and nonlinear response coefficients (Eqs. 6-7) are outputs of event-by-event iEBE-VISHNU simulations. There is no step in which a fitted quantity is dressed as a prediction. The polynomial expansion in Eq. (3) is explicitly introduced as an interpretive tool, and the Supplementary Material states: 'The coefficients αi,j are extracted by fitting Eq. (3) to the observables shown by the dashed curves in Fig. 4.' Thus the expansion is presented as a fit, not as a derivation of the simulated splittings. The decomposition in Eq. (2) is the standard linear-plus-nonlinear response decomposition; computing ξ6,222 from simulated Vn does not define the topology separation into existence, and the reported 3σ-5σ separations are numerical outcomes rather than identities. The ratio construction is supported by Ref. [73], an external published study, and although the lead author of Ref. [73] overlaps with the present paper, the cited work is a separate and testable result rather than an unverified self-citation chain that asserts the present conclusion. Other self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing. Concerns about sensitivity to η/s, the equation of state, or the U/Au cancellation assumption are robustness/correctness risks, not circularity: they do not show that any observable reduces by construction to its inputs. Similarly, the absence of quoted coefficient uncertainties affects checkability but does not make the derivation circular. Overall, the central claim is a self-contained hydrodynamic prediction with no definitional or fitted-input circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The central claim rests entirely on a forward-model simulation: β2 and β4 are inputs, flow observables are outputs. The main ledger items are the model choices (one hydrodynamic setup, Woods-Saxon parameterization) and the fitted polynomial expansion used for interpretation. The expansion coefficients and η/s are the numbers the interpretive claims lean on.

free parameters (2)
  • αij polynomial expansion coefficients = not tabulated numerically; signs quoted (e.g., α0,3 > 0 for v6; α2,1 < 0 and α0,3 < 0 for v4)
    Eq. (3), truncated at i+j ≤ 3, is fitted to the simulation observables (Fig. 4 dashed curves, Table I). These coefficients are the interpretive basis for attributing the splitting to β4³, β2²β4, etc.
  • η/s (shear viscosity to entropy density) = 0.08
    Chosen from prior calibration, not varied. Controls the strength of the nonlinear mode coupling and hence the magnitude of the ξ6,222 separation; only a single value is used.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Deformed Woods-Saxon density with independently varied β2 and β4 (Eq. 4) captures the ²³⁸U intrinsic shape relevant for ultra-central collisions
    The entire topology scan (Fig. 1) is generated from this parameterization; realistic EDF densities may have different surface correlations, which are not tested here.
  • domain assumption The linear/nonlinear flow decomposition of Eq. (2) and the coefficient definitions of Eqs. (6)-(7) are valid for these collisions
    Borrowed from Refs. [64-65]; the attribution of v6's sign sensitivity to nonlinear mode coupling rests entirely on this decomposition.
  • domain assumption The U+U / Au+Au ratio cancels final-state and transport effects, leaving geometry
    Invoked at the start of Results ('the ratio construction suppresses the common hydrodynamic response and transport effects [73]'); if the cancellation is imperfect, the interpretation of the splittings as nuclear-geometry signals weakens.
  • domain assumption iEBE-VISHNU with MC Glauber initial conditions and η/s = 0.08 approximates the QGP response
    A single model realization; no systematic variation over transport parameters or initial-condition schemes is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncation of Eq. (3) at cubic order; higher-order terms are negligible
    Justified only by the visual quality of the dashed-curve fits in Fig. 4; no quantitative convergence test is shown, and β2⁴ = 0.0061 is not obviously small relative to β4³ = 0.001.
  • domain assumption β4 sign maps to waisted/barrel longitudinal profile (Refs. [5-7])
    Standard nuclear-structure mapping used to define the four topologies in Fig. 1.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13842 in / 24416 out tokens · 194332 ms · 2026-08-01T14:28:23.335915+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Determining the role of intrinsic hexadecapole deformation ($\beta_4$) in nuclear structure remains a long-standing challenge. Relativistic heavy-ion collisions provide a unique opportunity to address this problem by converting the initial nuclear geometry into the collective motion of the quark--gluon plasma (QGP). Using event-by-event viscous hydrodynamic simulations of ultra-central $^{238}$U+$^{238}$U collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=193$ GeV, we investigate whether higher-order collective flow can isolate the contribution of $\beta_4$ and test the $\beta_2-\beta_4$ correlation. We demonstrate that information carried by the sign of $\beta_4$ survives the QGP evolution and is enhanced through nonlinear hydrodynamic response: the fourth-order flow harmonic acquires its topology dependence predominantly from the linear response, whereas the sensitivity of the sixth-order harmonic originates almost entirely from nonlinear mode coupling. As a consequence, the nonlinear response coefficient $\xi_{6,222}$ cleanly separates the $(\beta_2,\beta_4)$ intrinsic nuclear topologies. These results establish the sign of $\beta_4$ as an experimentally accessible signature of deviations from the quadrupole--hexadecapole correlation, demonstrating that higher-order collective flow provides a direct probe of nuclear multipole structure while revealing how nonlinear QGP dynamics encode subtle higher-order geometric information into final-state observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18752 by Abolfazl Mirjalili, Chunjian Zhang, Hadi Mehrabpour, Li Yan, Zahra Sheibani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the four intrinsic nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Flow harmonics through two-particle correlation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ratios of nonlinear response coefficients between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Deformation-induced contributions to flow harmonics and mixed-harmonic correlations in ultra-central U+U collisions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 52 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D. L. Hendrie, N. K. Glendenning, B. G. Harvey, O. N. Jarvis, H. H. Duhm, J. Saudinos, and J. Mahoney, Mea- surement of hexadecapole deformations in rare-earth and actinide nuclei, Physical Review Letters20, 527 (1968)

    1968

  2. [2]

    Odd powers ofβ4 and mixed nonlinear terms explicitly break this degen- eracy, providing the microscopic origin of the topology- dependent splitting discussed below. To quantify these effects, the intrinsic nuclear den- sity is modeled using a deformed Woods–Saxon distri- bution [66, 67] ρ(r,θ) =ρ 0(1 + exp [(r−R(θ))/a 0])−1, R(θ) =R 0 [ 1 + ∑ λ=2,4 βλYλ0(...

  3. [3]

    in relativistic heavy- ion collisions. The present framework can be applied di- rectly to future measurements at the RHIC and LHC and extended to other nuclei (e.g.154Sm, 150Nd, 168Er, 5 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● +β2 ● -β2 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0R(ξ4,22)U/Au ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 β4 R(ξ6,222)U/Au iEBE-VISHNU 0−5% (a) (...

  4. [4]

    C. E. Bemis, Jr., F. K. McGowan, J. L. C. Ford, Jr., W. T. Milner, P. H. Stelson, and R. L. Robinson,E2and E4transition moments and co-axial deformations in the region232≤a≤240, Physical Review C8, 1466 (1973)

    1973

  5. [5]

    J. D. Zumbro, E. B. Shera, Y. Tanaka, M. V. Hoehn, W. Reuter, R. M. Steffen, C. E. Bemis, Jr., and R. A. Naumann,E2andE4deformations in 233,234,235,238U from muonic atom x rays, Physical Review Letters53, 1888 (1984)

    1984

  6. [6]

    Dobaczewski, A

    J. Dobaczewski, A. Gade, K. Godbey, R. V. F. Janssens, and W. Nazarewicz, Extraction of ground-state nuclear deformations from ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions: Nuclearstructurephysicscontext,arXivpreprint (2025), arXiv:2507.05208 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    M. W. Guidry, P. A. Butler, R. Donangelo, E. Grosse, Y. El Masri, I. Y. Lee, F. S. Stephens, and R. M. Dia- mond, Sign of the hexadecapole moments of232Thand 238Unuclei, Physical Review Letters37, 1164 (1976)

    1976

  8. [8]

    S. K. Patra, S. Yoshida, N. Takigawa, C. R. Praharaj, andA.K.Rath,Hexadecapoleshapechangeinytterbium isotopes, Phys. Rev. C51, 2248 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    A. V. Afanasjev, Rotating nuclei: from ground state to the extremes of spin and deformation, Int. Rev. Nucl. Phys.10, 305 (2016), arXiv:1510.08400 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Ryssens, G

    W. Ryssens, G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Ev- idence of Hexadecapole Deformation in Uranium-238 at theRelativisticHeavyIonCollider,Phys.Rev.Lett.130, 212302 (2023), arXiv:2302.13617 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    H.-j. Xu, J. Zhao, and F. Wang, Hexadecapole Deforma- tion of U238 from Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions Using a Nonlinear Response Coefficient, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 262301 (2024), arXiv:2402.16550 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure, Vol- ume II: Nuclear Deformations(W. A. Benjamin, Read- ing, Massachusetts, 1975)

    1975

  13. [13]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer, New York, 1980)

    1980

  14. [14]

    Möller, J

    P. Möller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Świątecki, Nuclear ground-state masses and deforma- tions, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables59, 185 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9308022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  15. [16]

    G. K. Prajapati, Y. K. Gupta, K. Hagino,et al., Hex- adecapole strength in the rare isotopes 74,76kr, Physics Letters B840, 137850 (2023), arXiv:2212.10584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    Möller, A

    P. Möller, A. J. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Nuclear ground-state masses and deformations: FRDM(2012), Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl.109- 110, 1 (2016), arXiv:1508.06294 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [18]

    Inakura, W

    T. Inakura, W. Horiuchi, S. Michimasa, and M. Tanaka, Exploring highly deformed ground states involving the second intruder orbit in Z>50 even-even nuclei, Phys. Rev. C112, 064308 (2025), arXiv:2511.15040 [nucl-th]. 6

    arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    Ziyatkhan, R

    K. Ziyatkhan, R. Rodríguez-Guzmán, and L. M. Rob- ledo, Stability of intruder-driven quadrupole and hexade- capole deformation effects in xenon, barium, cerium, and neodymium isotopes, Phys. Rev. C114, 014311 (2026)

    2026

  19. [20]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions, Nature 635, 67 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [21]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Imaging nuclear shape through anisotropic and radial flow in high-energy heavy- ion collisions, Rept

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Imaging nuclear shape through anisotropic and radial flow in high-energy heavy- ion collisions, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 108601 (2025), arXiv:2506.17785 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Jiaet al., Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart, Nucl

    J. Jiaet al., Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion collisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 220 (2024), arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, A New method for measuring azimuthal distributions in nucleus- nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C63, 054906 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  23. [24]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Methods for an- alyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [25]

    Mehrabpour, G

    H. Mehrabpour, G. Giacalone, and M. W. Luzum, Triaxial shapes and the angular structure of nu- clear three-body correlations, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2604.00619 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  25. [26]

    Mehrabpour, Imprint ofαclustering on ab initio cor- relations in relativistic light ion collisions, Phys

    H. Mehrabpour, Imprint ofαclustering on ab initio cor- relations in relativistic light ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 113, 034909 (2026), arXiv:2506.12673 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [27]

    Mehrabpour and S

    H. Mehrabpour and S. M. A. Tabatabaee, Flow distri- bution analysis as a probe of nuclear deformation, Phys. Rev. C108, 034902 (2023), arXiv:2301.07770 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [28]

    Mehrabpour and A

    H. Mehrabpour and A. Saha, Longitudinal flow decorre- lations in light ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1284 (2025), arXiv:2501.14243 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [29]

    Q.Liu, H.Mehrabpour,andB.-N.Lu,Impactsofisolated nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic16O+16O col- lisions,arxivpreprint (2025),arXiv:2509.00315[nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    Bofos, Y

    S. Bofos, Y. Li, C. Ding, B. Bally, T. Duguet, M. Frosini, and J. Yao, Quantum effects in the quadrupole rotor pic- ture of ultra-relativistic ion-ion collisions, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2605.28813 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [31]

    Parida and P

    T. Parida and P. Bożek, Cumulants of mean trans- verse momentum and elliptic flow in the hydrodynamic model of heavy-ion collisions, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2605.26737 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [32]

    Giacalone, G

    G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, and W. van der Schee, Yoc- tosecond imaging of the ground state of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2606.03993 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [33]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, and J.- Y. Ollitrault, Hydrodynamic predictions for 5.44 TeV Xe+Xe collisions, Phys. Rev. C97, 034904 (2018), arXiv:1711.08499 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [34]

    Rybczyński and W

    M. Rybczyński and W. Broniowski, Glauber Monte Carlo predictions for ultrarelativistic collisions with16O, Phys. Rev. C100, 064912 (2019), arXiv:1910.09489 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [35]

    Summerfield, B.-N

    N. Summerfield, B.-N. Lu, C. Plumberg, D. Lee, J. Noronha-Hostler, and A. Timmins,16O 16O collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider com- paringαclustering versus substructure, Phys. Rev. C 104, L041901 (2021), arXiv:2103.03345 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [36]

    Zhang and J

    C. Zhang and J. Jia, Evidence of Quadrupole and Oc- tupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 and Ru96+Ru96 Col- lisionsatUltrarelativisticEnergies,Phys.Rev.Lett.128, 022301 (2022), arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [37]

    H.-j. Xu, W. Zhao, H. Li, Y. Zhou, L.-W. Chen, and F. Wang,Probing nuclear structurewithmean transverse momentum in relativistic isobar collisions, Phys. Rev. C 108, L011902 (2023), arXiv:2111.14812 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    Nijs and W

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Inferring nuclear struc- ture from heavy isobar collisions using Trajectum, Sci- Post Phys.15, 041 (2023), arXiv:2112.13771 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [39]

    Zhao, H.-j

    S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, Y.-X. Liu, and H. Song, Probing the nuclear deformation with three-particle asymmetric cu- mulant in RHIC isobar runs, Phys. Lett. B839, 137838 (2023), arXiv:2204.02387 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Samanta and P

    R. Samanta and P. Bożek, Momentum-dependent flow correlations in deformed nuclei at collision energies avail- able at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C107, 054916 (2023), arXiv:2301.10659 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [41]

    Giacalone, G

    G. Giacalone, G. Nijs, and W. van der Schee, Determina- tion of the Neutron Skin of Pb208 from Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202302 (2023), arXiv:2305.00015 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [42]

    N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Comparisons and predictions for collisions of deformed U238 nuclei at sNN=193 GeV, Phys. Rev. C111, 014901 (2025), arXiv:2308.09816 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    Giacaloneet al., Exploiting Ne20 Isotopes for Preci- sion Characterizations of Collectivity in Small Systems, Phys

    G. Giacaloneet al., Exploiting Ne20 Isotopes for Preci- sion Characterizations of Collectivity in Small Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 012302 (2025), arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia, andY.-G.Ma,Ab-initionucleon-nucleoncorrelationsand their impact on high energy 16O+16O collisions, Phys. Lett. B862, 139322 (2025), arXiv:2404.08385 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    Zhao, Z.-W

    X.-L. Zhao, Z.-W. Lin, Y. Zhou, C. Zhang, and G.-L. Ma, Nuclear cluster structure effect in 16O+16O collisions at the top RHIC energy, Phys. Lett. B874, 140254 (2026), arXiv:2404.09780 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [46]

    N. M. Fortier, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Heavy-ion colli- sions as probes of nuclear structure, Phys. Rev. C111, L011901 (2025), arXiv:2405.17526 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    Giacaloneet al., Anisotropic Flow in Fixed- Target Pb208+Ne20 Collisions as a Probe of Quark- Gluon Plasma, Phys

    G. Giacaloneet al., Anisotropic Flow in Fixed- Target Pb208+Ne20 Collisions as a Probe of Quark- Gluon Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 082301 (2025), arXiv:2405.20210 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Mäntysaari, B

    H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Prob- ing nuclear structure of heavy ions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C110, 054913 (2024), arXiv:2409.19064 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [49]

    Z. Lu, M. Zhao, E. G. D. Nielsen, X. Li, and Y. Zhou, Imprint of light nuclei structure in relativistic nu- clear collisions, Phys. Lett. B868, 139698 (2025), arXiv:2501.14852 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Y. Li, X. Zhang, G. Giacalone, and J. Yao, Benchmark- ing Nuclear Matrix Elements of 0νββDecay with High- Energy Nuclear Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 022301 (2025), arXiv:2502.08027 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Liu, H.-C

    L.-M. Liu, H.-C. Wang, S.-J. Li, C. Zhang, J. Xu, Z.-Z. Ren, J. Jia, and X.-G. Huang, Directly probing existence ofα-cluster structure in Ne20 by relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C111, L021901 (2025), arXiv:2502.08057 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    P. Li, B. Zhou, and G.-L. Ma, Identifyingα-Cluster Con- figurations in Ne20 via Ultracentral Ne+Ne Collisions, 7 Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 082302 (2026), arXiv:2504.04688 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [53]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Jia, J. Chen, C. Shen, and L. Liu, Im- prints of octupole collectivity in uranium-238 on rela- tivistic heavy-ion flow observables, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 033018 (2026)

    2026

  53. [54]

    S. M. A. Tabatabaee Mehr and S. F. Taghavi, Reveal- ing initial-state properties through ultracentral symmet- ric heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C110, 054901 (2024), arXiv:2406.13863 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [55]

    S. F. Taghavi and S. M. A. Tabatabaee Mehr, Opac- ity estimation of OO collision from CoMBolt-ITA hy- brid, Phys. Lett. B878, 140505 (2026), arXiv:2512.05009 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [56]

    Li, H.-j

    Y. Li, H.-j. Xu, D. Zhang, and G.-L. Ma, Investigation of the shape of uranium in relativistic238U+238U collisions with nuclear densities from covariant density functional theory, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2602.02336 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [57]

    Zhao, X.-Y

    X.-L. Zhao, X.-Y. Xie, Y. Li, and G.-L. Ma, Constrain- ing the neutron skin of 208Pb with anisotropic flow in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, arXiv preprint (2026), arXiv:2603.07597 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  57. [58]

    Z. Wang, J. Chen, J. Jia, Y.-G. Ma, and C. Zhang, Disentangling nuclear structure through multiparticle azimuthal correlations in high-energy isobar collisions, Phys. Rev. C113, 034905 (2026)

    2026

  58. [59]

    Chenet al., Selected Highlights from STAR Experiment, Chin

    J. Chenet al., Selected Highlights from STAR Experiment, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, 030102 (2026), arXiv:2601.12977 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [60]

    L. Liu, C. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Jia, X.-G. Huang, and Y.-G. Ma, Scaling approach to rigid and soft nuclear deformation through flow fluctuations in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Lett. B879, 140636 (2026), arXiv:2509.09376 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [61]

    Zhao, H.-j

    S. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, Y. Zhou, Y.-X. Liu, and H. Song, Exploring the Nuclear Shape Phase Transition in Ultra- Relativistic 129Xe+129Xe Collisions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 192301 (2024), arXiv:2403.07441 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [62]

    Z. Lu, M. Zhao, X. Li, J. Jia, and Y. Zhou, Probe nuclear structure using the anisotropic flow at the Large Hadron Collider, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 279 (2023), arXiv:2309.09663 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [63]

    E. G. D. Nielsen, F. K. Rømer, K. Gulbrandsen, and Y. Zhou, Generic multi-particle transverse momentum correlations as a new tool for studying nuclear structure at the energy frontier, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 38 (2024), arXiv:2312.00492 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [64]

    Dimri, S

    A. Dimri, S. Bhatta, and J. Jia, Impact of nuclear shape fluctuations in high-energy heavy ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 45 (2023), arXiv:2301.03556 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    Magdy, M

    N. Magdy, M. Hegazy, A. Rafaat, W. Li, A. Deshpande, A. M. H. Abdelhady, A. Y. Ellithi, R. A. Lacey, and Z. Tu, A study of nuclear structure of light nuclei at the electron–ion collider, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 212 (2024), arXiv:2405.07844 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [66]

    Yan and J.-Y

    L. Yan and J.-Y. Ollitrault,ν4,ν 5,ν 6,ν 7: nonlinear hy- drodynamic response versus LHC data, Phys. Lett. B 744, 82 (2015), arXiv:1502.02502 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [67]

    Giacalone, L

    G. Giacalone, L. Yan, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Nonlinear coupling of flow harmonics: Hexagonal flow and beyond, Phys. Rev. C97, 054905 (2018), arXiv:1803.00253 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [68]

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

    arXiv 2007

  68. [69]

    R. D. Woods and D. S. Saxon, Diffuse surface optical model for nucleon-nuclei scattering, Phys. Rev.95, 577 (1954)

    1954

  69. [70]

    H. Li, J. Xiang, J. Meng,et al., Static or dynamic pear shapes in radioactive nucleus224rn?, Nuclear Science and Techniques35, 184 (2024)

    2024

  70. [71]

    L. M. Robledo, History of the concept of nuclear shape, European Physical Journal A61, 90 (2025)

    2025

  71. [72]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz, Causal viscous hydrodynam- ics in 2+1 dimensions for relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C77, 064901 (2008), arXiv:0712.3715 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [73]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [74]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, and U. Heinz, Viscous QCD matter in a hybrid hydrodynamic+Boltzmann approach, Phys. Rev. C83, 024912 (2011), arXiv:1012.0555 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [75]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Bhatta, and J. Jia, Ratios of collective flow observablesinhigh-energyisobarcollisionsareinsensitive to final-state interactions, Phys. Rev. C106, L031901 (2022), arXiv:2206.01943 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  75. [76]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Non linearities in the harmonic spectrum of heavy ion collisions with ideal and vis- cous hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C86, 044908 (2012), arXiv:1206.1905 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  76. [77]

    Teaney and L

    D. Teaney and L. Yan, Event-plane correlations and hy- drodynamic simulations of heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C90, 024902 (2014), arXiv:1312.3689 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [78]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Mapping the hydrodynamic response to the initial ge- ometry in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C85, 024908 (2012), arXiv:1111.6538 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  78. [79]

    H.-j. Xu, D. Xu, S. Zhao, W. Zhao, H. Song, and F. Wang, Investigation of an octupole breathing mode of Pb208 as a resolution to the elliptical-to-triangular azimuthal anisotropy puzzle in ultracentral relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C112, L051901 (2025), arXiv:2504.19644 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [80]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of long-range pseudorapidity correlations and azimuthal harmonics in √sN N = 5.02TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Measurement of long-range pseudorapidity correlations and azimuthal harmonics in √sN N = 5.02TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C90, 044906 (2014), arXiv:1409.1792 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  80. [81]

    J. Jia, M. Zhou, and A. Trzupek, Revealing long-range multiparticle collectivity in small collision systems via subevent cumulants, Phys. Rev. C96, 034906 (2017), arXiv:1701.03830 [nucl-th]. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Estimations of flow moments and cumulants To further investigate the interplay between quadrupole and hexadecapole deformations, we perform a ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017