Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Polarization harmonics of heavy hadrons directly encode the fireball's initial spatial eccentricities, offering a spin-based probe of collision geometry.

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 06:22 UTC pith:HYE5FBKY

load-bearing objection Fresh observable idea, but the derivation of p_n ∝ ε_n is built on a false geometric premise and a factor-of-two slip in the End Matter. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.22882 v2 pith:HYE5FBKY submitted 2026-01-30 hep-ph nucl-th

Heavy quark polarization anisotropy as a novel probe of fireball geometry

Amaresh Jaiswal This is my paper
classification hep-ph nucl-th PACS 25.75.-q13.88.+e
keywords heavy quark polarizationpolarization harmonicsinitial fireball geometryspatial eccentricitiesrotational Brownian motionspin alignmentquark-gluon plasmaheavy-ion collisions
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 proposes that the azimuthal variation of heavy-hadron spin polarization — its polarization harmonics p_n — is set directly by the initial spatial eccentricities ε_n of the quark–gluon plasma fireball. Heavy quarks are born with spin aligned by the brief magnetic field of a noncentral collision, then depolarize as they travel; the longer the path through the plasma, the more the spin is washed out. That path-length dependence imprints the fireball's geometric anisotropy onto the final polarization pattern. The paper derives p_n proportional to ε_n to linear order and estimates the second harmonic p_2 ≈ 0.17 for D*+ mesons in the conditions of the recently observed spin-alignment signal. If this holds, measuring the angular pattern of heavy-hadron spin gives a new window on the earliest stage of the collision, complementary to flow harmonics.

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (14): for open heavy hadrons, the nth polarization harmonic is p_n(p_T,y) = α m_Q L_0 ε_n / [2(n+2)|p| τ_s], where ε_n are the standard participant-plane eccentricities of the initial state, L_0 is the azimuthally averaged in-medium path length, τ_s is the spin-relaxation time, and α = 2 for heavy baryons and 6 for heavy mesons. The derivation uses rotational Brownian motion of the heavy-quark spin: the spin follows a Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation with white-noise fluctuations, the transient magnetic field enters through the initial spin alignment, and the depolarization exponent is evaluated using the geometry-dependent path length τ = L(φ) m_Q/|p|. Expanding the

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three pieces: (i) the rotational Brownian motion description of spin, encoded in the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation with white-noise fluctuations, which gives the depolarization laws ⟨cosθ⟩ = cosθ0 e^{-2τ/τ_s} and ⟨cos²θ⟩ = 1/3 + (2/3) P2(cosθ0) e^{-6τ/τ_s}; (ii) the Fourier expansion of the ensemble-averaged path length, ⟨L(φ)⟩ = L0 [1 + Σ 2ℓ_n cos n(φ−Ψ_n)], with the geometric coefficient 2ℓ_n = a_n for a boundary R(φ) = R0[1 + Σ a_n cos n(φ−Ψ_n)]; and (iii) the end-matter identity relating path-length harmonics to the standard eccentricities, ℓ_n = −ε_n/[2(n+2)]. Combining these, the exponent in the depolarization factor carries the same harmonics as the eccentrici

Load-bearing premise

The p_n proportional to ε_n link rests on the geometric premise that, for production points distributed uniformly (or with any smooth weight) inside a weakly deformed convex boundary, the ensemble-averaged path length at a given emission angle is proportional to the boundary radius in that direction.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the triangular polarization harmonic p_3. For a boundary with a pure n=3 deformation and uniform interior production, the paper's premise predicts a non-zero path-length anisotropy and hence p_3 proportional to ε_3; if an exact chord-length average (or the measured p_3) vanishes while ε_3 is sizeable, the claimed proportionality fails.

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

If this is right

  • The measured angular modulation of open-heavy-meson spin alignment gives a direct readout of the initial spatial eccentricity ε_2, with a clean prediction: p_2 ≈ 0.17 for D*+ in 30–50% Pb–Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, falling with transverse momentum.
  • Because the observable is charge-insensitive for mesons (α = 6) and charge-sensitive for baryons (α = 2), comparing meson and baryon polarization harmonics separates geometric effects from charge-dependent ones.
  • The same path-length mechanism implies higher harmonics p_3, p_4 probe triangular and quadrangular fireball shapes, extending geometry studies beyond elliptic flow.
  • Polarization harmonics arise independently of hydrodynamic collective flow, offering a cross-check on geometry extraction from flow harmonics and jet quenching.
  • The p_T-integrated value ⟨p_2⟩ ≈ 0.17 falls within the precision of current spin-alignment measurements, so the effect is likely testable with existing data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same geometric path-length dependence should appear in the azimuthal anisotropy of heavy-flavor energy loss; comparing the polarization harmonic p_2 with the known elliptic flow of heavy mesons could disentangle the spin-depolarization rate τ_s from the energy-loss rate.
  • A joint analysis of the event-plane angle of p_n and the flow event plane would test whether the polarization pattern is driven by the same participant geometry; the paper approximates participant planes with event planes, and that identification is directly testable.
  • Because the ratio p_n/p_m = (m+2)/(n+2) × ε_n/ε_m is independent of L_0 and τ_s, measuring two harmonics across centralities would isolate eccentricity ratios and check the linear-order geometric relation without needing to know the spin relaxation time.
  • A dynamical simulation with a time-evolving fireball and temperature-dependent τ_s would show whether the static-fireball estimate of p_2 is stable; the paper explicitly leaves this as future work.

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 proposes heavy-flavor polarization harmonics p_n as a new probe of the initial fireball geometry in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Heavy quarks are assumed to be initially polarized along the transient magnetic field and subsequently depolarize while propagating through the QGP; the depolarization is path-length dependent. The main result is Eq. (14), p_n(p_T,y) = α m_Q L_0 ε_n / [2(n+2)|p| τ_s], which asserts a direct proportionality between polarization harmonics and initial spatial eccentricities. The paper also gives a quantitative estimate of the elliptic harmonic p_2 using ALICE D*+ spin-alignment data, obtaining ⟨p_2⟩ ≈ 0.17.

Significance. The physical idea—using the path-length dependence of heavy-quark spin depolarization as a geometric probe—is conceptually attractive and, if correct, would add a genuinely new observable complementary to flow harmonics, jet quenching, and HBT. The manuscript is explicit and provides a concrete analytic formula and a numerical estimate. However, the central geometric premise that connects path-length harmonics to boundary anisotropies is not correct for the stated ensemble, and the End Matter derivation contains an internal factor-of-two inconsistency. The general p_n ∝ ε_n relation for n ≥ 3 is therefore not established; only the elliptic (n = 2) case may survive after correction. Because the central claim of the paper is the general relation, the significance of the result as presented is substantially diminished.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The key assumption that ⟨L(φ)⟩ ∝ R(φ) for convex geometries with uniform (or 'any smooth') production density is not valid. For R(φ)=R0[1+a_n cos n(φ−Ψ)] and uniformly distributed production points, a first-order calculation of the mean exit distance along azimuthal direction φ gives δ⟨L(φ)⟩/R0 = (2a_n/π) I_n cos[n(φ−Ψ)] with I_n = ∫_{-π/2}^{π/2} dt cos t cos[n(φ−Ψ+t)]. For every odd n, including n=3, I_n=0, so a triangular boundary produces no linear cos 3φ modulation of ⟨L(φ)⟩. For n=4 one finds δ⟨L⟩/L0 = -a_4/10, not +a_4. Thus Eq. (3) and the relation 2ℓ_n=a_n in Eq. (4) fail, and the linear relation ℓ_n ∝ ε_n used in Eq. (6) and Eq. (14) is not established for n≥3. The claim that the result holds for 'any smooth weight' is also unsupported; the harmonic content of ⟨L(φ)⟩ depends on the production profile (a source concentrated at the center gives ⟨L(φ)⟩=R(φ), whereas a uniform sourc
  2. [End Matter, Eqs. (E11)-(E14)] The derivation of the eccentricity–boundary relation is internally inconsistent. Combining Eq. (E11) with Eq. (E6) gives ε_n e^{inΨ_n} = -(n+2)a_n/2 e^{inΨ_n}, as printed in Eq. (E12). Equation (E13) then drops the factor 1/2 and writes ε_n = -(n+2)a_n. This factor changes Eq. (E14): with the correct E12 one obtains ℓ_n = a_n/4, whereas the paper uses ℓ_n = a_n/2 from Eq. (4). Equation (6), which is used to derive Eq. (14), is consistent with E12, while Eq. (3)/(4) is consistent with E13; the two cannot both hold. This is not a cosmetic factor because it enters the claimed normalization of p_n.
  3. [Section 4, Fig. 1 and Eq. (17)] The numerical p_2 estimates are not independent predictions. The parameters L_0 = 10 fm and τ_s = 1.31 fm are taken from fits to the ALICE D*+ spin-alignment data in Ref. [34], and ε_2 = 0.38 is taken from Monte Carlo Glauber calculations. The resulting ⟨p_2⟩ ≈ 0.17 is therefore an interpolation or consistency check, not a falsifiable prediction of the framework. This should be stated at the point of the estimate, not only in the final caveats.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, p.2] The sentence 'This has recent theoretical efforts to study heavy-quark polarization' appears grammatically incomplete; presumably 'motivated' is missing.
  2. [Notation] The symbol α is used for the depolarization exponent in Eq. (12) and a_n for boundary anisotropies in Eq. (2); the similar notation may confuse readers. Also, A in Eq. (12) is not defined explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (5) and Eq. (14)] The sign convention for ε_n is not fixed: Eq. (5) defines a complex eccentricity with a minus sign, while Eq. (14) uses a positive ε_n without explaining whether magnitudes or signed values are meant. The sign of p_n is therefore ambiguous.
  4. [Summary and Outlook] The final caveats about the static fireball and fitted τ_s are appropriate, but the same caveats should appear in Section 4 before quoting the numerical value ⟨p_2⟩ ≈ 0.17.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central p_n∝ε_n relation is derived rather than defined, but the quantitative p_2 estimate is a rescaling of parameters fitted to the same ALICE D*+ spin-alignment data in the self-cited model, so it is not an independent test.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4, after Eq. (14), Fig. 1]
    "The parameter values used in the plot are obtained from fits to ALICE measurements of the spin alignment of the D∗+ meson [33, 34]."

    Eq. (14) contains the combination L0/τs, which is precisely the quantity fitted to the pT dependence of the ALICE D*+ spin alignment in self-cited Ref. [34]. The plotted p2(pT) is therefore a fixed rescaling of the fitted depolarization exponent α mQ L0/(|p|τs) by ε2/[2(n+2)]: its pT shape is inherited from the fit, and only the overall normalization adds the external Glauber ε2. The numerical prediction is thus a rearrangement of fitted inputs rather than a test against new data. The paper's caveat that the values are only 'qualitative, order-of-magnitude guidance' mitigates but does not remove this structural dependence.

full rationale

The central claim p_n ∝ ε_n is not circular by construction. It follows from a chain of substitutions: the geometric ansatz ⟨L(φ)⟩∝R(φ) (Eq. 3), the End Matter relation between boundary anisotropies and eccentricities, and the exponential depolarization law P=A exp(-ατ/τs) from the rotational Brownian motion solution. None of these steps defines p_n in terms of ε_n; Eq. (14) is obtained by expansion of an exponential, so the proportionality is derived, not assumed. The spin-evolution results in Sec. 3 are largely cited to the author's own prior work Ref. [34], but they are also standard results with external references [60–65], and the present paper's new observable is the azimuthal harmonic, not the depolarization law itself. The main circularity-adjacent weakness is numerical: the p2 estimate uses L0 and τs fitted to the same ALICE D*+ spin-alignment measurement in the self-cited model, so the quantitative curve is not an independent prediction. The separate objections raised by the reader—that ⟨L⟩∝R(φ) fails for odd harmonics under uniform sources and that the End Matter contains a factor-of-2 inconsistency—are correctness risks about whether the derived relation is true, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs by definition. Overall, the derivation is independent in form, but the quantitative showcase is fit-dependent, warranting a score of 4 rather than 0–2.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its free parameters are the fitted transport/geometry constants inherited from Ref. [34] and the external FONLL/Glauber inputs. The main unproven assumptions are the initial full spin alignment, the static-fireball simplification, and the geometric path-length proportionality that carries the central derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • L_0 = 10 fm
    Azimuthally averaged path length; fitted to ALICE D*+ spin alignment in Ref. [34] and adopted here. Sets both the baseline polarization and the p_n scale.
  • tau_s = 1.31 fm
    Spin relaxation time; fitted to the same ALICE data in Ref. [34]. Appears inversely in p_n and directly controls the depolarization rate.
  • FONLL spectrum parameters a0,a1,a2,a3 = 32.71558, 1.95061, 3.13695, 0.11981
    External parametrization of the prompt charm spectrum from Ref. [70]; used only for the p_T-integrated average <p_2>.
  • epsilon_2 = 0.38
    MC Glauber eccentricity for 30-50% Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV, taken from Ref. [66]. No uncertainty is given.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Stochastic LLG/Fokker-Planck rotational Brownian motion describes heavy-quark spin relaxation
    Adopted from Ref. [34]; no first-principles derivation of the spin relaxation dynamics is provided in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Heavy-quark spins are initially fully aligned along the transient magnetic field (theta_0 = 0 or pi)
    Initial condition used in Eq. (9); no quantitative calculation of polarization efficiency or field strength is given.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field decays rapidly and is neglected during spin evolution
    Stated just before Eq. (9); used to drop the field term in the Fokker-Planck equation after the initial condition.
  • domain assumption Static fireball with constant average temperature and no energy loss; proper time tau = <L> m_Q / |p|
    Used in Section 4 to convert path length to proper time; acknowledged in Section 5 as a limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper <L(phi)> is proportional to R(phi) for convex geometries
    Section 2 after Eq. (3); load-bearing geometric lemma stated without derivation, and it fails for n>=3 under the stated uniform-point ensemble.
  • domain assumption Uniform density inside a deformed boundary suffices for linear-order eccentricities
    End Matter E2-E6; reasonable at linear order but ignores realistic density profiles used in actual eccentricity calculations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8902 in / 28610 out tokens · 265103 ms · 2026-08-03T06:22:19.577701+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a new approach to probe the initial fireball geometry in relativistic heavy-ion collisions using spin polarization. Specifically, we introduce polarization harmonics of open heavy hadrons as a novel observable sensitive to geometric anisotropies. Heavy quarks are produced in early hard scatterings and can acquire spin polarization from the strong, transient electromagnetic fields present at early times. As they propagate through the anisotropic quark-gluon plasma, medium-induced interactions lead to path-length dependent depolarization, imprinting an azimuthally anisotropic polarization pattern. Within the framework of rotational Brownian motion, we show that the resulting polarization harmonics are directly related to the initial spatial eccentricities, thereby establishing heavy-flavor polarization anisotropies as a sensitive and complementary probe of the early-time collision geometry. We present quantitative estimates of the second (elliptic) polarization harmonic associated with the recently observed $D^{*+}$ spin alignment reported by the ALICE Collaboration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22882 by Amaresh Jaiswal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The second polarization harmonic, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum spin dynamics of heavy quarks and polarization observables in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A quantum framework for heavy-quark spin evolution in heavy-ion collisions yields analytic polarization solutions, fitted to ALICE D*+ data to extract depolarization strength and estimate Lambda_c polarization plus el...

  2. Spin dynamics and polarization in relativistic systems: recent developments

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 1.0

    The review summarizes developments in spin hydrodynamics, polarization from spin-vorticity coupling, pseudo-gauge freedom, and heavy-flavor spin dynamics in relativistic systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Introduction:The propagation of heavy quarks through the quark–gluon plasma (QGP) created in high- energy heavy-ion collisions provides a powerful and well- established probe of the medium’s transport proper- ties [1–14]. A central goal of phenomenological stud- ies of heavy-quark dynamics in the QGP is the extrac- tion of transport coefficients, in parti...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Fireball geometry and path length:We consider heavy quarks produced at random points in the trans- verse plane and propagating along a fixed azimuthal di- rectionϕ. The ensemble-averaged path length inside the medium,⟨L(ϕ)⟩, encodes information about the geomet- ric anisotropies of the system and can be expressed in a form analogous to the harmonic expans...

  3. [3]

    Heavy quark polarization:The stochastic Lan- dau–Lifshitz–Gilbert (LLG) equation provides a natu- ral framework for analyzing the evolution of heavy-quark spin polarization [60–63]. In the particle’s rest frame, the spin dynamics described by the LLG equation can be written as [34] ds dτ =s× h ˜B+ξ(τ) i −λs× s× ˜B ,(7) wheresdenotes the classical spin vec...

  4. [4]

    Here|p|=q p2 T cosh2 y+m 2 Q sinh2 y, wherem Q is the mass of the heavy-quark,p T is its transverse momentum andyits rapidity

    Polarization harmonics:Accounting for the Lorentz contraction of⟨L(ϕ)⟩in the heavy-quark rest frame, the duration over which the heavy quark undergoes Brownian motion in the QGP isτ= [⟨L(ϕ)⟩m Q]/|p|. Here|p|=q p2 T cosh2 y+m 2 Q sinh2 y, wherem Q is the mass of the heavy-quark,p T is its transverse momentum andyits rapidity. Substituting the expression fo...

  5. [5]

    Summary and outlook:In this letter, we have intro- duced heavy-flavor polarization harmonics as a new class of observables sensitive to the spatial anisotropy of the fireball produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. Us- ing a rotational Brownian motion framework, we estab- lished a direct connection between polarization harmon- ics and the initial-s...

  6. [6]

    G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C71, 064904 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412346

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D74, 126005 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0605182

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    S. K. Das, J.-e. Alam, and P. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014908 (2010), arXiv:1003.5508 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Akamatsu, T

    Y. Akamatsu, T. Hatsuda, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054907 (2009), arXiv:0809.1499 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [10]

    Banerjee, S

    D. Banerjee, S. Datta, R. Gavai, and P. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D85, 014510 (2012), arXiv:1109.5738 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    H. T. Ding, A. Francis, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, H. Satz, and W. S¨ oldner, EPJ Web Conf.70, 00061 (2014), arXiv:1210.0292 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    van Hees, M

    H. van Hees, M. Mannarelli, V. Greco, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 192301 (2008), arXiv:0709.2884 [hep-ph]. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [14]

    Dong and V

    X. Dong and V. Greco, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics104, 97 (2019)

    2019

  14. [15]

    van Hees, V

    H. van Hees, V. Greco, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C73, 034913 (2006)

    2006

  15. [16]

    S. K. Das, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Physics Letters B747, 260 (2015)

    2015

  16. [17]

    van Hees, M

    H. van Hees, M. Mannarelli, V. Greco, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 192301 (2008)

    2008

  17. [18]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP01, 174 (2022), arXiv:2110.09420 [nucl-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP01, 174 (2022), arXiv:2110.09420 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [19]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 212301 (2017), arXiv:1701.06060 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [20]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [21]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B629, 20 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  21. [22]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [23]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D98, 112009 (2018), arXiv:1808.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [24]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D98, 091103 (2018), arXiv:1808.08000 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [25]

    Niida (STAR),Proceedings, 27th International Con- ference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Quark Matter 2018): Venice, Italy, May 14-19, 2018, Nucl

    T. Niida (STAR),Proceedings, 27th International Con- ference on Ultrarelativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions (Quark Matter 2018): Venice, Italy, May 14-19, 2018, Nucl. Phys.A982, 511 (2019), arXiv:1808.10482 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [26]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), arXiv:1805.04400 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [27]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 012301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14408 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [28]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 132301 (2019), arXiv:1905.11917 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  28. [29]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. C101, 044611 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)], arXiv:1909.01281 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [30]

    Singha (STAR), Nucl

    S. Singha (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121733 (2021), arXiv:2002.07427 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [31]

    Chen, Z.-t

    K.-b. Chen, Z.-t. Liang, Y.-k. Song, and S.-y. Wei, Phys. Rev. D102, 034001 (2020), arXiv:2002.09890 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 162301 (2021), arXiv:2012.13601 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  32. [33]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 172005 (2022), arXiv:2107.11183 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C104, L061901 (2021), arXiv:2108.00044 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  34. [35]

    Mohanty, S

    B. Mohanty, S. Kundu, S. Singha, and R. Singh, Mod. Phys. Lett. A36, 2130026 (2021), arXiv:2112.04816 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [36]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Nature614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202301 (2023), arXiv:2303.09074 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  37. [38]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.00714 [nucl-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.00714 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    Dey and A

    S. Dey and A. Jaiswal, Physics Letters B , 140202 (2026), arXiv:2502.20352 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [40]

    Z. Liu, Y. Bai, S. Zheng, A. Huang, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. C110, 034910 (2024), arXiv:2404.02032 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  40. [41]

    T. Li, A. Huang, and B. Chen, (2025), arXiv:2505.18767 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Shuryak, Rev

    E. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035001 (2017), arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [43]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [44]

    Alver and G

    B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C81, 054905 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 82, 039903 (2010)], arXiv:1003.0194 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [45]

    Giacalone, Phys

    G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 202301 (2020), arXiv:1910.04673 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [46]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Jia, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2105.01638 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [47]

    Jiaet al., Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    Jia, Rept

    J. Jia, Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 092301 (2025), arXiv:2501.16071 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  48. [49]

    R. S. Bhalerao, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 635 (2021), arXiv:2009.09586 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [50]

    Baym, Acta Phys

    G. Baym, Acta Phys. Polon. B29, 1839 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9804026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  50. [51]

    U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rept.319, 145 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9901094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  51. [52]

    M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55, 357 (2005), arXiv:nucl- ex/0505014

    arXiv 2005

  52. [53]

    J. D. Bjorken, (1982)

    1982

  53. [54]

    Gyulassy and M

    M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, Phys. Lett. B243, 432 (1990)

    1990

  54. [55]

    Qin and X.-N

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [56]

    Svetitsky, Phys

    B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D37, 2484 (1988)

    1988

  56. [57]

    Rapp and H

    R. Rapp and H. van Hees (2010) pp. 111–206, arXiv:0903.1096 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [58]

    S. K. Das, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B747, 260 (2015), arXiv:1502.03757 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [59]

    P. P. Bhaduri, N. Borghini, A. Jaiswal, and M. Strick- land, Phys. Rev. C100, 051901 (2019), arXiv:1809.06235 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [60]

    P. P. Bhaduri, M. Alqahtani, N. Borghini, A. Jaiswal, and M. Strickland, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 585 (2021), arXiv:2007.03939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [61]

    E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B78, 150 (1978)

    1978

  61. [62]

    Kajantie, J

    K. Kajantie, J. I. Kapusta, L. D. McLerran, and A. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. D34, 2746 (1986)

    1986

  62. [63]

    J. Alam, B. Sinha, and S. Raha, Phys. Rept.273, 243 (1996)

    1996

  63. [64]

    L. A. Santal´ o,Integral Geometry and Geometric Proba- bility, 2nd ed., Cambridge Mathematical Library (Cam- bridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  64. [65]

    L. D. Landau and E. Lifstatz, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion8 (1935), 10.1016/b978-0-08-010586-4.50023-7

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-010586-4.50023-7 1935

  65. [66]

    Gilbert, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics40, 3443 (2004)

    T. Gilbert, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics40, 3443 (2004)

    2004

  66. [67]

    Nishino and S

    M. Nishino and S. Miyashita, Phys. Rev. B91, 134411 (2015)

    2015

  67. [68]

    A. Meo, C. E. Cronshaw, S. Jenkins, A. Lees, and R. F. L. Evans, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 35, 025801 (2022)

    2022

  68. [69]

    Y. P. Kalmykov, W. T. Coffey, and S. V. Titov, Phys. Rev. E76, 051104 (2007)

    2007

  69. [70]

    L. M. Narducci, C. M. Bowden, V. Bluemel, and G. P. Carrazana, Phys. Rev. A11, 280 (1975)

    1975

  70. [71]

    Loizides, J

    C. Loizides, J. Kamin, and D. d’Enterria, Phys. Rev. C97, 054910 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 99, 019901 (2019)], arXiv:1710.07098 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [72]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, JHEP05, 007 6 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803400

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  72. [73]

    Cacciari, S

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, JHEP10, 137 (2012), arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [74]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. L. Mangano, and P. Nason, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 610 (2015), arXiv:1507.06197 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [75]

    J. H. Liu, S. Plumari, S. K. Das, V. Greco, and M. Rug- gieri, Phys. Rev. C102, 044902 (2020), arXiv:1911.02480 [nucl-th]. END MA TTER Relation between path-length harmonics and spatial eccentricities We consider a smooth, weakly deformed transverse geometry whose boundary can be parametrized as in Eq. (2). Retaining only a single harmonicnfor clarity, on...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020