Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 69 references

One data-driven factor, fitted to elliptic flow, turns ideal hydrodynamics into a model that matches radial-flow data and predicts the new v02 observable.

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 07:48 UTC pith:IJAG4ZWC

load-bearing objection Useful, honest first predictions for v02(pT), but the universal f(pT) transfer from v2 to v02 is the load-bearing assumption, and the headline high-pT features are inherited from that fit. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21321 v1 pith:IJAG4ZWC submitted 2026-07-23 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Enhanced hydrodynamic predictions for v₀₂(p_T)

Rupam Samanta , Tribhuban Parida , Jean-Yves Ollitrault This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex
keywords quark-gluon plasmacollective flowradial flowspectra-flow correlationv02 observableideal hydrodynamicsPb+Pb collisionselliptic flow
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.

v02(pT) is a new observable that measures how the particle spectrum responds to a tiny increase in elliptic flow. The paper seeks to show that ideal hydrodynamics, corrected by a single pT-dependent suppression factor f(pT) extracted from measured v2, can quantitatively predict v02(pT) for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The same factor also reproduces the measured radial-flow observable v0(pT), which the authors take as validation of the correction scheme. The resulting predictions include features not seen in v2 or v0: charged-hadron v02 decreases above about 4 GeV/c, mesons and baryons split at high pT, and the proton v02 becomes non-monotonic above 30% centrality.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that v02(pT)—the event-by-event correlation between the particle spectrum and the squared elliptic flow, defined analogously to v0 with v2^2 replacing the mean transverse momentum—can be predicted realistically once ideal-hydro results are multiplied by a single factor f(pT)=v2(data)/v2(hydro). With f(pT) fixed by measured v2{4} data, the same corrected calculation matches v0(pT) data up to high pT, and therefore the authors argue that its v02(pT) predictions are quantitative. Characteristic predictions are a high-pT decrease of charged-hadron v02 in mid-central collisions, clear meson-baryon splitting at pT above about 3 GeV/c, and a non-monotonic pT dependence

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the data-driven suppression factor f(pT) defined as the ratio of measured v2{4}(pT) to the ideal-hydrodynamic v2(pT). It is assumed to multiply every flow observable, acting like a core-corona separation where only a fraction f of particles carry flow. The argument also rests on the definition of v02 as a three-particle cumulant (Eq. 3) and on a sum rule (Eq. 4) that ties the pT-integrated v02 to the radial-flow fluctuation v0, the relative flow fluctuation magnitude, and the Pearson correlation ρ2 between mean pT and v2^2. This sum rule explains the observable's weak centrality dependence and its distinct pT shape.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the suppression factor f(pT), fitted to elliptic flow data, is exactly the same for v2, v0, and v02; if it differs between observables, every v02 curve is rescaled by an unknown pT-dependent function and the high-pT features could be wrong.

What would settle it

In 10–20% central Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, measure v02(pT) for charged hadrons up to 10 GeV/c: the prediction is falsified if v02 does not start decreasing above about 4 GeV/c. Separately, in the 30–40% centrality window, the predicted proton v02 must be positive at very low pT, negative around 1 GeV/c, and positive again above 2 GeV/c; a monotonic proton curve would rule out the model.

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

If this is right

  • v02 is measured through three-particle cumulants, so it is less contaminated by nonflow than v0; if the predictions hold, it provides a direct probe of how geometry couples to the spectrum.
  • The predicted decrease of charged-hadron v02 for pT>4 GeV/c in mid-central collisions is a falsifiable signature of non-hydrodynamic high-pT suppression.
  • Meson-baryon splitting at high pT is predicted to be as clear in v02 as in v2 and v0.
  • The proton v02 non-monotonicity above 30% centrality is a unique prediction, not present in v2(pT) or v0(pT), offering a sharp test.
  • Since the corrected ideal-hydro calculation also reproduces v0 data, the paper implies that one f(pT) encodes the bulk of non-hydrodynamic effects for both radial and elliptic flow observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If v02 measurements confirm the predictions, the single-factor assumption gains support; a discrepancy would imply that viscous damping differs for the geometric versus the thermal response, and the ratio of v02 to v0 data would effectively measure that difference.
  • The non-monotonic proton v02 could serve as a sensitive constraint on the freeze-out temperature and on how the hydrodynamic response to initial geometry is modeled.
  • A natural check is to extract f(pT) independently from v0(pT) data and compare it with the v2-derived factor; agreement would strengthen the core-corona interpretation, while a mismatch would pinpoint the observable-dependence the authors assume away.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents ideal-hydrodynamic calculations of the new observable v_02(p_T) for Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, using a data-driven suppression factor f(p_T) defined as the ratio of measured v_2{4}(p_T) to the ideal-hydrodynamic v_2{4}(p_T) (Eq. 1). The same f(p_T) multiplies the hydrodynamic v_0(p_T) and v_02(p_T) results. The authors show that the f-corrected v_0(p_T) agrees reasonably with ATLAS and ALICE data, and then predict v_02(p_T) for charged hadrons up to 10 GeV/c and for pions, kaons, and protons up to 5-6 GeV/c in three centrality windows. The headline predictions are a high-p_T decrease of charged-hadron v_02, meson-baryon splitting, and a non-monotonic p_T dependence of proton v_02 for centralities above 30%.

Significance. If the v_02 predictions survive comparison with future data, the observable would provide a new, non-trivial test of the hydrodynamic picture, probing the coupling of spectrum fluctuations to elliptic flow beyond v_0 and v_2. The v_0 validation in Sec. III is a real positive feature: the authors follow the experimental cuts and show that the f-corrected ideal hydro reproduces v_0 reasonably, including meson-baryon splitting, which is not captured by pure hydrodynamics. The manuscript is also transparent about the ad hoc nature of the correction and explicitly states the limitation that the approach would fail for v_3. However, the v_02 predictions are conditional on an untested observable-independence of f(p_T); the v_0 check does not constrain the f-transfer to v_02 because v_0 and v_02 are different cumulants (Eqs. 2 and 3). Thus the significance of the central claim is currently not established until the transfer assumption is either derived, tested, or assigned a systematic uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (1) and Sec. III, Eq. (3)] The assumption that the suppression factor f(p_T) is identical for v_2, v_0, and v_02 is the load-bearing step of the paper. Since v_02 is defined through v_2^2 (Eq. 3), the suppression of v_02 is not generally f(p_T): in the core-corona picture invoked in Sec. II, the fluid fraction enters differently in the numerator and denominator of the v_02 cumulant than in the v_2 ratio of Eq. (1). The paper itself concedes in Sec. IV that the approach 'would fail if applied to triangular flow v_3', showing that f is not observable-universal; no argument is given for why it should hold for v_02 specifically. Moreover, the high-p_T decrease and meson-baryon splitting of v_02 are inherited from the fitted f rather than independently computed. I request (i) a derivation or explicit model of f for the v_02 cumulant, and (ii) a sensitivity band on the headline v_02 predictions under plausible violation
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. III, Eq. (3)] The f(p_T) used for the correction is fitted to v_2{4}, a four-particle cumulant designed to suppress nonflow, whereas the v_2 appearing in Eq. (3) is the event-by-event magnitude of the second Fourier coefficient, whose variance is related to v_2{2}, not v_2{4}. Even within a core-corona picture, the suppression of <v_2^2> is not simply the square of the suppression of v_2{4}, because v_2{4} involves higher moments of the flow vector. The v_0 validation does not resolve this mismatch, since v_0 (Eq. 2) is a correlation with [p_T], not with v_2^2. I ask the authors to quantify this effect, for example by repeating the v_02 calculation with f extracted from v_2{2} instead of v_2{4} in the hydrodynamic simulation, and to show how much the predictions change.
  3. [Secs. II-IV] No systematic uncertainty is assigned to the f-transfer assumption or to the model choices (ideal vs. viscous baseline, freeze-out temperature, TRENTo parameters). The bootstrap error bands in Figs. 1(d) and 2(j)-(l) represent only the statistical uncertainty from the finite number of initial conditions. Since the stated goal is to provide 'as realistic as possible' predictions for direct comparison with upcoming data, the absence of any systematic band on the f-transfer makes the predictions difficult to falsify: a disagreement with future v_02 data could always be attributed to the unknown f-transfer. The paper should state explicitly which features are robust hydrodynamic predictions and which are conditional extrapolations of the fitted f.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract describes a 'non-monotonic variation of v_02(p_T) for protons at low p_T above 30% centrality'. The phrase 'above 30% centrality' is ambiguous; it should read 'for centralities more peripheral than 30%' or 'for centrality percentile > 30%'.
  2. [Sec. II, Fig. 2(d)-(f)] In the discussion of f(p_T) for identified particles, the text notes that f can slightly exceed unity for pions at very low p_T. It would be useful to state explicitly how the p_T < 1 GeV/c assumption (constant f below the lowest ATLAS data point) is applied to identified particles, since the ALICE data for pions and protons extend to lower p_T than the ATLAS v_2{4} data.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (3)] The notation v_2 in Eq. (3) is used both for the modulus of the event-by-event Fourier coefficient and for the cumulant v_2{4} in Eq. (1). Please use a distinct symbol (e.g., v_2^{ev} or |V_2|) when referring to the event-by-event quantity in Eq. (3) to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

v02 predictions inherit their high-pT features from the fitted f(pT); the transfer of f to v02 is assumed, not derived.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II, Eq. (1); Section III, v02 paragraph]
    "We model this effect crudely as a suppression factor f(pT) which we assume to be identical for v2(pT), v0(pT) and v02(pT) ... We evaluate f(pT) using v2(pT) data: f(pT) ≡ v2(pT)[data]/v2(pT)[hydro] (1). ... We then multiply our result by f(pT) defined by Eq. (1)."

    The prediction is v02(pT) = f(pT) × v02_hydro(pT), with f(pT) = v2_data/v2_hydro by construction. Therefore the headline high-pT decrease of v02 and the meson–baryon splitting are not independent hydrodynamic predictions: they are imported from the fitted suppression factor that forces v2 to match data. The paper explicitly assumes f is identical for v2, v0, and v02, rather than deriving this from hydrodynamics, and concedes in Sec. IV that an observable-independent f would fail for v3. The ideal-hydrodynamic v02 shape and low-pT non-monotonicity are nontrivial, but the distinctive high-pT predictions are largely inherited from the fit.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section III, after v0 validation]
    "Since the physics probed by v02(pT) is similar to that of v0(pT) [5], we expect that the level of success will be comparable."

    The justification for applying the same f(pT) to v02 rests on the authors' own prior paper [5] asserting that v02 and v0 probe similar physics. No independent derivation or external benchmark is supplied for this similarity at this step. This is secondary to the main construction, but it is a self-citation that is load-bearing for the transferability claim.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: the v02 observable is newly defined, its low-pT oscillatory shape comes from the event-by-event ideal-hydrodynamic calculation, and the v0 comparison with data provides an independent check of the f-transfer hypothesis for a different two-particle observable. However, the central quantitative predictions for v02 are obtained by multiplying the ideal-hydro v02 by a factor f(pT) that is fitted to v2{4} data. Because f is defined as v2(data)/v2(hydro), the predicted high-pT decrease and meson-baryon splitting in v02 are effectively inherited from the fit rather than derived from first principles. The paper is transparent about this heuristic assumption, and it acknowledges the limitation that f is not observable-universal (v3 would fail), but the headline predictions are still conditional on an assumed, unverified transfer. Self-citations [4,5,7] define the observable and supply the 'similar physics' motivation, but do not by themselves force the numerical results. Score 4 reflects partial circularity: one fitted input controls key qualitative features, while the hydrodynamic baseline and v0 validation retain independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a single fitted correction function f(pT) plus standard hydrodynamics/initial-state parameters adopted from prior literature. No new particles or forces are introduced. The key ad hoc assumption is the observable-independence of f, which is explicitly flagged by the authors.

free parameters (7)
  • f(pT) correction factor = function of pT, species, centrality; ratio v2_data/v2_hydro
    Extracted from ATLAS/ALICE v2{4} data (Eq. 1) and applied to v0 and v02 predictions.
  • TRENTo p = 0
    Initial entropy deposition parameter; adopted from prior literature.
  • TRENTo k = 1.4
    Gamma fluctuation parameter; adopted from prior literature.
  • TRENTo w = 0.6 fm
    Nucleon width; adopted from prior literature.
  • tau0 = 0.4 fm/c
    Initial proper time for hydrodynamics.
  • T_freeze = 145 MeV
    Freezeout temperature in Cooper-Frye prescription.
  • Initial entropy normalization = matched to ALICE 0-5% multiplicity
    Normalizes initial entropy profile to reproduce final multiplicity.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Ideal hydrodynamics, despite overpredicting v2, gives the correct pT-dependent shape of flow observables after applying a multiplicative correction factor.
    Used throughout; motivates the choice of ideal hydro in Sec. II.
  • ad hoc to paper The suppression factor f(pT) is identical for v2(pT), v0(pT), and v02(pT).
    Explicitly assumed in Sec. II: 'we assume it to be identical...'. Authors note it would fail for v3 (Sec. IV).
  • domain assumption TRENTo initial conditions with p=0, k=1.4, w=0.6 fm, and the chosen EoS and freezeout temperature provide a realistic description of Pb+Pb collisions.
    Appendix A lists the parameters; they are adopted from prior fits rather than derived here.
  • domain assumption The 4-particle cumulant v2{4} from data is a faithful measure of elliptic flow, minimally biased by nonflow at high pT.
    Used in Eq. (1) to extract f(pT); standard in the field.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12238 in / 17028 out tokens · 161802 ms · 2026-08-01T07:48:22.144241+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present hydrodynamic predictions for the new observable $v_{02}(p_T)$, which measures the correlation of particle spectra with elliptic flow. We implement a data-driven correction so as to match hydrodynamic calculations to elliptic flow ($v_2(p_T)$) data. The corrected results are in fair agreement with $v_0(p_T)$ data up to high $p_T$. We make predictions for $v_{02}(p_T)$ of unidentified charged hadrons up to $p_T=10$~GeV$/c$, and of pions, kaons and protons up to $p_T=5-6$~GeV$/c$, in several centrality windows, for Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$~TeV. For $p_T>4$~GeV$/c$, we predict a decrease of $v_{02}(p_T)$ of charged hadrons in mid-central collisions, and meson-baryon splitting. We also predict a non-monotonic variation of $v_{02}(p_T)$ for protons at low $p_T$ above $30\%$ centrality. This is a specific feature of this new observable, which is not observed for the usual flow observables $v_2(p_T)$ and $v_0(p_T)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21321 by Jean-Yves Ollitrault, Rupam Samanta, Tribhuban Parida.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Symbols: ATLAS data for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Same as Fig. 1 for identified pions, kaons and protons, and for three centrality windows (left: 10-20%, middle: 30-40%, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.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

69 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and D. Teaney, Transverse momen- tum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collision, Phys. Rev. C102, 034905 (2020), arXiv:2004.00690 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    We then multiply our result byf(p T ) defined by Eq. (1). At first sight,v 02(pT ) roughly resemblesv 0(pT ), but is smaller by a factor≈5. This holds both for charged hadrons (Fig. 1 (d)) and identified hadrons (Fig. 2 (j)- (l)). In particular, we predict a clear meson-baryon split- ting at highp T . There are however significant differences between the ...

    2023

  3. [3]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Evidence for the Collective Na- ture of Radial Flow in Pb+Pb Collisions with the AT- LAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 032301 (2026), arXiv:2503.24125 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Long-range transverse mo- mentum correlations and radial flow in Pb−Pb colli- sions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 032302 (2026), arXiv:2504.04796 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    Parida, R

    T. Parida, R. Samanta, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Probing collectivity in heavy-ion collisions with fluctuations of the pT spectrum, Phys. Lett. B857, 138985 (2024), arXiv:2407.17313 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Parida, R

    T. Parida, R. Samanta, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Correlation between particle spectra and elliptic flow, Phys. Lett. B 868, 139729 (2025), arXiv:2506.18690 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Event shape engineering for inclusive spectra and elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN=2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C93, 034916 (2016), arXiv:1507.06194 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Samanta, Thermal and geometric normal modes of spectral fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    R. Samanta, Thermal and geometric normal modes of spectral fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B880, 140743 (2026), arXiv:2604.26731 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    P. F. Kolb and U. W. Heinz, Hydrodynamic descrip- tion of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, , 634 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    Y. Hama, T. Kodama, and O. Socolowski, Jr., Topics on hydrodynamic model of nucleus-nucleus collisions, Braz. J. Phys.35, 24 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    Holopainen, H

    H. Holopainen, H. Niemi, and K. J. Eskola, Event- by-event hydrodynamics and elliptic flow from fluctu- ating initial state, Phys. Rev. C83, 034901 (2011), arXiv:1007.0368 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    J. E. Bernhard, J. S. Moreland, and S. A. Bass, Bayesian estimation of the specific shear and bulk viscosity of quark–gluon plasma, Nature Phys.15, 1113 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Everett et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    K. H. Ackermann et al. (STAR), Elliptic flow in Au + 7 Au collisions at (S(NN))**(1/2) = 130 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 402 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0009011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    Romatschke and U

    P. Romatschke and U. Romatschke, Viscosity Informa- tion from Relativistic Nuclear Collisions: How Perfect is the Fluid Observed at RHIC?, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 172301 (2007), arXiv:0706.1522 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  17. [17]

    Hirano and M

    T. Hirano and M. Gyulassy, Perfect fluidity of the quark gluon plasma core as seen through its dissipa- tive hadronic corona, Nucl. Phys. A769, 71 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0506049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    Werner, Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys

    K. Werner, Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 152301 (2007), arXiv:0704.1270 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Kanakubo, Y

    Y. Kanakubo, Y. Tachibana, and T. Hirano, Interplay between core and corona components in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C105, 024905 (2022), arXiv:2108.07943 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Pseudorapidity distri- butions of charged hadrons in lead-lead collisions at sNN=5.36TeV, Phys. Lett. B861, 139279 (2025), arXiv:2409.00838 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Cooper and G

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

    1974

  22. [22]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via par- ticle production at high energy, Nature561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Teaney, The Effects of viscosity on spectra, elliptic flow, and HBT radii, Phys

    D. Teaney, The Effects of viscosity on spectra, elliptic flow, and HBT radii, Phys. Rev. C68, 034913 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Dusling and T

    K. Dusling and T. Sch¨ afer, Bulk viscosity, particle spec- tra and flow in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C85, 044909 (2012), arXiv:1109.5181 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  25. [25]

    Molnar and Z

    D. Molnar and Z. Wolff, Self-consistent conversion of a viscous fluid to particles, Phys. Rev. C95, 024903 (2017), arXiv:1404.7850 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Plumari, G

    S. Plumari, G. L. Guardo, V. Greco, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Viscous corrections to anisotropic flow and transverse momentum spectra from transport theory, Nucl. Phys. A941, 87 (2015), arXiv:1502.04066 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Everett et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Azimuthal anisotropies of charged particles with high transverse momentum in Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C112, 024910 (2025), arXiv:2412.15658 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Anisotropic flow and flow fluctuations of identified hadrons in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, JHEP05, 243, arXiv:2206.04587 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Centrality Dependence of Dihadron Correlations and Azimuthal anisotropy Har- monics in PbPb Collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2012 (2012), arXiv:1201.3158 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in √sN N = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C86, 014907 (2012), arXiv:1203.3087 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Measurement of the az- imuthal anisotropy of charged particles produced in√sNN = 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS de- tector, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 997 (2018), arXiv:1808.03951 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Particle type dependence of az- imuthal anisotropy and nuclear modification of particle production in Au + Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200- GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 052302 (2004), arXiv:nucl- ex/0306007

    arXiv 2004

  34. [34]

    S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX), Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au+Au collisions at s(NN)**(1/2) = 200- GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 182301 (2003), arXiv:nucl- ex/0305013

    arXiv 2003

  35. [35]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Long-range angular correla- tions ofπ, K and p in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B726, 164 (2013), arXiv:1307.3237 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, JHEP 06, 190, arXiv:1405.4632 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Anisotropic flow of identified hadrons in Xe-Xe collisions at √sNN = 5.44 TeV, JHEP 10, 152, arXiv:2107.10592 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Flow analy- sis from multiparticle azimuthal correlations, Phys. Rev. C64, 054901 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0105040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  39. [39]

    Niemi, K

    H. Niemi, K. J. Eskola, and R. Paatelainen, Event-by- event fluctuations in a perturbative QCD + saturation + hydrodynamics model: Determining QCD matter shear viscosity in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 024907 (2016), arXiv:1505.02677 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Borghini and J.-Y

    N. Borghini and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Momentum spectra, anisotropic flow, and ideal fluids, Phys. Lett. B642, 227 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0506045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  41. [41]

    R. P. G. Andrade, F. Grassi, Y. Hama, T. Kodama, and W. L. Qian, Importance of Granular Structure in the Initial Conditions for the Elliptic Flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 112301 (2008), arXiv:0805.0018 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venu- gopalan, Event-by-event anisotropic flow in heavy- ion collisions from combined Yang-Mills and viscous fluid dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 012302 (2013), arXiv:1209.6330 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    F. G. Gardim and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Effective shear and bulk viscosities for anisotropic flow, Phys. Rev. C103, 044907 (2021), arXiv:2010.11919 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    F. G. Gardim and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Effective Shear and Bulk Viscosities of the Quark–Gluon Plasma: QCD Ver- sus Heavy-ion Data, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16, 1 (2023), arXiv:2207.08692 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Huovinen, P

    P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen, and S. A. Voloshin, Radial and elliptic flow at RHIC: Fur- ther predictions, Phys. Lett. B503, 58 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0101136

    arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Hadronization in heavy ion collisions: Recombination and fragmentation of partons, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 202303 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  47. [47]

    Molnar and S

    D. Molnar and S. A. Voloshin, Elliptic flow at large trans- verse momenta from quark coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 092301 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0302014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  48. [48]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Hadron production in heavy ion collisions: Fragmentation and recombination from a dense parton phase, Phys. Rev. C 8 68, 044902 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  49. [49]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai, Partonic coalescence in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C68, 034904 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    Guillen and J.-Y

    A. Guillen and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Fluid velocity from trans- verse momentum spectra, Phys. Rev. C103, 064911 (2021), arXiv:2012.07898 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Grossi, A

    E. Grossi, A. Soloviev, D. Teaney, and F. Yan, Soft pions and transport near the chiral critical point, Phys. Rev. D104, 034025 (2021), arXiv:2101.10847 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Florio, E

    A. Florio, E. Grossi, A. Soloviev, and D. Teaney, Dynam- ics of theO(4) critical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. D105, 054512 (2022), arXiv:2111.03640 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Bruschke, A

    T. Bruschke, A. Kirchner, and S. Floerchinger, Evidence for dynamical chiral condensate in high-energy heavy ion collisions, (2025), arXiv:2512.17413 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Du, Characterizing radial flow fluctuations in rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions at top RHIC and LHC ener- gies, Phys

    L. Du, Characterizing radial flow fluctuations in rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions at top RHIC and LHC ener- gies, Phys. Rev. C113, 014901 (2026), arXiv:2508.07184 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    S. Saha, R. Singh, and B. Mohanty, pT-differential radial flow in a blast-wave model, Phys. Rev. C112, 024902 (2025), arXiv:2505.19697 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et 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

  57. [57]

    Bozek, Transverse-momentum–flow correlations in rel- ativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    P. Bozek, Transverse-momentum–flow correlations in rel- ativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C93, 044908 (2016), arXiv:1601.04513 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Olli- trault, Relative flow fluctuations as a probe of initial state fluctuations, Phys. Rev. C95, 054910 (2017), arXiv:1702.01730 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Giacalone, F

    G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Correlation between mean transverse momentum and anisotropic flow in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C103, 024909 (2021), arXiv:2004.01765 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Correlations between flow and transverse momentum in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC with the ATLAS detector: A probe of the heavy-ion initial state and nuclear deformation, Phys. Rev. C107, 054910 (2023), arXiv:2205.00039 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    I. J. Abualrob et al. (ALICE), Measurement of corre- lations between elliptic flow and mean transverse mo- mentum in pp, p-Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC, (2026), arXiv:2603.13217 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    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

  63. [63]

    C. D. Muncinelli, F. G. Gardim, D. D. Chinellato, G. S. Denicol, A. V. Giannini, M. Luzum, J. Noronha, T. N. da Silva, J. Takahashi, and G. Torrieri (ExTrEMe), Uni- versality of scaled particle spectra in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C112, 064922 (2025), arXiv:2406.15208 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Centrality Dependence of the Charged-Particle Multiplicity Density at Midrapidity in Pb-Pb Collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 222302 (2016), arXiv:1512.06104 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Schenke, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [67]

    Schenke, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [68]

    Paquet, C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [69]

    J. S. Moreland and R. A. Soltz, Hydrodynamic sim- ulations of relativistic heavy-ion collisions with differ- ent lattice quantum chromodynamics calculations of the equation of state, Phys. Rev. C93, 044913 (2016), arXiv:1512.02189 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016