Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Collective dynamics in heavy and light-ion collisions -- I) Kinetic Theory vs. Hydrodynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Event-by-event simulations of flow in OO, AuAu, and PbPb collisions show that viscous hydrodynamics matches kinetic theory only above opacity ~3 and that oxygen collisions carry a ~10 percent non-hydrodynamic signature.

desk verdict The conformal kinetic-theory vs. hydrodynamics comparison is careful, reproducible, and likely correct; the nonconformal extension is honestly labeled but not yet strong enough to carry the quantitative OO claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19708 v3 pith:S3PUKFHI submitted 2024-11-29 hep-ph

Victor E. Ambrus , Sören Schlichting , Clemens Werthmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords collectiveflowelliptickinetictheoryviscoushydrodynamicsquark-gluonplasmasmallcollisionsystemsoxygen-oxygencollisionsopacity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Viscous hydrodynamics is the standard macroscopic description of the quark-gluon plasma created in heavy-ion collisions, but its validity for small systems is debated. This paper tests that validity by simulating oxygen-oxygen, gold-gold, and lead-lead collisions event by event in two descriptions: a microscopic kinetic theory and a macroscopic viscous hydrodynamics matched to it. The central finding is that the elliptic flow response to the initial geometry is controlled by a single dimensionless opacity parameter, a combined measure of system size, energy density, and viscosity, and that hydrodynamics agrees with kinetic theory only when that opacity exceeds about 3. For oxygen-oxygen collisions at RHIC and LHC, the two descriptions differ by roughly 10 percent at realistic shear viscosity, so the measured flow in those systems carries an imprint of the non-equilibrium stage that hydrodynamics cannot reproduce. The result matters because it sets a quantitative boundary for when hydrodynamic modeling can be trusted and makes small-system flow a potential probe of pre-equilibrium dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the opacity parameter $\hat{\gamma} = \frac{1}{5\,\eta/s}\left(\frac{R}{\pi a}\frac{dE_\perp^0}{d\eta}\right)^{1/4}$, a single dimensionless number that collects the specific shear viscosity $\eta/s$, the transverse system size $R$, and the initial transverse energy per rapidity. It controls how much the system equilibrates before transverse expansion begins. The response coefficient $\kappa = \varepsilon_p/\epsilon_2$ maps the initial eccentricity to the final energy-flow ellipticity, and the paper's key result is that $\kappa$ is a universal function of $\hat{\gamma}$ across systems, centralities, and viscosities, with the kinetic-theory curve interpolating between the linear low-opacity limit $\kappa = \kappa'_0 \hat{\gamma}$ and the ideal-hydrodynamic saturation $\kappa_{\mathrm{id}}$. A second piece of machinery is the factorization $c_{\varepsilon_p}\{2k\} = c_{\epsilon_2}\{2k\}\,\kappa(\langle\hat{\gamma}\rangle)^{2k}$, which lets cumulant ratios cancel the response and expose the initial geometry. The comparison uses energy-momentum-based elliptic flow rather than particle-number flow, avoiding hadronization modeling.

What would settle it

A numerical experiment would settle this: run the same event-by-event oxygen-oxygen initial conditions through a nonconformal kinetic theory that includes bulk viscosity and a realistic QCD equation of state, and compare the resulting response curve $\kappa(\hat{\gamma})$ to the conformal-RTA curve. If the curves separate by more than the reported 10 percent in the opacity range $\hat{\gamma} \sim 3$–$10$, or if the ratio of hydrodynamic to kinetic response at $\hat{\gamma}=3$ deviates from the few-percent agreement claimed here, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Hydrodynamics provides an accurate description of collective flow for large collision systems (AuAu, PbPb) up to peripheral centrality classes, but deviates in small systems (OO), restricting its range of applicability to opacities $\hat{\gamma} \gtrsim 3$. The event-by-event elliptic flow response coefficient $\kappa = \varepsilon_p/\epsilon_2$, where $\varepsilon_p$ is the energy-flow ellipticity and $\epsilon_2$ the initial eccentricity, is found to be a universal function of the opacity $\hat{\gamma}$ for both kinetic theory and hydrodynamics, with Padé fits given by Eqs. (23) and (24). Hydrodynamics undershoots the kinetic-theory response at low opacity and approaches it from below at high opacity. For OO collisions at RHIC and LHC, the sensitivity to the underlying microscopic dynamics is typically at the 10 percent level. Flow cumulant ratios $c_{\varepsilon_p}\{2k\}/c_{\varepsilon_p}\{2\}^k$ are nearly independent of opacity and agree with the corresponding initial-eccentricity ratios, so these ratios directly probe the initial-state geometry. A first nonconformal test with a QCD equation of state shows that at LHC energies the main effect is a global rescaling of the response by about 0.8, while at RHIC energies it adds a centrality-dependent spread.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative 10 percent sensitivity claim for real collisions assumes that a simplified model of the quark-gluon plasma, consisting of one type of massless particle with no confinement scale and no hadronization, reproduces the flow-relevant dynamics of full QCD; the paper argues this by universality rather than proving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For central and mid-central AuAu and PbPb collisions, where the mean opacity is above about 3, viscous hydrodynamics reproduces the kinetic-theory flow response within a few percent, so multi-stage hydrodynamic models can be trusted in that regime.
  • For oxygen-oxygen collisions at RHIC and LHC, the final elliptic flow differs between kinetic theory and hydrodynamics by about 10 percent at realistic shear viscosity, so flow measurements there are genuinely sensitive to non-equilibrium dynamics beyond hydrodynamics.
  • The universal response curve $\kappa(\hat{\gamma})$ collapses results across systems, energies, and viscosities, so the collective flow response is controlled by opacity alone, not by the details of the collision system.
  • Ratios of flow cumulants such as $c_{\varepsilon_p}\{4\}/c_{\varepsilon_p}\{2\}^2$ are nearly opacity-independent and match the corresponding initial-eccentricity ratios, making them direct probes of the initial-state geometry.
  • Using a nonconformal equation of state in hydrodynamics rescales the conformal flow response by roughly 0.8 at LHC energies, while at RHIC energies it introduces an additional centrality-dependent effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the opacity-only factorization survives in more realistic theories, then measuring $\kappa$ in oxygen collisions at a known opacity could be inverted to constrain the initial-state eccentricity and transverse size, effectively calibrating initial-state models without hadronization modeling.
  • The 10 percent sensitivity means that distinguishing hydrodynamic from non-hydrodynamic behavior in OO requires initial-geometry uncertainties below 10 percent; otherwise a hydrodynamic model with a slightly larger eccentricity can always reproduce a weaker response, so OO data alone may not settle the debate.
  • The paper notes unusual event-by-event spread in hydrodynamic results at low opacity that is not present in kinetic theory; a testable extension would be to add higher-order or resummed viscous corrections and check whether the spread collapses toward the kinetic-theory cloud.
  • A decisive extension would be a nonconformal kinetic theory with bulk viscosity; if its $\kappa(\hat{\gamma})$ curve shifts by more than about 10 percent from the conformal-RTA curve, the transfer of these conclusions to QCD would need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents an event-by-event comparison of collective elliptic flow in conformal RTA kinetic theory and in second-order viscous hydrodynamics matched to the same transport coefficients, for OO, AuAu, and PbPb collisions at RHIC and LHC energies. Initial conditions are generated with trento, the dynamics is boost-invariant, and the elliptic response is characterized by the coefficient κ = ε_p/ε_2 as a function of the opacity γ̂, together with flow cumulants c_{ε_p}{2k} and their ratios. The central findings are a universal response curve κ(γ̂) for both descriptions, agreement between hydrodynamics and kinetic theory for γ̂ ≳ 3, deviations at the 10% level in OO collisions for realistic η/s, and a first exploration of nonconformal effects through an instantaneous switch to a QCD equation of state in hydrodynamics.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a quantitative criterion for the applicability of viscous hydrodynamics in small collision systems and identifies OO collisions as borderline probes of non-equilibrium dynamics. The study has notable methodological strengths: event-by-event simulations with 1600 events per centrality class, jackknife error estimates, publicly available plot data, a documented optimized linear-order kinetic-theory code in Appendix A, and a transparent discussion of the nonconformal setup's limitations in Appendix C. The model-level comparison within conformal RTA is carefully constructed, and the universal response curve is a useful compact summary of the simulation results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V and App. C, Fig. 16] The quantitative transfer of the headline sensitivity estimate to real OO collisions is not yet supported. Section IV B concludes that OO collisions at RHIC and LHC are sensitive to non-equilibrium dynamics 'typically only at the 10% level,' but the nonconformal setup in Sec. V A changes the equation of state discontinuously at tau_switch/R = 0.1, keeping e, u^mu and pi^mu nu fixed while setting bulk pressure to zero [Eqs. (29)-(30)]. Appendix C shows that varying tau_switch/R between 0.03 and 0.3 changes the final elliptic flow by about 10% and produces a jump in the energy-momentum tensor at the switch. This is the same order of magnitude as the reported OO sensitivity, and Fig. 11 shows an additional centrality-dependent suppression at RHIC. The paper should either restrict the 10% claim to the conformal model or provide a quantitative uncertainty band for the nonconformal matching, for example by testing a continuous switching prescription or by including the switched pressure difference as a bulk stress.
  2. [Sec. V B, Fig. 10] The nonconformal analysis compares nonconformal hydrodynamics with conformal hydrodynamics, not with a nonconformal kinetic theory. It therefore cannot establish how much of the kinetic-theory versus hydrodynamics difference found in Sec. IV survives when a QCD equation of state is used. The constant 0.8 scaling at LHC and the centrality dependence at RHIC are statements about two hydrodynamic descriptions; since the original 10% estimate is a difference between two dynamical frameworks, the nonconformal correction should be propagated to that difference rather than only to the hydrodynamic response. As written, the conclusion that nonconformal effects would not affect the discussion at LHC overstates what the setup can show.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI and Sec. II A] There are several typos: 'dynamcis' in the conclusion, 'qualtitively' in Sec. II A, and 'Timis,oara' in the affiliation line; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 4] In the lower-right panel of Fig. 4, the inset label 'kin.th./hydro' appears inverted relative to the other panels and to the caption's description 'hydro/kin.th.'; please verify the orientation of the ratio.
  3. [Eq. (24)] The Padé fit for hydrodynamics takes a negative value at γ̂ = 0. If the fit is only meant to describe the computed range, please state the fit range explicitly so that the curve is not extrapolated into the unphysical region where the hydrodynamic description is not defined.
  4. [Fig. 9] The comparison with ATLAS data is based on sixth-order polynomial fits to the published cumulants rather than on the original data (footnote 7). Since this introduces an unknown systematic uncertainty, the approximation should be described in the main text rather than only in a footnote.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Main kinetic-theory vs hydro comparison is not circular, but Appendix B is a self-admitted construction from the same universal response curve, and the QCD-transfer premise rests on a same-author citation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B, 'Flow cumulants at fixed final state transverse energy' (paragraphs 2–3)]
    "These results were obtained not from additional simulations but from a well-motivated extrapolation procedure from the results for fixed initial transverse energy... we simply extrapolate the scaled results from the data we have already obtained... Then we compute for each η/s the change in the event-by-event flow response due to the scaling of the initial condition according to the flow response curve κ(γ̂)... Of course this was entirely expected, since we performed the scaling according to the universal curves, so we get out what we put in."

    The 'scaled' flow cumulants in Figs. 12–15 are generated by taking the already-fitted universal response curve κ(γ̂) and the f_work curve, shifting each event's opacity by a normalization factor, and recomputing cεp{2k}. The difference between scaled and unscaled results is therefore an algebraic consequence of the same curves used to construct it; no independent simulation is performed. The paper's own sentence 'we get out what we put in' confirms the reduction. This step is not central to the kinetic-vs-hydro comparison, but it is a prediction that reduces by construction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section II A, paragraph following Eq. (4)]
    "However, we note that in the context of thermalization studies, it has been found that the dynamics of the energy momentum tensor which is severely restricted by conservation laws, exhibits a rather similar behavior for different underlying microscopic theories, as discussed e.g. in [40]. Since for the purposes of this work only the evolution of the energy-momentum tensor is relevant, we expect that comparing full QCD dynamics to hydrodynamics matched to QCD will yield qualtitively similar results as comparing conformal RTA to conformal hydrodynamics matched to RTA."

    The premise that conformal RTA results transfer to QCD — explicitly an 'expect[ation]' — is the bridge that turns the model-level ~10% difference into a statement about real OO collisions. The only support offered is Ref. [40], a conference proceedings authored by co-author S. Schlichting. The paper supplies no independent derivation or external benchmark for this universality, so the phenomenological conclusion rests on a same-author citation rather than on a result derived in the present work. This does not make the model-level comparison circular, but it is load-bearing for the real-QCD claim.

full rationale

The central Sec. IV comparison is genuinely self-contained: hydrodynamic transport coefficients are matched to the same RTA relaxation time (Eq. 10), hydrodynamic initial conditions are placed on the Bjorken attractor with the kinetic-theory rescaling, and the elliptic-flow response κ(γ̂) emerges from event-by-event simulations rather than being an input. No main-text equation defines the predicted flow in terms of the fit; the Padé fits (23)–(24) are descriptive, and the hydro-applicability threshold γ̂ ≳ 3 is an emergent finding. Two caveats prevent a score of 0–2. First, Appendix B's fixed-final-energy cumulants are not simulated but extrapolated by applying the already-fitted universal κ(γ̂) and f_work curves to rescaled opacities; the paper concedes 'we get out what we put in,' so that robustness check is circular by construction, though non-central. Second, the transfer of the conformal-model sensitivity to real QCD rests on an expectation of universality of energy-momentum dynamics, supported only by a same-author citation [40]; this is load-bearing for the phenomenological OO statement. Additionally, the paper itself flags in Appendix C that 'Varying the switching times on this scale can cause the final state results to differ on the order of 10%' and that the EOS switch produces a jump in T^{μν}; this is a correctness risk comparable to the headline 10% sensitivity, not a circularity, but it reinforces the need for caution in the real-QCD claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces or conserved quantities are introduced. The central comparison relies on a chain of modeling choices inherited from the literature (trento, conformal RTA, vHLLE) plus one ad hoc EOS-switching procedure. The free parameters are either Bayesian-fitted inputs from prior studies, scanned viscosities, or coefficients fit to the simulation output itself; the latter are used for interpolation and rescaling checks, not as independent predictions.

free parameters (8)
  • trento shape parameters (w, p) = w=0.985, p=0.038
    Taken from Bayesian analysis [50]; fix the initial energy density profile, hence eccentricity and opacity, for all systems.
  • trento normalization N = N=20.013 (PbPb 2.76 TeV), 9.69 (200 GeV), 30 (7 TeV)
    Extrapolated from PbPb fit following [49]; controls the transverse energy scale that enters the opacity via its fourth root.
  • ideal-hydro response coefficient kappa_id = 0.547
    Saturated response from ideal hydrodynamics simulations; used in Eq. (20) and figures to scale initial eccentricity cumulants.
  • Pade coefficients for kinetic theory response curve = 0.201, 0.129, 0.892, 0.235 (Eq. 23)
    Fitted to kinetic-theory simulation data to represent kappa(gamma); used for interpolation and Appendix B rescaling.
  • Pade coefficients for hydro response curve = -0.0896, 0.271, 0.496 (Eq. 24)
    Fitted to hydrodynamic simulation data; used to represent hydrodynamic kappa(gamma).
  • nonconformal initial-energy normalization = centrality-dependent unspecified factor
    Rescaled per centrality so nonconformal hydro final transverse energy matches kinetic theory at eta/s=0.12 (Sec. V A). This is a calibration before comparing flow.
  • EOS switch time tau_switch/R = 0.1
    Chosen by hand; varying from 0.03R to 0.3R changes final elliptic flow by about 10 percent (App. C), an acknowledged uncertainty.
  • specific shear viscosity eta/s (scan) = 0.024, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.24
    Parameters scanned to explore the opacity range, not fitted in this paper. The realistic central value is 0.12.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Conformal RTA with a single massless boson species is an adequate proxy for QCD dynamics of the energy-momentum tensor.
    Invoked in Sec. II A; authors state the simple model is not realistic QCD but argue that energy-momentum dynamics is similar across microscopic theories, citing Ref. [40].
  • domain assumption Boost invariance and absence of initial transverse momentum anisotropies (effectively 2+1D evolution).
    Sec. II A: 'We will assume an effectively 2+1D boost-invariant dynamics without any transverse momentum anisotropies in the initial state'.
  • domain assumption trento parametric initial state with pre-generated nucleon configurations reproduces the true initial geometry.
    Sec. II C: all initial profiles, eccentricities and opacities come from trento with parameters from [50] and nuclear configurations from [51,52,53].
  • ad hoc to paper The local rescaling of hydrodynamic initial energy to the Bjorken attractor of the same kinetic theory correctly accounts for pre-equilibrium dynamics.
    Sec. II B: hydro is initialized on the Bjorken attractor with local re-scaling from Ref. [33]; if this matching is imperfect for event-by-event transverse dynamics, the hydro results are biased.
  • domain assumption Hydrodynamic transport coefficients are fixed by the same conformal RTA (Eq. 10), so differences from kinetic theory are due to truncation of the gradient expansion.
    Sec. II B: tau_pi, delta_pipi and tau_pipi are set from RTA; this makes the comparison controlled but restricts conclusions to RTA-like systems.
  • domain assumption Factorization c_eps_p{2k} approx c_eps_2{2k} times kappa(<gamma>)^{2k}, i.e. event-by-event response fluctuations are subleading.
    Eq. (20), Sec. IV B and IV D; validated by comparison to simulation data, but assumed when interpreting cumulant ratios as geometry-only observables.
  • ad hoc to paper Instantaneous EOS switch at tau_switch/R=0.1 with discontinuous pressure but continuous e, u and pi, and with bulk pressure set to zero, is a valid approximation.
    Sec. V A and App. C; the authors show this introduces jumps and roughly 10 percent switch-time dependence, making it the largest theoretical uncertainty in the nonconformal setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective dynamics in heavy and light-ion collisions -- I) Kinetic Theory vs. Hydrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3PUKFHI

@misc{pith2026241119708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective dynamics in heavy and light-ion collisions -- I) Kinetic Theory vs. Hydrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3PUKFHI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19708}
}
read the original abstract

High-energy nuclear collisions exhibit collective flow, which emerges as a dynamical response of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) to the initial state geometry of the collision. Collective flow in heavy-ion collisions is usually described within multi-stage evolution models, which employ a viscous relativistic hydrodynamic description of the space-time evolution of the QGP. By comparing event-by-event simulations in kinetic theory and viscous hydrodynamics in OO, AuAu and PbPb collisions at RHIC and LHC energies, we quantify to what extent a macroscopic hydrodynamic description can accurately describe the development of collective flow and to what extent collective flow in small systems, such as OO, is sensitive to the non-equilibrium evolution of the QGP beyond hydrodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19708 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Distributions of transverse energy d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Distributions of transverse energy d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Point clouds of event-by-event flow responses as a function of event-by-event opacity in OO at LHC (top left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Elliptic flow cumulants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mean values of the response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Flow cumulant ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Point clouds of event-by-event flow responses as a function of event-by-event opacity in OO at LHC (top left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Mean values of the response coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Second order elliptic flow cumulants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Time evolution of transverse energy d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Collective dynamics in heavy and light-ion collisions -- II) Determining the origin of collective behavior in high-energy collisions

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new observable, W, built from ratios of flow cumulants and transverse energies in same-nucleus collisions at RHIC and LHC, is proposed and validated as a measure of how close a collision system is to hydrodynamic behavior.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, (2024), arXiv:2411.19709 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    The total energy at early times is equal to the initial transverse energy d E0 ⊥ dη, since longitudinal momenta (and masses) vanish: dE0 ⊥ dη = τ0 Z x⊥ e(x⊥)

    Initial state Given an initial transverse energy density profile e(x⊥), we characterize the geometry of the correspond- ing event in terms of the characteristic observables that are introduced in the following. The total energy at early times is equal to the initial transverse energy d E0 ⊥ dη, since longitudinal momenta (and masses) vanish: dE0 ⊥ dη = τ0...

    work page

  3. [2]

    The sign in Eq

    Final state When considering the collective flow buildup in re- sponse to the initial state geometry, we will focus on the elliptic flow, which is usually quantified in terms 4 Technically this phase can become important to discern the ori- entation of the elliptic flow. The sign in Eq. (13) is chosen such that elliptic flow will typically be positive whe...

    work page

  4. [3]

    from the cell whose lower left corner is the grid point at x⊥ + (a⌊∆τ ′/a⌋, 0), where a is the grid spacing, and follows the circle counterclockwise

    Identify cells in the initial state grid that intersect with the circle The algorithm starts in positive x-direction from the center of the circle, i.e. from the cell whose lower left corner is the grid point at x⊥ + (a⌊∆τ ′/a⌋, 0), where a is the grid spacing, and follows the circle counterclockwise. The simplification coming from the grid in x⊥ being ch...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Find the angles at which the circle enters and exits each cell When the circle enters or exits a cell, one of the carte- sian coordinates is exactly equal to a grid coordinate. Now we can draw a right-angled triangle with the differ- ence of this coordinate to that of the circle center being a cathetus and the radius of the circle ∆ τ being the hy- potenu...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Compute the integral contribution from each cell and sum We now consider the contribution of a single cell. We denote the coordinates of its corners by x0 < x1 and y0 < y1 and the values of the input energy density profile as e00 = e(τ0, x0, y0) , e 10 = e(τ0, x1, y0) , e01 = e(τ0, x0, y1) , e 11 = e(τ0, x1, y1) . (A3) The bilinear interpolation of e(τ ′,...

    work page

  7. [6]

    U. W. Heinz, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 455, 012044 (2013), arXiv:1304.3634 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, Comput. Phys. Commun. 199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    McDonald, C

    S. McDonald, C. Shen, F. Fillion-Gourdeau, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 95, 064913 (2017), arXiv:1609.02958 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. H. Putschke et al., (2019), arXiv:1903.07706, arXiv:1903.07706 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    G. Nijs, W. van der Schee, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054909 (2021), arXiv:2010.15134 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Everett et al

    D. Everett et al. (JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C 103, 054904 (2021), arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Xu and C

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

    2005 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Z. Xu, C. Greiner, and H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 082302 (2008), arXiv:0711.0961 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [14]

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

    2005 arXiv

  8. [15]

    E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, V. P. Konchakovski, and O. Linnyk, Nucl. Phys. A 856, 162 (2011), arXiv:1101.5793 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Linnyk, E

    O. Linnyk, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and W. Cassing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87, 50 (2016), arXiv:1512.08126 [nucl- th]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    V. E. Ambrus,, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, Phys. Rev. D 105, 014031 (2022), arXiv:2109.03290 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    M. P. Heller, A. Kurkela, M. Spali´ nski, and V. Svensson, Phys. Rev. D 97, 091503 (2018), arXiv:1609.04803 [nucl- 22 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cumulant cεp {6} ·106 Centrality Percentile cϵ2 {6} ·κ6 id LO η/s = 0.24 η/s = 0.12 η/s = 0.08 η/s = 0.04 η/s...

    2018 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Spali´ nski, Phys

    M. Spali´ nski, Phys. Lett. B 776, 468 (2018), arXiv:1708.01921 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Romatschke, JHEP 12, 079 (2017), arXiv:1710.03234 [hep-th]

    P. Romatschke, JHEP 12, 079 (2017), arXiv:1710.03234 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Du and S

    X. Du and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054011 (2021), arXiv:2012.09079 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Du and S

    X. Du and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 122301 (2021), arXiv:2012.09068 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kurkela, A

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlicht- ing, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 122302 (2019), arXiv:1805.01604 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    KøMPøST,

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlicht- ing, and D. Teaney, “KøMPøST,” https://github. com/KMPST/KoMPoST (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Liyanage, D

    D. Liyanage, D. Everett, C. Chattopadhyay, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064908 (2022), arXiv:2205.00964 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Lett. B 772, 681 (2017), arXiv:1705.03177 [nucl- th]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [27]

    W. Zhao, S. Ryu, C. Shen, and B. Schenke, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014904 (2023), arXiv:2211.16376 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Werner, I

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 122004 (2011), arXiv:1011.0375 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Werner, M

    K. Werner, M. Bleicher, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 232301 (2014), arXiv:1307.4379 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Schenke and R

    B. Schenke and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 102301 (2014), arXiv:1405.3605 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Schenke, Rept

    B. Schenke, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 082301 (2021), arXiv:2102.11189 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Demirci, T

    S. Demirci, T. Lappi, and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094025 (2021), arXiv:2101.03791 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Schlichting, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Lett. B 747, 76 (2015), arXiv:1502.01331 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [34]

    McLerran and V

    L. McLerran and V. Skokov, Nucl. Phys. A 947, 142 (2016), arXiv:1510.08072 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Schlichting, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094023 (2022), arXiv:2201.08864 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Kurkela, U

    A. Kurkela, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 965 (2019), arXiv:1905.05139 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kurkela, S

    A. Kurkela, S. F. Taghavi, U. A. Wiedemann, and B. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135901 (2020), arXiv:2007.06851 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094013 (2023), arXiv:2211.14379 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    V. E. Ambrus, S. Schlichting, and C. Werthmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 152301 (2023), arXiv:2211.14356 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Plot data for

    C. Werthmann, V. E. Ambrus, and S. Schlichting, “Plot data for ”collective dynamics in heavy and light-ion col- lisions – i) kinetic theory vs. hydrodynamics”,” (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D 90, 094503 (2014), arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]. 23 −16 −14 −12 −10 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cumulant cεp {8} ·107 Centrality Percentile cϵ2 {8} ·κ8 id LO η/s = 0.24 η/s = 0.12 η/s = 0.08 η/s = 0.024 ideal hydro...

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Borsanyi et al., Nature 539, 69 (2016), arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]

    S. Borsanyi et al., Nature 539, 69 (2016), arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. H. Mueller, Phys. Lett. B 475, 220 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9909388

    2000

  37. [45]

    Schlichting, EPJ Web Conf

    S. Schlichting, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 01020 (2024), arXiv:2401.03841 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Heiselberg and A.-M

    H. Heiselberg and A.-M. Levy, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2716 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9812034

    1999 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Borghini and C

    N. Borghini and C. Gombeaud, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1612 (2011), arXiv:1012.0899 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. S. Denicol, H. Niemi, E. Molnar, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 85, 114047 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 24 91, 039902 (2015)], arXiv:1202.4551 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Jaiswal, Phys

    A. Jaiswal, Phys. Rev. C 87, 051901 (2013), arXiv:1302.6311 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Moln´ ar, H

    E. Moln´ ar, H. Niemi, G. S. Denicol, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074010 (2014), arXiv:1308.0785 [nucl- th]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    V. E. Ambrus, E. Moln´ ar, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 106, 076005 (2022), arXiv:2207.05670 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Karpenko, P

    I. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, and M. Bleicher, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 3016 (2014), arXiv:1312.4160 [nucl- th]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Nijs and W

    G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. C 106, 044903 (2022), arXiv:2110.13153 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Liyanage, O

    D. Liyanage, O. S¨ urer, M. Plumlee, S. M. Wild, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054905 (2023), arXiv:2302.14184 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Alvioli, H

    M. Alvioli, H. J. Drescher, and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B 680, 225 (2009), arXiv:0905.2670 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Alvioli, H

    M. Alvioli, H. Holopainen, K. J. Eskola, and M. Strik- man, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034902 (2012), arXiv:1112.5306 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. H. Lim, J. Carlson, C. Loizides, D. Lonardoni, J. E. Lynn, J. L. Nagle, J. D. Orjuela Koop, and J. Ouellette, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044904 (2019), arXiv:1812.08096 [nucl- th]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    TGlauberMC on HepForge

    “TGlauberMC on HepForge.” https://tglaubermc. hepforge.org, v3.2

  52. [60]

    Rybczy´ nski and W

    M. Rybczy´ nski and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064912 (2019), arXiv:1910.09489 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Giacalone, A

    G. Giacalone, A. Mazeliauskas, and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 262301 (2019), arXiv:1908.02866 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Voloshin and Y

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. C 70, 665 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9407282

    1996 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054906 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0007063

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Borghini, P

    N. Borghini, P. M. Dinh, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 64, 054901 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0105040

    2001 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. S. Bhalerao, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 84, 034910 (2011), arXiv:1104.4740 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Giacalone, L

    G. Giacalone, L. Yan, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 95, 014913 (2017), arXiv:1608.01823 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3157 (2014), arXiv:1408.4342 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Noronha-Hostler, L

    J. Noronha-Hostler, L. Yan, F. G. Gardim, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014909 (2016), arXiv:1511.03896 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    M. L. Sambataro, Y. Sun, V. Minissale, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 833 (2022), arXiv:2206.03160 [hep-ph]

    2022

  62. [70]

    Steinheimer, S

    J. Steinheimer, S. Schramm, and H. Stocker, J. Phys. G 38, 035001 (2011), arXiv:1009.5239 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Krupczak et al

    R. Krupczak et al. (ExTrEMe), Phys. Rev. C 109, 034908 (2024), arXiv:2311.02210 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.