Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

This paper argues that in collisions of a lead beam with 16O or 20Ne, the ratio of elliptic to triangular flow measured near the target rapidity is the most sensitive probe of the light nucleus's shape, and recommends measuring it.

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 ↗

The elliptic-to-triangular flow ratio near target rapidity in lead-light nucleus collisions is the most sensitive model-level probe of light-nucleus deformation.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful systematic AMPT comparison for light-ion collisions, but the headline target-rapidity v2/v3 claim lacks statistical uncertainty and may rest on Monte Carlo noise. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19681 v2 pith:XIT4LT2C submitted 2025-08-27 nucl-th hep-exnucl-ex

A comparison study of collisions at relativistic energies involving light nuclei

Hai-Cheng Wang , Song-Jie Li , Jun Xu , Zhong-Zhou Ren This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-exnucl-ex
keywords anisotropic flowelliptic flowtriangular flowlight-nucleus structureα-clusteringnuclear deformationmultiphase transport modelfixed-target heavy-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.

The reading

Using a multiphase transport model, the paper compares 16O+16O and 20Ne+20Ne collisions at 200 GeV with 208Pb+16O and 208Pb+20Ne fixed-target collisions at 68.5 GeV, initializing the light nucleus three ways: spherical, deformed, or α-clustered. It tries to establish which final observable separates these initial shapes. The answer is the ratio of elliptic flow to triangular flow, and the paper's new finding is that in the asymmetric heavy-light systems this ratio is most sensitive near the target rapidity (2<η<5), where spherical 16O gives the largest value and deformed or clustered 16O lower values, while deformed or clustered 20Ne give larger values. If true, a planned fixed-target measurement can use v2/v3 as a practical shape discriminator for light nuclei. The study also finds that after the partonic and hadronic evolution, observables see only the global nuclear shape, not the difference between a deformed Woods-Saxon and an explicit α-cluster configuration.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ratio ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩, not the individual flows or transverse-momentum fluctuations, carries the cleanest structure signal in collisions involving light nuclei, and that in heavy-light collisions the signal is strongest near the target rapidity, 2<η<5. In 208Pb+16O there, spherical 16O gives the largest ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩; deformed Woods-Saxon and tetrahedral α-cluster 16O both give smaller, similar values. In 208Pb+20Ne the ordering is opposite, with deformed and bowling-pin α-cluster 20Ne enhancing the ratio over spherical. The authors state this target-rapidity sensitivity is found for the first time in the present study, and recommend measuring the ratio.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the string-melting version of the multiphase transport (AMPT) model: string fragmentation produces partons, a parton cascade evolves them, coalescence forms hadrons, and a relativistic transport carries the hadronic phase. Three density templates feed the model for each light nucleus: spherical Woods-Saxon; deformed Woods-Saxon matched to the multipole and radial moments of the cluster densities; and α-cluster densities (tetrahedron for 16O, bowling pin for 20Ne). The argument-carrying observable is the flow ratio ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩; near target rapidity in heavy-light collisions it is the only final observable with appreciable, systematic sensitivity to the light-nucleus shape.

Load-bearing premise

The recommendation stands or falls on the assumption—which the paper states is beyond its scope to calibrate—that the transport model with parameters fixed from lead-lead collisions converts the initial density difference into the final v2/v3 difference in these small asymmetric systems without large model error, and that sub-nucleon structure can be neglected.

What would settle it

Measure ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩ in 0–10% central 208Pb+16O collisions in the pseudorapidity window 2<η<5 with the planned fixed-target setup. If spherical-initialized 16O does not give the largest ratio, or if deformed and α-clustered cases are not both lower, the claimed target-rapidity sensitivity is contradicted; the same logic applies to Pb+Ne, where deformed/clustered 20Ne must sit above spherical.

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

If this is right

  • Measuring ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩ in the 2<η<5 window of Pb+O and Pb+Ne collisions would give a direct experimental check on whether 16O and 20Ne behave as spherical, globally deformed, or α-clustered at relativistic energies.
  • Because the ordering is opposite for 16O versus 20Ne, the same observable can separate quadrupole from octupole sensitivity: 20Ne carries a large β2 while 16O carries mainly β3.
  • Transverse-momentum fluctuations can be deprioritized in the upcoming analyses: the study finds ⟨δpT^2⟩ essentially insensitive to nuclear structure in all four systems.
  • The similarity of the deformed-WS and α-cluster final results means the planned measurement is best described as a global-shape probe, not a direct image of α-cluster substructure.
  • Finding the strongest effect in heavy-light rather than light-light collisions redirects attention to fixed-target kinematics, where a heavy beam hits a light target, rather than symmetric O+O or Ne+Ne at midrapidity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the effect survives with a calibrated model, the rapidity dependence of v2/v3 could be turned into a quantitative multipole meter for light nuclei: the ratio's magnitude at several η windows would constrain β2 and β3 without needing to resolve cluster substructure.
  • One testable extension is to apply the same target-rapidity logic to other light targets such as helium or carbon; the model predicts that the flow-ratio probe should work whenever the participant distribution is dominated by the heavy projectile.
  • The paper's insensitivity of δpT suggests that richer observables, such as v2-v3 correlations or event-shape engineering, may be needed if one wants to see the α-cluster substructure that the one-body densities wash out.
  • An experimental check of only the target-rapidity v2/v3 ordering in Pb+O would already discriminate the spherical scenario from both deformed scenarios; distinguishing deformation from clustering would then require matching the absolute magnitude, which is where parameter calibration matters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents AMPT (string-melting) calculations for 16O+16O and 20Ne+20Ne collisions at 200 GeV and 208Pb+16O and 208Pb+20Ne collisions at 68.5 GeV, comparing three descriptions of the light projectile/target: spherical Woods–Saxon, deformed Woods–Saxon obtained by matching the multipole and radial moments of the α-cluster densities, and the α-cluster Bloch–Brink densities. It compares initial eccentricities, charged-particle pseudorapidity distributions, elliptic flow, triangular flow, their ratio, and transverse momentum fluctuations. The main claim is that the ratio ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩ is sensitive to the structure of the light nucleus, especially near target rapidity (2<η<5) in Pb+O and Pb+Ne collisions, where the spherical case is separated from the deformed and clustered cases. The paper also concludes that the detailed α-cluster pattern is largely washed out and the observables are mainly sensitive to the global shape.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper provides a concrete, measurable observable—v2/v3 near target rapidity in fixed-target Pb+O/Pb+Ne collisions—that could discriminate spherical from deformed/clustered light nuclei. The construction of the deformed-WS densities by moment matching is clean and does not involve fitting final observables, which strengthens the comparison. The paper is also honest about its limitations: it explicitly notes that sub-nucleon effects are neglected and that calibration to these systems is beyond its scope. However, the central evidence currently lacks the statistical quantification needed to support the headline recommendation; this is the main barrier to accepting the claimed sensitivity as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Fig. 6] The headline result—that ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩ shows appreciable sensitivity to the structure of 16O/20Ne near target rapidity—rests on the visual separation of the 'sph', 'def', and 'clu' points in the 2<η<5 panels of Fig. 6. No statistical error bars or event counts are reported anywhere in the paper. This is not a cosmetic omission: the text discussing Fig. 4 explicitly states that the relative differences in ⟨v3^2⟩ 'are generally difficult to tell compared with the statistical error.' Since the ratio is formed from two two-particle correlators in a low-multiplicity forward region at 68.5 GeV, the apparent ordering of the three configurations could be Monte Carlo noise. The authors should report the number of events, show statistical uncertainties in Figs. 2–6, and quantify the significance of the sph/def/clu separations (e.g., in units of the statistical error). Without this, the central recomme
  2. [§II, Eq. (1) and Table I] The spherical-WS baseline is described as obtained by 'simply setting βn=0' in Eq. (1), and the text states that 'the nucleus size is the same for the three cases.' If R0 and d are kept at the values listed in Table I (which were matched to the α-cluster densities for the deformed case), then setting β2=β3=0 changes the rms radius unless R0 and d are re-matched. The current wording is ambiguous: does the spherical case use the same R0,d but a renormalized ρ0, or are R0,d refit to preserve ⟨r²⟩ and ⟨r⁴⟩? If the former, the spherical-vs-deformed comparison mixes a size difference with the shape difference, confounding the interpretation of Fig. 6. Please clarify and, if needed, recompute with a size-matched spherical baseline.
  3. [§II, AMPT parameter setup] The AMPT parameters (a=0.5, b=0.9 GeV^-2, αs=0.33, μ=3.2 fm^-1) are taken from Pb+Pb calibrations at 2.76 TeV (Refs. [30,31]) and are not calibrated to the small asymmetric systems at 68.5 GeV studied here. Sub-nucleon effects are also neglected. Because the predictive recommendation concerns these specific systems, the quantitative size and even the sign of the v2/v3 sensitivity may depend on how well these parameters transfer. The authors should either add a sensitivity scan over the Lund parameters and parton scattering cross section, or explicitly state that the result is a model-level prediction contingent on the Pb+Pb-calibrated AMPT setup. The existing PbNe data at this energy (Ref. [26]) could at least be used for a gross validation of multiplicity or other bulk observables.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III, after Eq. (8)] Typo: 'pseudoradipity' should be 'pseudorapidity.'
  2. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 6] The flow is defined as ⟨v_n^2⟩ in Eq. (7), but Fig. 6 labels the ratio as ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩. Please define how the ratio is formed (e.g., √⟨v2^2⟩/√⟨v3^2⟩) and use consistent notation throughout.
  3. [Figs. 4–6] The light-light panels use |η| on the horizontal axis while the heavy-light panels use η. Please use a single convention and define the lab-frame pseudorapidity in the captions.
  4. [Abstract and §IV] The abstract says the v2/v3 sensitivity is 'as also found in other studies,' while the summary claims the target-rapidity sensitivity 'as found for the first time in the present study.' Please clarify which aspect is new and which is a confirmation of prior work.
  5. [§III, Fig. 6 discussion] The sentence 'the relative ⟨v3⟩ from different initializations of light nuclei are different compared to that in Figs. 2 (b) and (f)' is vague. Specify the direction and magnitude of the differences, or point to the quantitative values in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the recommended v2/v3 ratio is a genuine model output, not an input or a fitted quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is explicit and non-circular: it takes α-cluster densities from a Bloch-Brink calculation (Ref. [22], same group), constructs deformed-WS densities with matched multipole moments and RMS radii, then runs the AMPT model with parameters taken from Pb+Pb calibrations (Refs. [30,31], co-authored by one present author). The headline result—rapidity-differential ⟨v2⟩/⟨v3⟩ sensitivity near target rapidity in Pb+O and Pb+Ne—is an output of this simulation chain, not an input. No AMPT parameter (a=0.5, b=0.9 GeV^-2, αs=0.33, μ=3.2 fm^-1) is fit to the target observable or to the studied systems; the paper explicitly says calibration to these systems 'goes beyond the present scope' (Section II). The deformed-WS density is deliberately constructed to match the α-cluster density's global multipole moments (Eqs. 1-2), so the finding that 'clu' and 'def' behave similarly is a controlled comparison, not a definitional identity. The statements that sub-nucleon effects are neglected (Section II) and that ⟨v2_3⟩ differences are 'generally difficult to tell compared with the statistical error' (Section III) are honest limitations relevant to robustness and statistical significance, not circularity. The absence of error bars in Fig. 6 is a concern for the strength of the recommendation, but it is not a circularity. Self-citations at the input level are normal use of prior model and density calculations; they do not smuggle in the target result or define the prediction in terms of itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central claim rests on three input classes: fitted AMPT parameters inherited from the authors' earlier calibrations, assumed α-cluster structures from a cluster model, and the multipole-matching construction that defines what 'deformation' means relative to 'clustering'.

free parameters (2)
  • AMPT Lund string parameters a and b = a=0.5, b=0.9 GeV^-2
    Set in Section II from Refs [30,31] (co-authored by J. Xu), calibrated to Pb+Pb data; these set the parton momentum spectra that feed all flow observables.
  • AMPT parton scattering parameters αs and screening mass μ = αs=0.33, μ=3.2 fm^-1 (cross section 1.5 mb)
    Set in Section II from Refs [30,31]; controls the strength of partonic interactions and hence the magnitude of anisotropic flows.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The 16O and 20Ne ground-state densities are represented by tetrahedron and bowling-pin α-cluster configurations obtained from a Bloch-Brink wave function with empirical NN interactions and energy-minimized distance parameters.
    Section II, first paragraph. This defines the 'α-cluster structure' scenario; the cluster distances come from an energy minimization in the cluster model (Ref [22]) and are not tested against collision data here.
  • domain assumption Deformed-WS densities matched to the α-cluster densities through the quadrupole and octupole moments Q2, Q3 and the radial moments ⟨r2⟩, ⟨r4⟩ (Eqs. (1)-(2)) isolate the global-shape effect from the discrete-cluster effect.
    Section II and Table I. The conclusion that α-cluster structure cannot be distinguished from the deformed WS depends on these matching conditions; higher-order multipole moments beyond Q3 are not matched, so the comparison is not exhaustive.
  • domain assumption The AMPT string-melting model with the parameters of Refs [30,31] describes the dynamics of these light and asymmetric systems well enough that the relative sensitivity of v2/v3 to the initial density survives in real data.
    Section II. The parameters are calibrated to Pb+Pb collisions at higher energies; the paper explicitly states that calibration to the studied systems 'goes beyond the present scope', so the predictions are unvalidated extrapolations. Sub-nucleon effects are also neglected.
  • domain assumption The chosen pseudorapidity windows (2<η<5 and 4<η<7 for heavy-light, -1.5<η<1.5 for light-light) and the 0-10% central-multiplicity selection define the regions where the structure sensitivity is claimed.
    Section III, Fig. 6. The 'appreciable sensitivity near target rapidity' is read from the window 2<η<5; the conclusion would change if a different rapidity window or centrality range were adopted.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A comparison study of collisions at relativistic energies involving light nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIT4LT2C

@misc{pith2026250819681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A comparison study of collisions at relativistic energies involving light nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIT4LT2C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19681}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We present extensive comparisons of $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O collisions at the center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and $^{208}$Pb+$^{16}$O collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=68.5$ GeV as well as $^{20}$Ne+$^{20}$Ne collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and $^{208}$Pb+$^{20}$Ne collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=68.5$ GeV based on a multiphase transport (AMPT) model. We recommend measuring the ratio of the elliptic flow to the triangular flow, which shows appreciable sensitivity to the structure of light nuclei as also found in other studies. This is especially so if the observable is measured near the target rapidity in $^{208}$Pb+$^{16}$O or $^{208}$Pb+$^{20}$Ne collisions, as originally found in the present study. Our study serves as a useful reference for understanding the structure effect on observables in collisions involving light nuclei under analysis or on the schedule.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19681 by Hai-Cheng Wang, Jun Xu, Song-Jie Li, Zhong-Zhou Ren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Density contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the second-order anisotropic coefficient (first column), the third-order anisotropic coefficient (second [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of final charged-particle pseudorapidity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of pseudorapidity distributions of the elliptic flow (first column), the triangular flow (second column), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of pseudorapidity distributions of the elliptic flow (first column), the triangular flow (second column), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the elliptic flow (first column), the triangular flow (second column), their ratio (third column), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Impact of nuclear deformation on particle production in $Ne+Ne$ collisions at \texorpdfstring{\five}{sqrt(sNN)=5.36 TeV} from AMPT-SM

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    AMPT-SM simulations find that initial nuclear deformation in Ne+Ne collisions at LHC energies produces only small 2-6% changes in charged-particle densities, yields, pT spectra, and particle ratios.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion col- lisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart,

    Jiangyong Jia, Giuliano Giacalone, Benjamin Bally, James Daniel Brandenburg, Ulrich Heinz, Shengli Huang, Dean Lee, Yen-Jie Lee, Constantin Loizides, Wei Li, et al., “Imaging the initial condition of heavy-ion col- lisions and nuclear structure across the nuclide chart,” Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 220 (2024), arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Shape of atomic nuclei in heavy ion collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, “Shape of atomic nuclei in heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 105, 014905 (2022), arXiv:2106.08768 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Probing triaxial deformation of atomic nuclei in high-energy heavy ion collisions,

    Jiangyong Jia, “Probing triaxial deformation of atomic nuclei in high-energy heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 105, 044905 (2022), arXiv:2109.00604 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 7 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ultrarelativistic Energies,

    Chunjian Zhang and Jiangyong Jia, “Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 7 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ultrarelativistic Energies,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022301 (2022), arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Impact of Nuclear Deformation on Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: Assessing Consistency in Nuclear Physics across Energy Scales,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Jiangyong Jia, and Chunjian Zhang, “Impact of Nuclear Deformation on Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: Assessing Consistency in Nuclear Physics across Energy Scales,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242301 (2021), arXiv:2105.01638 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions,

    M. I. Abdulhamid, Aboona B. E., Adam J., Adams J. R., Agakishiev G., Aggarwal I., Aggarwal M. M., Ahammed Z., Aitbaev A., Alekseev I., et al. (STAR), “Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions,” Nature 635, 67–72 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Evidence of the triaxial structure of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Benjamin Bally, Michael Bender, Giuliano Giacalone, and Vittorio Som` a, “Evidence of the triaxial structure of 129Xe at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 082301 (2022), arXiv:2108.09578 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    G. Aad, B. Abbott, D. C. Abbott, K. Abeling, S. H. Abidi, A. Aboulhorma, H. Abramowicz, H. Abreu, Y. Abulaiti, A. C. Abusleme Hoffman, et al. (ATLAS), “Correlations between flow and transverse momentum in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC with the AT- LAS detector: A probe of the heavy-ion initial state and nuclear deformation,” Phys. Rev. C 107, 0549...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Exploring nuclear struc- ture with multiparticle azimuthal correlations at the LHC,

    S. Acharya, A. Agarwal, G. AglieriRinella, L. Aglietta, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ahmad, S. U. Ahn, I. Ahuja, et al.(ALICE), “Exploring nuclear struc- ture with multiparticle azimuthal correlations at the LHC,” (2024), arXiv:2409.04343 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Exploring the compactness ofα clus- ters in O16 nuclei with relativistic O16+O16 collisions,

    Yuanyuan Wang, Shujun Zhao, Boxing Cao, Hao-jie Xu, and Huichao Song, “Exploring the compactness ofα clus- ters in O16 nuclei with relativistic O16+O16 collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 109, L051904 (2024), arXiv:2401.15723 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    The unexpected uses of a bowling pin: exploiting 20Ne isotopes for precision characterizations of collectiv- ity in small systems,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Benjamin Bally, Govert Nijs, Shi- hang Shen, Thomas Duguet, Jean-Paul Ebran, Serdar Elhatisari, Mikael Frosini, Timo A. Lahde, Dean Lee, et al., “The unexpected uses of a bowling pin: exploiting 20Ne isotopes for precision characterizations of collectiv- ity in small systems,” arXiv:2402.05995 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

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

    Giuliano Giacalone, Wenbin Zhao, Benjamin Bally, Shi- hang Shen, Thomas Duguet, Jean-Paul Ebran, Serdar Elhatisari, Mikael Frosini, Timo A. Lahde, Dean Lee, et al., “Anisotropic Flow in Fixed-Target Pb208+Ne20 Collisions as a Probe of Quark-Gluon Plasma,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 082301 (2025), arXiv:2405.20210 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Anisotropic flow fluctuation as a possible signature of clustered nuclear geometry in O–O collisions at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Suraj Prasad, Neelkamal Mallick, Raghunath Sahoo, and Gergely G´ abor Barnaf¨ oldi, “Anisotropic flow fluctuation as a possible signature of clustered nuclear geometry in O–O collisions at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Lett. B 860, 139145 (2025), arXiv:2407.15065 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Signature of the α- clustering structure of Light Nuclei in Relativistic Nu- clear Collisions,

    Zhiyong Lu, Mingrui Zhao, Emil Gorm Dahlbæk Nielsen, Xiaomei Li, and You Zhou, “Signature of the α- clustering structure of Light Nuclei in Relativistic Nu- clear Collisions,” arXiv:2501.14852 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Nuclear cluster structure effect in 16O+16O collisions at the top RHIC energy,

    Xin-Li Zhao, Guo-Liang Ma, You Zhou, Zi-Wei Lin, and Chao Zhang, “Nuclear cluster structure effect in 16O+16O collisions at the top RHIC energy,” arXiv:2404.09780 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  16. [16]

    Ab- initio nucleon-nucleon correlations and their impact on high energy 16O+16O collisions,

    Chunjian Zhang, Jinhui Chen, Giuliano Giacalone, Shengli Huang, Jiangyong Jia, and Yu-Gang Ma, “Ab- initio nucleon-nucleon correlations and their impact on high energy 16O+16O collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 862, 139322 (2025), arXiv:2404.08385 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Microscopic Clustering in Light Nuclei,

    Martin Freer, Hisashi Horiuchi, Yoshiko Kanada-En’yo, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G. Meißner, “Microscopic Clustering in Light Nuclei,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035004 (2018), arXiv:1705.06192 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Cluster structure of light nuclei,

    R. Bijker and F. Iachello, “Cluster structure of light nuclei,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 110, 103735 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Status of Alpha-Particle Condensate Structure of the Hoyle State

    Akihiro Tohsaki, Hisashi Horiuchi, Peter Schuck, and Gerd Roepke, “Status of α-particle condensate structure of the Hoyle state,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 011002 (2017), arXiv:1702.04591 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    The 5α condensate state in 20Ne,

    Bo Zhou, Yasuro Funaki, Hisashi Horiuchi, Yu-Gang Ma, Gerd R¨ opke, Peter Schuck, Akihiro Tohsaki, and Tai- ichi Yamada, “The 5α condensate state in 20Ne,” Nature Commun. 14, 8206 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Alpha-like correlations in $^{20}$Ne, comparison of quartetting wave function and THSR approaches

    G. R¨ opke, C. Xu, B. Zhou, Z. Z. Ren, Y. Funaki, H. Ho- riuchi, M. Lyu, A. Tohsaki, and T. Yamada, “Alpha- like correlations in Ne, comparison of quartetting wave function and THSR approaches,” Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 89 (2024), arXiv:2402.07962 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Deformation probes for light nu- clei in their collisions at relativistic energies,

    Hai-Cheng Wang, Song-Jie Li, Lu-Meng Liu, Jun Xu, and Zhong-Zhou Ren, “Deformation probes for light nu- clei in their collisions at relativistic energies,” Phys. Rev. C 110, 034909 (2024), arXiv:2409.02452 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Directly probing exis- tence of α-cluster structure in Ne20 by relativistic heavy- ion collisions,

    Lu-Meng Liu, Hai-Cheng Wang, Song-Jie Li, Chun- jian Zhang, Jun Xu, Zhong-Zhou Ren, Jiangyong Jia, and Xu-Guang Huang, “Directly probing exis- tence of α-cluster structure in Ne20 by relativistic heavy- ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 111, L021901 (2025), arXiv:2502.08057 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies in 16O+16O and γ+Au collisions from STAR,

    Shengli Huang, “Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies in 16O+16O and γ+Au collisions from STAR,” arXiv:2312.12167 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Florence (main) (2021)

    Saverio Mariani, Fixed-target physics with the LHCb ex- periment at CERN, Other thesis, 2021-12-01, U. Florence (main) (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    $J/\psi$ and $D^0$ production in $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 68.5 GeV PbNe collisions

    R. Aaij, A. S. W. Abdelmotteleb, C. Abellan Beteta, F. Abudinen, T. Ackernley, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, H. Af- sharnia, C. Agapopoulou, C. A. Aidala, et al. (LHCb), “J/ψ and D0 production in √sNN = 68.5 GeV PbNe colli- sions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 658 (2023), arXiv:2211.11652 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Centrality deter- mination in heavy-ion collisions with the lhcb detector,

    R. Aaij and The LHCb collaboration, “Centrality deter- mination in heavy-ion collisions with the lhcb detector,” Journal of Instrumentation 17, P05009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Probing configuration of $\alpha$ clusters with spectator particles in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    Lu-Meng Liu, Song-Jie Li, Zhen Wang, Jun Xu, Zhong- Zhou Ren, and Xu-Guang Huang, “Probing configura- tion of α clusters with spectator particles in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 854, 138724 (2024), arXiv:2312.13572 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions,

    Xin-Nian Wang and Miklos Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions,” Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501–3516 (1991)

    work page 1991

  30. [30]

    Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N= 2.76 TeV in a multiphase transport model,

    Jun Xu and Che Ming Ko, “Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N= 2.76 TeV in a multiphase transport model,” Phys. Rev. C 83, 034904 (2011), arXiv:1101.2231 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Triangular flow in heavy ion collisions in a multiphase transport model,

    Jun Xu and Che Ming Ko, “Triangular flow in heavy ion collisions in a multiphase transport model,” Phys. Rev. C 84, 014903 (2011), arXiv:1103.5187 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC,

    Heikki M¨ antysaari, Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Prithwish Tribedy, “Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC,” 8 Phys. Lett. B 772, 681–686 (2017), arXiv:1705.03177 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Initial state fluctuations in collisions between light and heavy ions,

    Kevin Welsh, Jordan Singer, and Ulrich W. Heinz, “Initial state fluctuations in collisions between light and heavy ions,” Phys. Rev. C 94, 024919 (2016), arXiv:1605.09418 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Eccentric pro- tons? Sensitivity of flow to system size and shape in p+p, p+Pb and Pb+Pb collisions,

    Bjoern Schenke and Raju Venugopalan, “Eccentric pro- tons? Sensitivity of flow to system size and shape in p+p, p+Pb and Pb+Pb collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 102301 (2014), arXiv:1405.3605 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Investigating high energy proton proton collisions with a multi-phase transport model approach based on PYTHIA8 initial conditions

    Liang Zheng, Guang-Hui Zhang, Yun-Fan Liu, Zi-Wei Lin, Qi-Ye Shou, and Zhong-Bao Yin, “Investigat- ing high energy proton proton collisions with a multi- phase transport model approach based on PYTHIA8 initial conditions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 755 (2021), arXiv:2104.05998 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    A transport model study of multiparticle cumulants in $p+p$ collisions at 13 TeV

    Xin-Li Zhao, Zi-Wei Lin, Liang Zheng, and Guo-Liang Ma, “A transport model study of multiparticle cumulants in p+p collisions at 13 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B 839, 137799 (2023), arXiv:2112.01232 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Impact of Initial-State Nuclear and Sub-Nucleon Structures on Ultra-Central Puzzle in Heavy Ion Collisions

    Qi Wang, Long-Gang Pang, and Xin-Nian Wang, “Im- pact of Initial-State Nuclear and Sub-Nucleon Structures on Ultra-Central Puzzle in Heavy Ion Collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2504.19208 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Disentangling effects of nucleon size and nucleus structure in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    Hai-Cheng Wang, Song-Jie Li, Jun Xu, and Zhong-Zhou Ren, “Disentangling effects of nucleon size and nucleus structure in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 866, 139516 (2025), arXiv:2504.19082 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Constraining the Nucleon Size with Relativistic Nu- clear Collisions,

    Giuliano Giacalone, Bj¨ orn Schenke, and Chun Shen, “Constraining the Nucleon Size with Relativistic Nu- clear Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 042301 (2022), arXiv:2111.02908 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Color fluctuation effects in proton-nucleus collisions,

    M. Alvioli and M. Strikman, “Color fluctuation effects in proton-nucleus collisions,” Phys. Lett. B 722, 347–354 (2013), arXiv:1301.0728 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    Gribov’s inelastic screen- ing in high energy nucleus-nucleus interaction,

    V. Uzhinsky and A. Galoyan, “Gribov’s inelastic screen- ing in high energy nucleus-nucleus interaction,” Phys. Lett. B 721, 68–73 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Global analysis of color fluctuation effects in proton– and deuteron–nucleus col- lisions at RHIC and the LHC,

    Massimiliano Alvioli, Leonid Frankfurt, Dennis Pere- pelitsa, and Mark Strikman, “Global analysis of color fluctuation effects in proton– and deuteron–nucleus col- lisions at RHIC and the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 071502 (2018), arXiv:1709.04993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    ZPC 1.0.1: A Parton cascade for ultrarel- ativistic heavy ion collisions,

    Bin Zhang, “ZPC 1.0.1: A Parton cascade for ultrarel- ativistic heavy ion collisions,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 109, 193–206 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9709009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  44. [44]

    Formation of super- dense hadronic matter in high-energy heavy ion colli- sions,

    Bao-An Li and Che Ming Ko, “Formation of super- dense hadronic matter in high-energy heavy ion colli- sions,” Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037–2063 (1995), arXiv:nucl- th/9505016

    work page arXiv 2037

  45. [45]

    A Multi-phase transport model for rela- tivistic heavy ion collisions,

    Zi-Wei Lin, Che Ming Ko, Bao-An Li, Bin Zhang, and Subrata Pal, “A Multi-phase transport model for rela- tivistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    Trans- verse momentum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collisions,

    Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Derek Teaney, “Trans- verse momentum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collisions,” Phys. Rev. C 102, 034905 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Probing the tetrahedral α clusters in relativistic 16O + 16O collisions,

    Jin-Yu Hu, Hao-jie Xu, Xiaobao Wang, and Shi Pu, “Probing the tetrahedral α clusters in relativistic 16O + 16O collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2507.01493 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.