Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Probing the tetrahedral $\alpha$ clusters in relativistic $^{16}$O + $^{16}$O collisions

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two normalized flow ratios can separate tetrahedral shape from alpha-cluster correlations in 16O+16O collisions, by holding the one-body density fixed and toggling a compactness parameter.

desk verdict A genuinely new way to separate one-body density from cluster correlations in 16O+16O, honestly presented, but the central separation still rests on an unvalidated sampling ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01493 v1 pith:YKZA7FRF submitted 2025-07-02 nucl-th nucl-ex

Jin-Yu Hu , Hao-jie Xu , Xiaobao Wang , Shi Pu This is my paper
classification nucl-thnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q21.60.Gx24.10.Nz
keywords alphaclusteringoxygen-16structuretetrahedralsymmetryrelativisticheavy-ioncollisionsanisotropicflowinitial-statefluctuationsTRENTomodelquark-gluonplasma
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

Relativistic $^{16}\mathrm{O}+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ collisions can reveal whether the oxygen ground state is a tetrahedral arrangement of four $\alpha$ particles, but model predictions currently diverge. This paper tries to isolate the two routes by which $\alpha$ clustering affects the collision: the $Y_{32}$ octupole deformation of the one-body density, and multi-nucleon correlations among clustered nucleons. It introduces a compactness parameter $\chi$ that biases nucleon sampling toward four cluster centers without altering the one-body density, so any change in the observables with $\chi$ is purely a correlation effect. The paper claims that the normalized ratio $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ is nearly blind to nuclear shape but very sensitive to the Gamma-distributed weight fluctuations of the TRENTo initial-condition model, while $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{3}\{2\})$ carries both the tetrahedral deformation signal and an enhanced centrality trend from $\alpha$ clusters. If correct, upcoming LHC and RHIC oxygen data can constrain the initial-state model and the tetrahedral structure of $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ at the same time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the weighted sampling function of Eq. (1), $\omega_i(\mathbf{r}) = e^{-\chi(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{C}_i)^2} / \sum_j e^{-\chi(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{C}_j)^2}$, which assigns each sampled nucleon to one of four tetrahedral cluster centers $\mathbf{C}_i$. Because $\sum_i \omega_i(\mathbf{r})=1$, tuning $\chi$ from 0 (independent sampling from the one-body density) to 2 (tight clusters with RMS radii shrinking from about 2.4 fm to 1.6 fm) changes only the multi-nucleon correlations, not the one-body density. The other device is the normalization $\mathrm{Norm}(X)=X[\mathrm{centrality}]/X[0{-}1\%]$, which emphasizes the shape of the centrality dependence while removing overall normalization. The analysis then exploits the linear response relation $v_n \approx k\epsilon_n$ for $n=2,3$ to work with initial eccentricities $\epsilon_n$ instead of full hydrodynamic flow.

What would settle it

Measure the centrality dependence of $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ and $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{3}\{2\})$ in the upcoming LHC $^{16}\mathrm{O}+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ run at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=7$ TeV. If $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ follows the default Gamma-fluctuating TRENTo prediction rather than the fluctuations-disabled/Glauber band, the paper's hierarchy of model dependence would be wrong and the proposed calibration use of this ratio would collapse. For $v_3$, a measured flat trend over $0$--$15\%$ centrality would falsify the claim that tetrahedral configurations produce a sharp rise, since all the tetrahedral cases considered here yield a rising trend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery offered here is a clean separation of one-body density effects from multi-nucleon correlations in small-system heavy-ion collisions. Using Skyrme-DFT density profiles with $\hat{Q}_{32}=0$ and $\hat{Q}_{32}=40\ \mathrm{fm}^3$ (spherical versus tetrahedral $Y_{32}$ deformation) and injecting $\alpha$ clustering through the weighted sampling scheme of Eq. (1), the authors show that $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ depends almost exclusively on the initial-condition code, specifically on whether TRENTo's per-participant Gamma weight fluctuations are active, and not on the deformed shape. In contrast, $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{3}\{2\})$ has a markedly steeper centrality dependence for tetrahedral than for spherical one-body densities, and increasing the compactness parameter $\chi$ from 0 to 2 makes the trend sharper still. A spherical density with strong clustering ($\chi=2$) can roughly mimic a tetrahedral density without clustering ($\chi=0$), so the ratio is a joint constraint on one-body deformation and multi-nucleon correlations rather than a standalone cluster meter. Hydrodynamic simulations with VMC densities confirm the initial-geometry predictions in central collisions, with growing deviations beyond 10\% centrality that the paper attributes to final-state evolution uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The entire separation of one-body density from multi-nucleon correlations rests on the assumption that alpha-cluster correlations are well described by biasing nucleon sampling toward four fixed tetrahedral centers with the Gaussian weight of Eq. (1), and that the spherical density shares those same centers; if the true correlations are not representable by this form, the claimed separation would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ can serve as a calibration observable for initial-state models: it is nearly blind to the oxygen shape but sharply distinguishes TRENTo with and without Gamma weight fluctuations.
  • Turning off the Gamma fluctuations in TRENTo makes its normalized $v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\}$ results coincide with MC Glauber, so the main source of cross-model disagreement in this ratio is the fluctuation prescription, not nuclear structure.
  • $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{3}\{2\})$ is a joint probe: it responds to the tetrahedral $Y_{32}$ one-body deformation (sharper centrality trend) and to alpha-cluster correlations (larger $\chi$ enhances the trend), so a single sharp trend cannot be attributed to either alone.
  • A spherical $^{16}\mathrm{O}$ density with strong alpha clustering can mimic the centrality trend of a tetrahedral density without clustering, meaning the data will constrain combinations of deformation and correlation strength rather than either in isolation.
  • Hydrodynamic simulations confirm the initial-geometry ratios in central collisions but show growing deviations beyond 10\% centrality, so extracting cluster structure precisely requires controlling final-state evolution as well.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\mathrm{Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ is essentially a fluctuation calibrator, it should also constrain the TRENTo fluctuation parameter $k$ in other small systems such as $p+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ or $^{12}\mathrm{C}+^{12}\mathrm{C}$ before being used to claim a nuclear-structure measurement; the paper flags $p+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ as future work but does not analyse it.
  • The degeneracy between a spherical density with $\chi=2$ and a tetrahedral density with $\chi=0$ suggests that a single collision system cannot uniquely fix both the deformation and the clustering strength; combining $^{16}\mathrm{O}+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ with a complementary observable such as mean transverse momentum or a $p+^{16}\mathrm{O}$ run could break this degeneracy.
  • The fixed-density weighted-sampling trick is generalizable: applying the same compactness knob to other clustered nuclei, for example $^{12}\mathrm{C}$, would let model comparisons isolate correlation effects from deformation effects there too, though the paper demonstrates only $^{16}\mathrm{O}$.
  • The strong sensitivity of $v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\}$ to the Gamma fluctuation parameter implies that Bayesian calibrations of initial-condition models with oxygen data may need to treat that parameter as data-driven rather than fixed from lead-lead or proton-lead fits.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. Jin-Yu Hu et al. use Skyrme-DFT one-body densities of 16O with and without tetrahedral Y32 deformation (Q32 = 40 fm^3 vs. 0) and introduce Eq. (1), a soft-assignment reweighting by four tetrahedral centers with compactness parameter chi, to generate initial nucleon distributions with identical one-body density but different multi-nucleon correlations. They compute epsilon_n{2} and epsilon_n{4} in MC Glauber and TRENTo models and define centrality-normalized ratios in Eq. (2), then validate a subset of predictions with iEBE-VISHNU hydrodynamics. The central claim is that Norm(v2{2}/v2{4}) and Norm(v2{2}/v3{2}) jointly separate one-body (tetrahedral) density effects from multi-nucleon (alpha-cluster) correlation effects, with the former ratio dominated by initial-state model dependence (TRENTo Gamma fluctuations) and the latter carrying both deformation and correlation signals.

Significance. If the proposed separation is valid, the two normalized ratios provide a practical, falsifiable route to constrain 16O structure with upcoming LHC and RHIC data, and the demonstration that TRENTo Gamma fluctuations dominate one of the ratios is a useful model-refinement result. The paper uses standard simulations, externally computed DFT and VMC densities, and a genuine hydrodynamic check; it is also honest about its limitations, including deviations above 10% centrality and the degeneracy between spherical chi=2 and tetrahedron chi=0. The main weakness is that the correlation model itself is not validated against many-body wavefunctions, so the significance of the central separation claim is currently conditional on the adequacy of the chi-reweighting ansatz.

major comments (5)
  1. [Model setups, Eq. (1)] The reweighting ansatz in Eq. (1) is the entire operational definition of "multi-nucleon correlations," yet no comparison is made with the two-body or higher nucleon correlation functions of the VMC or NLEFT configurations cited in the paper. The identity sum_i omega_i(r) = 1 preserves the one-body density only in expectation, and the ansatz imposes a specific tetrahedral geometry, a soft-assignment scale chi in [0,2], and four-cluster labels. Without external calibration of chi against a many-body wavefunction, the claimed separation of one-body density from correlations is a property of the ansatz, not a property of 16O.
  2. [Model setups, text after Eq. (1)] The statement "for the spherical case, we also assume that it has the same centers as in the tetrahedron case" means that the spherical baseline with chi > 0 is not free of tetrahedral geometry; it implants tetrahedral centers into an isotropic density. Consequently, the difference between the tetrahedron and spherical cases at fixed chi does not cleanly isolate the one-body density contribution, and the "correlation-only" baseline is not independent of the deformed geometry.
  3. [Results and discussions, Fig. 3] The paper's own observation that the spherical configuration with chi = 2 roughly reproduces the tetrahedron case with chi = 0 for Norm(eps2{2}/eps3{2}) shows that this observable cannot separate the two effects on its own. The complementarity with Norm(eps2{2}/eps2{4}) is then weakened because Fig. 2 shows that this second ratio is dominated by TRENTo Gamma fluctuations (parameter k), so the joint separation requires independent knowledge of k that is not supplied in the manuscript.
  4. [Results and discussions, Fig. 4] The hydrodynamic validation shows that "deviations become large for centrality ranges above 10%" for Norm(v2{2}/v3{2}) and that statistical errors are large for Norm(v2{2}/v2{4}). Because the proposed probes are centrality-dependent ratios, this leaves the predictive centrality window of the Letter unspecified and undermines the direct use of the initial-state ratios for data comparison above 10% centrality.
  5. [Figures 2 and 3, captions and text] The shaded "bands" labeled chi in [0,2] are never defined: it is not stated whether they are envelopes over discrete chi values, statistical uncertainty bands, or interpolations between endpoint calculations. Without this definition, the central quantitative statements about model dependence and correlation effects cannot be independently assessed or reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] There is a typo in the definition of the normalized ratio: "centraltiy" should be "centrality."
  2. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The normalization by the 0-1% centrality bin is central to all results, but its sensitivity to binning, centrality definition, and the choice of reference bin is not tested; a sentence on robustness would be helpful.
  3. [Figures 2 and 3] The colors of the bands and the "fluctuations disabled" curve are described in the captions but are not always clearly distinguishable in grayscale; explicit line styles or labels would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 4] The caption states "open symboles" instead of "open symbols," and the figure legend does not define the VMC error bars; specifying the statistical treatment would strengthen the reproducibility of the hydrodynamic comparison.
  5. [Introduction and Results] The text moves freely between epsilon_n ratios and v_n ratios via the linear response relation v_n = k epsilon_n, but the precise values of k and the validation of this proportionality for the specific centrality bins used in Figs. 2 and 3 are not documented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two normalized ratios are genuine simulation predictions, with the chi-clustering ansatz an openly stated input rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of: (1) external DFT/VMC one-body densities; (2) an explicit weighted-sampling ansatz Eq. (1) with sum_i omega_i = 1 that preserves the one-body density by construction while adding a controllable cluster compactness chi; (3) MC-Glauber and TRENTo initial-geometry simulations; and (4) a linear-response relation v_n = k epsilon_n and iEBE-VISHNU checks. No step reduces a predicted observable to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The chi scan is not calibrated to the target ratios, so the centrality trends of Norm(v2{2}/v2{4}) and Norm(v2{2}/v3{2}) are genuine outputs rather than refitted inputs. The self-citations to Refs. [25] and [42] provide input densities and prior cluster-compactness context, but they do not contain the final observables; the target claim is a model-sensitivity statement, not a restatement of those citations. The spherical baseline uses the same tetrahedral centers C_i as the deformed case, which is a modeling limitation that weakens the 'correlation-only' interpretation, but it is not a circular reduction: the simulation still computes the observables from the ansatz. Similarly, the degeneracy between spherical+chi=2 and tetrahedron+chi=0 is an honest negative result about discriminating power, not a self-justifying construction. Overall, the central claims are independent of the paper's inputs in the sense required for circularity analysis; any concerns about the ad hoc nature of Eq. (1) are model-validity issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main ad hoc input is the chi-weighted cluster sampling of Eq. (1); the paper scans chi rather than deriving it. Q32 values come from the authors' earlier DFT work (Ref. [25]), and the TRENTo fluctuation parameter k is varied to expose model dependence. The spherical case borrowing tetrahedral centers C_i is an arbitrary modeling choice.

free parameters (3)
  • chi (effective compactness) = scanned from 0 to 2
    Introduced in Eq. (1) to control cluster compactness; the predicted centrality dependence of the normalized ratios depends on this ad hoc parameter.
  • Q32 (octupole moment of 16O) = 0 and 40 fm^3
    Two DFT density profiles from Ref. [25] with and without tetrahedral symmetry; though from prior calculation, the paper treats them as contrasting inputs.
  • Gamma fluctuation parameter k in TRENTo = default about 1 and k towards infinity
    Varied to show model dependence of Norm(eps2{2}/eps2{4}); disabling fluctuations aligns TRENTo with MC Glauber.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math sum_i omega_i(r)=1 ensures the one-body density is preserved under the weighted sampling of Eq. (1)
    This mathematical identity is the basis for isolating multi-nucleon correlations from one-body density.
  • domain assumption Flow harmonics obey linear response v_n = k epsilon_n for n=2,3 in 16O+16O at 7 TeV
    Invoked in Model setups; partially validated with iEBE-VISHNU, with deviations above 10% centrality acknowledged.
  • domain assumption Centrality is defined by initial entropy or multiplicity Nch, with standard parameter choices (sigma_NN=70.9 mb, w=0.4 fm, x=0.1, p=0)
    Standard heavy-ion model setup; the conclusions may depend on centrality definition.
  • ad hoc to paper The spherical density configuration uses the same tetrahedral cluster centers C_i as the deformed configuration
    The paper states this assumption without physical justification; it is needed to separate deformation from correlation effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the tetrahedral $\alpha$ clusters in relativistic $^{16}$O + $^{16}$O collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKZA7FRF

@misc{pith2026250701493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the tetrahedral $\alpha$ clusters in relativistic $^16$O + $^16$O collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKZA7FRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01493}
}
abstract

Relativistic $^{16}$O +$^{16}$O collisions probe the Quark-Gluon Plasma formed in small systems, while their collective phenomena illuminate the structure of $^{16}$O. Recently, various configurations of $^{16}$O from \textit{ab initio} calculations were implemented in heavy-ion models, such as the hydrodynamic model and a multiphase transport model (AMPT) to study cluster effects in relativistic $^{16}$O +$^{16}$O collisions. However, divergent predictions across configurations and models complicate interpretations. In this Letter, we isolate the impact of multi-nucleon correlations in relativistic $^{16}$O +$^{16}$O collisions while fixing the one-body density distribution of $^{16}$O. Our results show that the normalized ratios ${\rm Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{2}\{4\})$ and ${\rm Norm}(v_{2}\{2\}/v_{3}\{2\})$ effectively probe the effects of one-body density (e.g., tetrahedral symmetry) and multi-nucleon correlations (e.g., $\alpha$ clusters). These observables provide critical constraints for refining heavy-ion models, essential for investigating cluster configurations in light nuclei through relativistic heavy-ion collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) One-body density profiles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) The predictions with VMC densities to illustrate the exploration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Impacts of isolated nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O collisions

    nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Applying rejection sampling to 16O configurations constrained by a Fermi density and a two-nucleon distance distribution reproduces the initial-state eccentricities and energy fluctuations of NLEFT and VMC ab-initio m...

  2. Resolution-matched nuclear geometry and the nucleon-size ambiguity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The strong nucleon-width dependence of the Pb+Pb hadronic cross section is a geometric-inflation artifact; with the folded density fixed, σ_AA is width-insensitive and can constrain the 208Pb neutron skin to Δr_np ∈ [...

  3. A comparison study of collisions at relativistic energies involving light nuclei

    nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl.Phys.A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Experimental and theo- retical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl.Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl- ex/0501009 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252302 (2010), arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Shuryak, Physics of Strongly coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys

    E. Shuryak, Physics of Strongly coupled Quark-Gluon Plasma, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 62, 48 (2009), arXiv:0807.3033 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys.Rev.D46, 229 (1992)

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow, Phys.Rev.D46, 229 (1992)

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. Son, and A. Starinets, Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics, Phys.Rev.Lett.94, 111601 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0405231 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Romatschke and U

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

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

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

    arXiv 2016

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    H. Song, Y. Zhou, and K. Gajdosova, Collective flow and hy- drodynamics in large and small systems at the LHC, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 99 (2017), arXiv:1703.00670 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Huang, Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies in 16O+16O and 𝛾+Au collisions from STAR (2023) arXiv:2312.12167 [nucl-ex]

    S. Huang, Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies in 16O+16O and 𝛾+Au collisions from STAR (2023) arXiv:2312.12167 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    ALICE physics projections for a short oxygen-beam run at the LHC, (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    W. Zhao, Y. Zhou, H. Xu, W. Deng, and H. Song, Hydrodynamic collectivity in proton–proton collisions at 13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 780, 495 (2018), arXiv:1801.00271 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Noronha, B

    J. Noronha, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Progress and Challenges in Small Systems, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2430005 (2024), arXiv:2401.09208 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. A. Wheeler, Molecular Viewpoints in Nuclear Structure, Phys. Rev. 52, 1083 (1937)

    1937

  7. [15]

    D. M. Dennison, Energy Levels of the O-16 Nucleus, Phys. Rev. 96, 378 (1954)

    1954

  8. [16]

    Feshbach and F

    H. Feshbach and F. Iachello, The interacting boson model struc- ture of 16o, Physics Letters B 45, 7 (1973)

    1973

  9. [17]

    Robson, Evidence for the Tetrahedral Nature of O-16, Phys

    D. Robson, Evidence for the Tetrahedral Nature of O-16, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 876 (1979)

    1979

  10. [18]

    Bauhoff, H

    W. Bauhoff, H. Schultheis, and R. Schultheis, Alpha cluster model and the spectrum of O-16, Phys. Rev. C29, 1046 (1984)

    1984

  11. [19]

    Tohsaki, H

    A. Tohsaki, H. Horiuchi, P. Schuck, and G. Ropke, Alpha cluster condensation in C-12 and O-16, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 192501 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0110014

    2001 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. L. Yakovlev and I. N. Filikhin, Calculations of scattering lengths in four nucleon system on the basis of cluster reduc- tion method for Yakubovsky equations, (1997), arXiv:nucl- th/9701020

    1997

  13. [21]

    Bijker, Symmetries and order in cluster nuclei, AIP Confer- ence Proceedings 2150, 020002 (2019)

    R. Bijker, Symmetries and order in cluster nuclei, AIP Confer- ence Proceedings 2150, 020002 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. L¨ahde, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner, and G. Rupak, Ab Initio Calculation of the Spectrum and Structure of 16O, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 102501 (2014), arXiv:1312.7703 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Pauling, Comment on the test for tetrahedral symmetry in the 16O nucleus and its relation to the shell model, Phys

    L. Pauling, Comment on the test for tetrahedral symmetry in the 16O nucleus and its relation to the shell model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1119 (1982)

    1982

  16. [24]

    Bijker and F

    R. Bijker and F. Iachello, Evidence for tetrahedral symmetry in 16O, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 152501 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    X. Wang, G. Dong, Z. Gao, Y. Chen, and C. Shen, Tetrahedral symmetry in the ground state of 16o, Physics Letters B790, 498 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Li, H.-j

    H. Li, H.-j. Xu, Y. Zhou, X. Wang, J. Zhao, L.-W. Chen, and F. Wang, Probing the neutron skin with ultrarelativis- tic isobaric collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 222301 (2020), 6 arXiv:1910.06170 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H.-j. Xu, W. Zhao, H. Li, Y. Zhou, L.-W. Chen, and F. Wang, Probing nuclear structure with mean transverse momentum in relativistic isobar collisions, Phys. Rev. C108, L011902 (2023), arXiv:2111.14812 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zhang and J

    C. Zhang and J. Jia, Evidence of Quadrupole and Octupole Deformations in Zr96+Zr96 and Ru96+Ru96 Collisions at Ul- trarelativistic Energies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022301 (2022), arXiv:2109.01631 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ryssens, G

    W. Ryssens, G. Giacalone, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Evidence of Hexadecapole Deformation in Uranium-238 at the Relativis- tic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 212302 (2023), arXiv:2302.13617 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Imaging shapes of atomic nuclei in high-energy nuclear collisions, Nature635, 67 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    G. Giacalone 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]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. C. Pieper, K. Varga, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of A=9, A=10 nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044310 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0206061

    2002 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems, Prog

    D. Lee, Lattice simulations for few- and many-body systems, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63, 117 (2009), arXiv:0804.3501 [nucl- th]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Rybczy ´nski and W

    M. Rybczy ´nski and W. Broniowski, Glauber Monte Carlo pre- dictions for ultrarelativistic collisions with 16O, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064912 (2019), arXiv:1910.09489 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Behera, N

    D. Behera, N. Mallick, S. Tripathy, S. Prasad, A. N. Mishra, and R. Sahoo, Predictions on global properties in O+O collisions at the Large Hadron Collider using a multi-phase transport model, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 175 (2022), arXiv:2110.04016 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ding, L.-G

    C. Ding, L.-G. Pang, S. Zhang, and Y.-G. Ma, Signals of 𝛼 clusters in 16O+16O collisions at the LHC from relativistic hy- drodynamic simulations, Chin. Phys. C 47, 024105 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Liu, S.-J

    L.-M. Liu, S.-J. Li, Z. Wang, J. Xu, Z.-Z. Ren, and X.-G. Huang, Probing configuration of 𝛼 clusters with spectator particles in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138724 (2024), arXiv:2312.13572 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia, and Y.-G. 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]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Mehrabpour, Imprint of 𝛼-clustering on nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic light ion collisions, (2025), arXiv:2506.12673 [nucl-th]

    H. Mehrabpour, Imprint of 𝛼-clustering on nucleon-nucleon correlations in relativistic light ion collisions, (2025), arXiv:2506.12673 [nucl-th]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Brewer, A

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, Opportunities of OO and 𝑝O collisions at the LHC, in Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC (2021) arXiv:2103.01939 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Y. Wang, S. Zhao, B. Cao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, Explor- ing the compactness of 𝛼 clusters in O16 nuclei with relativis- tic O16+O16 collisions, Phys. Rev. C 109, L051904 (2024), arXiv:2401.15723 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    von Oertzen, M

    W. von Oertzen, M. Freer, and Y. Kanada-En’yo, Nuclear clus- ters and nuclear molecules, Physics Reports 432, 43 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    J. P. Ebran, E. Khan, T. Niksic, and D. Vretenar, How atomic nuclei cluster, Nature 487, 341 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Girod and P

    M. Girod and P. Schuck, 𝛼-particle clustering from expand- ing self-conjugate nuclei within the hartree-fock-bogoliubov ap- proach, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 132503 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Qiu and U

    Z. Qiu and U. W. Heinz, Event-by-event shape and flow fluctu- ations of relativistic heavy-ion collision fireballs, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024911 (2011), arXiv:1104.0650 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Loizides, J

    C. Loizides, J. Nagle, and P. Steinberg, Improved version of the PHOBOS Glauber Monte Carlo, SoftwareX 1-2, 13 (2015), arXiv:1408.2549 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Alternative ansatz to wounded nucleon and binary collision scaling in high-energy nuclear collisions, Phys.Rev. C92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    H.-j. Xu, H. Li, X. Wang, C. Shen, and F. Wang, Determine the neutron skin type by relativistic isobaric collisions, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136453 (2021), arXiv:2103.05595 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Wang, H.-j

    J.-f. Wang, H.-j. Xu, and F.-Q. Wang, Impact of initial fluctu- ations and nuclear deformations in isobar collisions, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 108 (2024), arXiv:2305.17114 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, and U. Heinz, Viscous QCD matter in a hybrid hydrodynamic+Boltzmann approach, Phys. Rev. C 83, 024912 (2011), arXiv:1012.0555 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Bayesian calibra- tion of a hybrid nuclear collision model using p-Pb and Pb-Pb data at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C101, 024911 (2020), arXiv:1808.02106 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bozek and W

    P. Bozek and W. Broniowski, Collective dynamics in high- energy proton-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014903 (2013), arXiv:1304.3044 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, S. C. Pieper, R. Schiav- illa, K. E. Schmidt, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum monte carlo methods for nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1067 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.