Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

The 3FD model predicts noticeably larger space-time volumes of high-baryon-density matter than the JAM transport model in Au+Au collisions at 3–19.6 GeV, indicating stronger baryon stopping in 3FD.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:37 UTC pith:YS6CDX6F

load-bearing objection Useful 3FD vs JAM four-volume comparison, but the 'stronger baryon stopping' claim is partly calibrated and confounded by EoS softness; deserves peer review with a required qualification. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22690 v2 pith:YS6CDX6F submitted 2026-02-26 nucl-th hep-ph

Space-time regions of high baryon density and baryon stopping in heavy-ion collisions

Yuri B. Ivanov This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-ph
keywords heavy-ion collisionsbaryon stoppingthree-fluid dynamicsJAM transport modelfour-volumebaryon densityequation of statebeam energy scan
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 paper compares the space-time volume occupied by high-baryon-density matter in central Au+Au collisions as predicted by two very different dynamical models: the three-fluid dynamics (3FD) hydrodynamic model and the JAM microscopic transport model. It finds that 3FD consistently yields larger four-volumes at collision energies from 3 to 19.6 GeV, which it interprets as stronger baryon stopping in 3FD. It also finds that the energy dependence differs: the volume above three times normal nuclear density decreases monotonically with energy in 3FD, whereas JAM shows a maximum. The paper argues that this difference correlates with the stiffness of the equation of state, and it identifies optimal collision energies for producing macroscopic high-density matter. A sympathetic reader would care because these differences directly affect what future heavy-ion experiments can expect to create.

Core claim

Central claim: the invariant four-volume V4(nB>threshold), measuring how much space-time contains baryon density above a given threshold, is noticeably larger in the 3FD model than in the JAM model for central Au+Au collisions at 3–19.6 GeV, indicating stronger baryon stopping in 3FD. In 3FD, V4 for nB>3n0 falls monotonically with energy (no maximum), staying above ~900 fm^4/c; for nB>4n0 and 6n0 it peaks at 3.2–8 GeV and 4.5–9 GeV, respectively, remaining macroscopic. The difference tracks the stiffness of the equations of state (soft in 3FD), and the paper argues it resolves a directed-flow tension: strong stopping (kinetic pressure) plus a soft EoS (potential pressure) reproduces data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-volume V4(threshold) = ∫ d^4x Θ(n_B(x) − threshold), an invariant space-time measure of where baryon density exceeds a given multiple of normal nuclear density n0. The comparison rests on the 3FD model, where three fluids (projectile, target, fireball) exchange energy-momentum through friction terms; baryon stopping in 3FD is controlled by this inter-fluid friction and by a unification procedure. The paper contrasts this with JAM's cascade and mean-field versions, using V4 to directly compare stopping across very different dynamical frameworks.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that 3FD's larger four-volumes indicate genuinely stronger baryon stopping rests on the 3FD inter-fluid friction having been fitted to reproduce baryon stopping at high energies, so part of the V4 excess may be inherited from that fit rather than independently predicted.

What would settle it

Measure the net-proton rapidity loss (baryon stopping) in central Au+Au collisions at 3–8 GeV: 3FD predicts a larger loss than JAM. If data match JAM, the 3FD V4 excess is likely an artifact of the fitted friction. Alternatively, recompute JAM's V4 using only equilibrated matter; if the gap with 3FD vanishes, the stopping claim is undercut.

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

If this is right

  • If 3FD is right, the best collision energies for creating a macroscopic volume of matter above four times normal nuclear density are 3.2–8 GeV, a wider window than JAM suggests.
  • The monotonic decrease of V4(3n0) means that lower beam energies produce the largest space-time volumes of mildly compressed baryon matter, contrary to the maximum seen in JAM.
  • The directed-flow puzzle is resolved if a soft EoS plus strong baryon stopping is what reproduces data; this is the combination embodied by 3FD.
  • The four-volume measure provides a model-independent way to rank baryon stopping across different dynamical codes, offering a clean target for future experimental constraints.
  • Future high-baryon-density experiments can look for consequences of the difference, e.g., in baryon rapidity distributions and collective flow.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence is that if 3FD's stopping is closer to reality, transport models showing less stopping may underestimate the lifetime of the dense phase, affecting predictions for dileptons, strangeness, or other rare probes.
  • The correlation between stopping and EoS stiffness suggests a degeneracy: different pairs of stopping strength and stiffness could produce similar four-volumes, so disentangling them would require independent constraints from both flow and rapidity loss.
  • One could test the V4 comparison by computing, within JAM, the four-volume of only the thermally equilibrated part of the matter (if a meaningful equilibrium criterion were defined); the gap with 3FD might shrink.
  • The sharp-edge initial condition in 3FD inflates the non-equilibrated contribution; a diffuse-edge initial condition might reduce V4 and partially close the gap with JAM at low energies.

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 computes Lorentz-invariant four-volumes V4 of high-baryon-density matter in central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 3–19.6 GeV within the 3FD model, using both crossover and first-order phase-transition EoSs, and compares them with previously published JAM results. It reports that the 3FD V4 values are substantially larger than those in JAM, interprets this as evidence for stronger baryon stopping in 3FD, and argues that this difference correlates with EoS stiffness. It also identifies optimal collision-energy windows for macroscopic high-baryon-density matter: nB > 3n0 V4 decreases monotonically with energy, while nB > 4n0 and nB > 6n0 exhibit maxima around 3.2–8 GeV and 4.5–9 GeV, respectively.

Significance. The four-volume measure is a useful invariant tool for comparing dynamical models and for estimating whether dense-baryon regions are large enough to produce observable signatures. The paper is valuable as a model comparison and as a set of quantitative 3FD predictions that can be confronted with future measurements. The authors are commendably explicit about several caveats, including the sharp-edge approximation, the EoS dependence of V4, and the fact that JAM V4 includes all matter while 3FD V4 is restricted to equilibrated matter. However, the central causal claim—that the V4 excess indicates stronger baryon stopping—is weakened by the circular role of the QGP friction parameter and by the lack of a direct stopping observable. The paper remains useful, but the headline conclusion needs substantial qualification or additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, paragraph on QGP friction] The manuscript states that the phenomenological QGP friction 'was fitted to reproduce the baryon stopping at high collision energies' (Ref. [22]). Since the central claim of Sec. III and the abstract is that the larger 3FD four-volumes 'indicate stronger baryon stopping,' the comparison is at least partly circular: the stopping strength in 3FD is calibrated, not independently predicted. This issue is load-bearing and should be addressed by presenting a stopping observable (e.g., net-baryon rapidity distributions or baryon rapidity loss) that was not used in the fit, or by explicitly stating that the conclusion is a property of the tuned 3FD model rather than a prediction.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 4 and text above it] The comparison mixes 3FD V4 for equilibrated baryonic matter with JAM V4 for all baryonic matter. The paper acknowledges this ('comparison ... is still instructive'), but it is not just a presentation issue: Fig. 3 shows that non-equilibrated matter contributes significantly to total V4 at lower energies, so a like-with-like comparison could substantially change the apparent gap between 3FD and JAM. Moreover, the observed excess is attributed to stronger stopping, while V4 is explicitly EoS-dependent ('larger for softer EoS'). The Section IV discussion does not decompose the V4 difference into stopping-driven versus EoS-driven contributions. The conclusion '3FD exhibits stronger baryon stopping than JAM' therefore overreaches the evidence presented.
  3. [Sec. IV, entire section] The argument correlating baryon stopping with EoS stiffness through directed flow is indirect and does not substitute for a direct comparison of stopping. The reasoning that strong stopping requires a soft EoS to reproduce directed flow may be plausible, but it does not establish that the V4 excess is caused by stopping. The paper also contains an apparent tension: it notes that JAM's cascade version is 'very soft' yet yields smaller V4, while also using EoS softness to explain why 3FD gives larger V4. This indicates that EoS stiffness alone cannot explain the model difference and that stopping must be the relevant factor—but then the absence of a direct stopping observable is all the more critical. Please provide a quantitative decomposition or a direct stopping measure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] There are two typos: 'the the JET AA Microscopic Transport Model' and 'JET AA' should be 'JET AA' (if intended) or simply 'JAM.' Also, 'sN N' formatting should be consistent (√sNN).
  2. [Sec. II, Fig. 1 caption] The sentence 'central region central region of central Au+Au collision' contains a duplicated phrase.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3 caption] The fit curve is shown but the fitting function (∝(√sNN)^-1.4) is only described in the body; adding it to the caption would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. V, Summary] In the text, 'fm4/s' appears as a unit error; should be 'fm4/c'.
  5. [References] Reference [7] gives 'Eur. Phys. J.52, 218-219 (2016)' which appears journal- and page-inconsistent; please verify. Also, Ref. [34] 'Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.52, 264 (1990)' lacks an author list; standard practice is to include it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central V4 comparison is conditioned on a QGP friction fitted to baryon stopping; the 'stronger stopping' conclusion is partially a calibrated input.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II (3FD simulations) and Sec. III (around Fig. 4)]
    "The phenomenological friction in the QGP was fitted to reproduce the baryon stopping at high collision energies within the deconfinement scenarios as it is described in Ref. [22] in detail. ... It is found that the 3FD four-volumes noticeably exceed those in the JAM model. This indicates that baryon stopping in the 3FD is stronger than that in JAM."

    The QGP-sector friction is the mechanism that controls inter-fluid stopping in 3FD, and it was itself fitted to reproduce baryon stopping in the same author's Ref. [22]. The paper then interprets the larger V4, which it calls 'a direct comparison of the baryon stopping within different models', as evidence that 3FD stopping is stronger than JAM's. The qualitative central claim therefore reduces to the fitted input: the model was calibrated to have a particular stopping strength, and the V4 excess is a consequence of that calibration rather than an independent prediction. The quantitative V4 curves and energy ranges remain genuine simulation output, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper's V4 calculations are self-contained simulation outputs from a documented model, and the comparison against JAM provides an external benchmark; there is no formal identity that makes V4 equal to the fitted friction. However, the headline inference that 3FD has stronger baryon stopping is not first-principles: the QGP friction was fitted to reproduce baryon stopping in prior work by the same author, and V4 is explicitly used as a direct measure of baryon stopping. In addition, the manuscript concedes that V4 depends on EoS stiffness and is larger for softer EoS, and 3FD uses a soft crossover EoS, so the cross-model difference is not a clean stopping diagnostic either. These factors justify a partial circularity score: the central interpretation is conditioned on calibrated input, but the energy-dependent V4 shapes, the monotonic 3n0 behavior, and the optimal-energy ranges are nontrivial outputs that are not directly fitted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only new object is the V4 statistic, which is imported from prior work and is not an invented physical entity.

free parameters (5)
  • 3FD QGP inter-fluid friction strength = not quoted (fitted to baryon stopping at high energies, Ref. [22])
    Controls baryon stopping and hence V4; fitted before this calculation, so the strong-stopping result is not independent.
  • Hadronic EoS incompressibility = K = 210 MeV
    Chosen soft EoS constrained by directed-flow data; softness increases V4 and shapes the crossover/1PT comparison.
  • 'Macroscopic' V4 thresholds = ~915 fm4/c (=5.5^4) for 3n0; ~256 fm4/c (=4^4) for 6n0
    Hand-chosen criteria for 'macroscopic'; optimal energy windows depend on these thresholds.
  • Impact parameter = b = 2 fm
    Representative 'central' Au+Au collision; affects the magnitude of V4 and the stopping dynamics.
  • Fit exponent for non-equilibrated V4 energy dependence = ~ -1.4
    Fit to the paper's own non-equilibrated V4 points at lower energies (Fig. 3), used to argue for flow deceleration; auxiliary.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Three-fluid hydrodynamics with friction terms is a valid description of the early nonequilibrium stage and later equilibration of heavy-ion collisions.
    The entire V4 calculation is built on 3FD; this model choice is not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Baryon number is conserved separately in projectile/target fluids with no transfer to the fireball (Eq. 2).
    This no-transfer assumption maximizes baryon stopping in 3FD and is contrasted with MUFFIN's charge-transfer scheme; it is a modeling input, not a measurement.
  • domain assumption JAM V4 results from Ref. [26] are accurate and were computed with the stated cascade and mean-field setups.
    The central comparison relies on external JAM numbers not reproduced in this paper.
  • domain assumption Comparing 3FD equilibrated V4 to JAM all-matter V4 is a meaningful way to compare baryon stopping.
    This is not a like-for-like comparison; the text asserts it is 'instructive', but the mixed categories could bias the inferred difference.
  • standard math The four-volume integral in Eq. (1) is Lorentz invariant and correctly measures the space-time extent of dense matter.
    Standard step-function integral over proper baryon density; accepted from Ref. [24].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11504 in / 13221 out tokens · 121373 ms · 2026-08-02T20:37:00.301854+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Four-volumes ($V_4=$ spatial-3-volume$\times$lifetime) are calculated within the model of three-fluid dynamics (3FD) and compared with those of the the JET AA Microscopic Transport Model (JAM). The calculations are performed for central Au+Au collisions at energies $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 3 -- 19.6 GeV. These $V_4$ indicate optimal collision-energy ranges for realizing macroscopic high baryon-density matter. It is found that the 3FD four-volumes noticeably exceed those in the JAM, which indicates a stronger baryon stopping in the 3FD model as compared to that JAM. It is argued that this difference in the baryon stopping correlates with stiffness of the EoS implemented in these models. Contrary to JAM, the four-volume, where a baryon density ($n_B$) exceeds three times the normal nuclear density ($n_0$), does not exhibit a maximum as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$. It decreases monotonically with increasing $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$, remaining at a fairly macroscopic level (i.e. $V_4\geq 5.5^4$ fm$^4$/c). For higher baryon densities, $V_4$ exhibits maxima in its dependence on $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$. The optimal energy range for densities $n_B/n_0>$ 4 is located at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 3.2 -- 8 GeV. Even for $n_B/n_0>$ 6, the four-volume remains quite macroscopic ($V_4\geq 4^4$ fm$^4$/c) at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 4.5 -- 9 GeV contrary to the JAM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22690 by Yuri B. Ivanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Time evolution of baryon density in the central region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Four-volume, in which the baryon density exceeds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The same as in Fig. 2 but separately for equilibrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Four-volume, in which the baryon density of the equi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 43 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Lovato, T

    A. Lovato, T. Dore, R. D. Pisarski, B. Schenke, K. Chatziioannou, J. S. Read, P. Landry, P. Danielewicz, D. Lee and S. Pratt,et al.Long Range Plan: Dense matter theory for heavy-ion collisions and neutron stars, arXiv:2211.02224 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Sorensen, K

    A. Sorensen, K. Agarwal, K. W. Brown, Z. Chajecki, P. Danielewicz, C. Drischler, S. Gandolfi, J. W. Holt, M. Kaminski and C. M. Ko,et al.Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.134, 104080 (2024) [arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    L. Du, A. Sorensen and M. Stephanov, The QCD phase diagram and Beam Energy Scan physics: A theory overview, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, no.07, 2430008 (2024) [arXiv:2402.10183 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Stephanov, QCD critical point: Recent developments, EPJ Web Conf.314, 00042 (2024) [arXiv:2410.02861 [nucl-th]]

    M. Stephanov, QCD critical point: Recent developments, EPJ Web Conf.314, 00042 (2024) [arXiv:2410.02861 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Galatyuk, Future facilities for highµ B physics, Nucl

    T. Galatyuk, Future facilities for highµ B physics, Nucl. Phys. A982, 163-169 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Randrup and J

    J. Randrup and J. Cleymans, Maximum freeze-out baryon density in nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C74, 047901 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0607065 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Randrup and J

    J. Randrup and J. Cleymans, Exploring high-density baryonic matter: Maximum freeze-out density, Eur. Phys. J.52, 218-219 (2016) [arXiv:0905.2824 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    B. A. Li and C. M. Ko, Formation of superdense hadronic matter in high-energy heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037-2063 (1995) [arXiv:nucl-th/9505016 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2037

  9. [9]

    S. A. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brandstetter, L. Bravina, C. Ernst, L. Gerland, M. Hofmann, S. Hof- mann and J. Konopka,et al.Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41, 255-369 (1998) [arXiv:nucl-th/9803035 [nucl- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  10. [10]

    O. Buss, T. Gaitanos, K. Gallmeister, H. van Hees, M. Kaskulov, O. Lalakulich, A. B. Larionov, T. Leit- ner, J. Weil and U. Mosel, Transport-theoretical Descrip- tion of Nuclear Reactions, Phys. Rept.512, 1-124 (2012) [arXiv:1106.1344 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Weilet al.[SMASH], Particle production and equilib- rium properties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    J. Weilet al.[SMASH], Particle production and equilib- rium properties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C94, no.5, 054905 (2016) [arXiv:1606.06642 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Aichelin, E

    J. Aichelin, E. Bratkovskaya, A. Le F` evre, V. Kireyeu, V. Kolesnikov, Y. Leifels, V. Voronyuk and G. Coci, Parton-hadron-quantum-molecular dynamics: A novel microscopicn-body transport approach for heavy-ion collisions, dynamical cluster formation, and hypernu- clei production, Phys. Rev. C101, no.4, 044905 (2020) [arXiv:1907.03860 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Y. Nara, N. Otuka, A. Ohnishi, K. Niita and S. Chiba, Study of relativistic nuclear collisions at AGS energies from p + Be to Au + Au with hadronic cascade model, Phys. Rev. C61, 024901 (2000) [arXiv:nucl-th/9904059 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  14. [14]

    Y. Nara, A. Jinno, T. Maruyama, K. Murase and A. Ohnishi, Poincar´ e covariant cascade method for high- energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C108, no.2, 2 (2023) [arXiv:2306.12131 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Petersen, J

    H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher and H. St¨ ocker, A Fully Integrated Transport Ap- proach to Heavy Ion Reactions with an Intermediate Hydrodynamic Stage, Phys. Rev. C78, 044901 (2008) [arXiv:0806.1695 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Batyuk, D

    P. Batyuk, D. Blaschke, M. Bleicher, Y. B. Ivanov, I. Karpenko, S. Merts, M. Nahrgang, H. Petersen and O. Rogachevsky, Event simulation based on three-fluid hydrodynamics for collisions at energies available at the Dubna Nuclotron-based Ion Collider Facility and at the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research in Darmstadt, Phys. Rev. C94, 044917 (2016) [a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Kozhevnikova, Y

    M. Kozhevnikova, Y. B. Ivanov, I. Karpenko, D. Blaschke and O. Rogachevsky, Update of the Three-fluid Hydrodynamics-based Event Simulator: light-nuclei pro- duction in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C103, no.4, 044905 (2021) [arXiv:2012.11438 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Akamatsu, M

    Y. Akamatsu, M. Asakawa, T. Hirano, M. Kitazawa, K. Morita, K. Murase, Y. Nara, C. Nonaka and A. Ohnishi, Dynamically integrated transport approach for heavy-ion collisions at high baryon density, Phys. Rev. C98, no.2, 024909 (2018) [arXiv:1805.09024 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Cimerman, I

    J. Cimerman, I. Karpenko, B. Tomasik and P. Huovi- nen, Next-generation multifluid hydrodynamic model for nuclear collisions at sNN from a few GeV to a hundred GeV, Phys. Rev. C107, no.4, 4 (2023) [arXiv:2301.11894 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Shen and B

    C. Shen and B. Schenke, Longitudinal dynamics and par- ticle production in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C105, no.6, 064905 (2022) [arXiv:2203.04685 [nucl- th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Y. B. Ivanov, V. N. Russkikh and V. D. Toneev, Rela- tivistic heavy-ion collisions within 3-fluid hydrodynam- ics: Hadronic scenario, Phys. Rev. C73, 044904 (2006) [nucl-th/0503088]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Y. B. Ivanov, Alternative Scenarios of Relativistic Heavy- Ion Collisions: I. Baryon Stopping, Phys. Rev. C87, no.6, 064904 (2013) [arXiv:1302.5766 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    I. C. Arsene, L. V. Bravina, W. Cassing, Y. B. Ivanov, A. Larionov, J. Randrup, V. N. Russkikh, V. D. Toneev, G. Zeeb and D. Zschiesche, Dynamical phase trajectories for relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C75, 034902 (2007) [arXiv:nucl-th/0609042 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Friman, W

    B. Friman, W. Norenberg and V. D. Toneev, The Quark condensate in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A3, 165 (1998) [nucl-th/9711065]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, Equilibration and baryon densities attainable in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C101, no.2, 024915 (2020) [arXiv:1911.10872 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Complex for simu- lation and data processing for mega-science facilities

    it is not so. 10 2053sNN [GeV]102103104V4 [fm4/c] Au+Au, b = 2 fmcrossover1PT Au+Au, b < 3 fmJAM MFJAM Cascade nB > 3n04n06n0 equilibrated baryonic matter all baryonic matter FIG. 4: Four-volume, in which the baryon density of the equi- librated matter exceeds valueen B in the central (b= 2 fm) Au+Au collisions, as function of collision energy √sN N. Cal...

    2053

  27. [27]

    A. A. Amsden, A. S. Goldhaber, F. H. Harlow and J. R. Nix, Relativistic two-fluid model of nucleus-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C17, 2080-2096 (1978)

    2080

  28. [28]

    H. Taya, A. Jinno, M. Kitazawa and Y. Nara, Optimal collision energy for realizing macroscopic high baryon- density matter, Phys. Rev. C112, no.1, L011901 (2025) [arXiv:2409.07685 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    I. N. Mishustin, V. N. Russkikh and L. M. Satarov, Ultra- 7 relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions Within Two Fluid Model With Pion Emission, Nucl. Phys. A494, 595-619 (1989)

    1989

  30. [30]

    equilibrated baryonic matter

    and two versions of the EoS involving the deconfine- ment transition [37], i.e. a first-order phase transition (1PT) and a smooth crossover one. This paper mainly demonstrates results with crossover EoS as the most suc- cessful one in reproduction of various observables in a wide range of collision energies, see, e.g., Ref. [38] and references therein. Re...

  31. [31]

    R. B. Clare and D. Strottman, Relativistic Hydrodynam- ics and heavy ion reactions, Phys. Rept.141, 177-280 (1986)

    1986

  32. [32]

    I. N. Mishustin, V. N. Russkikh and L. M. Satarov, Fluid dynamical model of relativistic heavy ion collision. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.54, 260-314 (1991)

    1991

  33. [33]

    Katscher, D

    U. Katscher, D. H. Rischke, J. A. Maruhn, W. Greiner, I. N. Mishustin and L. M. Satarov, The Three- dimensional (2+1) fluid model for relativistic nuclear col- lisions, Z. Phys. A346, 209-216 (1993)

    1993

  34. [34]

    Brachmann, A

    J. Brachmann, A. Dumitru, J. A. Maruhn, H. Stoecker, W. Greiner and D. H. Rischke, Nonequilibrium fluid dy- namics in the early stage of ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Nucl. Phys. A619, 391-412 (1997) [arXiv:nucl- th/9703032 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 1997

  35. [35]

    V. N. Russkikh, Y. B. Ivanov, Y. E. Pokrovsky and P. A. Henning, Analysis of intermediate-energy heavy ion collisions within relativistic mean field two fluid model, Nucl. Phys. A572, 749-790 (1994)

    1994

  36. [36]

    L. M. Satarov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.52, 264 (1990)

    1990

  37. [37]

    V. N. Russkikh and Yu. B. Ivanov, Dynamical freeze- out in 3-fluid hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C76, 054907 (2007) [nucl-th/0611094]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  38. [38]

    Yu. B. Ivanov and V. N. Russkikh, On freeze-out prob- lem in relativistic hydrodynamics, Phys. Atom. Nucl.72, 1238 (2009) [arXiv:0810.2262 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    A. S. Khvorostukin, V. V. Skokov, V. D. Toneev and K. Redlich, Lattice QCD constraints on the nuclear equa- tion of state, Eur. Phys. J. C48, 531 (2006) [nucl- th/0605069]

    arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    Y. B. Ivanov, Predictions of baryon directed flow in heavy-ion collisions at high baryon density, [arXiv:2511.04204 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  41. [41]

    Anishetty, P

    R. Anishetty, P. Koehler and L. D. McLerran, Central Collisions Between Heavy Nuclei at Extremely High- Energies: The Fragmentation Region, Phys. Rev. D22, 2793 (1980)

    1980

  42. [42]

    L. P. Csernai, Quark Matter Formation In The Fragmen- tation Rapidity Region Of Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. D29, 1945 (1984)

    1945

  43. [43]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. P. Csernai, Baryon Recoil and the Fragmentation Regions in Ultrarelativistic Nuclear Col- lisions, Nucl. Phys. A460, 723 (1986)

    1986

  44. [44]

    Frankfurt and M

    L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Ion induced quark gluon implosion, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 022301 (2003). [nucl- th/0212094]

    arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    I. N. Mishustin and J. I. Kapusta, Collective deceler- ation of ultrarelativistic nuclei and creation of quark gluon plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 112501 (2002) [hep- ph/0110321]

    arXiv 2002

  46. [46]

    Li and J

    M. Li and J. I. Kapusta, High Baryon Densities in Heavy Ion Collisions at Energies Attainable at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C95, no. 1, 011901 (2017) [arXiv:1604.08525 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    Li and J

    M. Li and J. I. Kapusta, Large Baryon Densities Achiev- able in High Energy Heavy Ion Collisions Outside the Central Rapidity Region, Phys. Rev. C99, no.1, 014906 (2019) [arXiv:1808.05751 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, High baryon and energy densities achievable in heavy-ion collisions at√sN N= 39 GeV, Phys. Rev. C97, no.2, 021901 (2018) [arXiv:1711.03069 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, Estimates of the baryon densities attainable in heavy-ion collisions from the beam energy scan program, Phys. Rev. C98, no.1, 014906 (2018) [arXiv:1803.11474 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Kolb´ e, M

    I. Kolb´ e, M. Lushozi, L. D. McLerran and G. Yu, Distri- bution of Nuclear Matter and Radiation in the Fragmen- tation Region, Phys. Rev. C103, no.4, 044908 (2021) [arXiv:2009.05680 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    S. J. Brodsky, F. Fleuret, C. Hadjidakis and J. P. Lans- berg, Physics Opportunities of a Fixed-Target Experi- ment using the LHC Beams, Phys. Rept.522, 239 (2013) [arXiv:1202.6585 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Werthmann, I

    C. Werthmann, I. Karpenko and P. Huovinen, Friction terms in multi-fluid description of heavy-ion collisions, arXiv:2511.10487 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  53. [53]

    L. Du, C. Shen, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Probing initial baryon stopping and equation of state with rapidity- dependent directed flow of identified particles, Phys. Rev. C108, no.4, L041901 (2023) [arXiv:2211.16408 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Danielewicz and G

    P. Danielewicz and G. Odyniec, Transverse Momen- tum Analysis of Collective Motion in Relativistic Nu- clear Collisions, Phys. Lett. B157, 146-150 (1985) [arXiv:2109.05308 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1985

  55. [55]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey and W. G. Lynch, Determina- tion of the equation of state of dense matter, Science298, 1592-1596 (2002) [arXiv:nucl-th/0208016 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  56. [56]

    Y. Nara, T. Maruyama and H. Stoecker, Momentum- dependent potential and collective flows within the rela- tivistic quantum molecular dynamics approach based on relativistic mean-field theory, Phys. Rev. C102, no.2, 024913 (2020) [arXiv:2004.05550 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Nara and A

    Y. Nara and A. Ohnishi, Mean-field update in the JAM microscopic transport model: Mean-field effects on collective flow in high-energy heavy-ion collisions at sNN=2–20 GeV energies, Phys. Rev. C105, no.1, 014911 (2022) [arXiv:2109.07594 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Steinheimer, A

    J. Steinheimer, A. Motornenko, A. Sorensen, Y. Nara, V. Koch and M. Bleicher, The high-density equation of state in heavy-ion collisions: constraints from pro- ton flow, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.10, 911 (2022) [arXiv:2208.12091 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Y. B. Ivanov and M. Kozhevnikova, Examination of STAR fixed-target data on directed flow at sNN=3 and 4.5 GeV, Phys. Rev. C110, no.1, 014907 (2024) [arXiv:2403.02787 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    V. P. Konchakovski, W. Cassing, Y. B. Ivanov and V. D. Toneev, Examination of the directed flow puzzle in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C90, no.1, 014903 (2014) [arXiv:1404.2765 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, Directed flow indicates a cross-over deconfinement transition in relativistic nu- clear collisions, Phys. Rev. C91, no.2, 024915 (2015) [arXiv:1412.1669 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, What can we learn from the directed flow in heavy-ion collisions at BES RHIC energies?, Eur. Phys. J. A52, no.1, 10 (2016) [arXiv:1601.03902 [nucl-th]]. [61]http://ckp.nrcki.ru/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016