Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

The influence of electromagnetic fields on the generation of the directed and elliptic flows of heavy quark in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 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 A self-consistent transport calculation shows that electromagnetic fields generated in heavy-ion collisions produce a measurable charge-dependent splitting in D meson directed flow, matching STAR data, while leaving elliptic flow…

desk verdict Solid, self-consistent PHSD calculation of charm v1/v2 under dynamical EMF, but the unquantified dropping of the Lienard-Wiechert acceleration term weakens the central pT-splitting prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22620 v1 pith:ZOCZLHEF submitted 2025-07-30 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Santosh K. Das , Olga Soloveva , Taesoo Song , Elena Bratkovskaya This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex PACS 12.38.Aw12.38.Mh
keywords relativisticheavy-ioncollisionsheavyquarksquark-gluonplasmaelectromagneticfieldsdirectedflowellipticDmesonsPHSDtransportapproach
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

The paper asks whether the strong electromagnetic fields generated in off-center heavy-ion collisions imprint a measurable signature on charm-quark flow, and answers yes for directed flow. Using the Parton-Hadron-String Dynamics (PHSD) transport model, with the fields computed dynamically from all charged particles rather than imposed by hand, the authors find that the splitting between $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ directed flow is consistent with STAR data at 200 GeV. They also find that the splitting between $D^+$ and $D^-$ directed flow as a function of transverse momentum $p_T$ at backward rapidity is substantial, making it a viable new probe of the field. The same calculation shows the electromagnetic field leaves the elliptic flow $v_2$ essentially untouched, which matters for interpreting $v_2$ as a pure medium response.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the PHSD off-shell transport approach, in which the electromagnetic field is generated dynamically by summing Lienard-Wiechert potentials over spectators, participants, and newly produced charged hadrons and quarks; the field then acts on charm quarks through the Lorentz force in Eq. (6). Heavy quark scattering with partons is described by the Dynamical Quasi-Particle Model (DQPM), whose temperature-dependent masses and widths reproduce lattice QCD thermodynamics, and the field evolution naturally encodes the medium's electrical conductivity. The key observable is the directed-flow splitting, computed by taking the difference between $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ (or $D^+$ and $D^-$) $v_1$ to cancel bulk effects and isolate the electromagnetic contribution.

What would settle it

The prediction would be falsified by a high-statistics RHIC measurement of the $p_T$-dependent $D^+/D^-$ directed-flow splitting in the window $-3<y<-1$ that finds no splitting, or a splitting of the opposite sign, since the electromagnetically driven mechanism in this calculation produces a sizeable positive splitting there.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that charm quarks, created early in the collision, inherit a memory of the electromagnetic field, and this memory survives hadronization into $D$ mesons, showing up as a charge-dependent splitting of the directed flow. In PHSD the splitting $\Delta v_1 = v_1(D^0) - v_1(\bar{D}^0)$ as a function of rapidity is consistent with the STAR measurement at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV, and the $p_T$-differential splitting of $D^+$ and $D^-$ in the window $-3 < y < -1$ is large enough to serve as a clean observable for the produced field. The authors conclude that only directed flow, not elliptic flow, carries the electromagnetic signature.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the electromagnetic field can be computed from the velocity-field part of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials alone; if the neglected radiation term contributes during the early, rapidly changing field stage, the size and timing of the field, and with it the predicted $v_1$ splitting, would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A high-statistics measurement of the $D^+/D^-$ $v_1$ splitting as a function of $p_T$ in the backward rapidity window would directly test whether the electromagnetically driven mechanism is real.
  • The near-zero effect of electromagnetic fields on $v_2$ means existing elliptic-flow measurements remain valid as probes of charm-medium interaction without large electromagnetic corrections.
  • The negative slope of $\Delta v_1$ obtained at RHIC energy distinguishes PHSD from models that predict a positive slope and constrains how the field decays.
  • Extending the same self-consistent electromagnetic-field calculation to LHC energy would test whether the sign of the directed-flow slope flips with the dominance of the magnetic over the electric field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Including the dropped Lienard-Wiechert radiation term would likely strengthen or alter the predicted splitting at very early times, since the field changes most rapidly then; quantifying that term is a natural follow-up.
  • The $p_T$-differential splitting could in principle be used to constrain the QGP electrical conductivity, because a larger $\sigma_{el}$ slows field decay and shifts when the force acts on charm quarks.
  • The same machinery applied to LHC energy would give a concrete prediction for the sign of the directed-flow slope, directly addressing the current disagreement between model calculations at RHIC and LHC energies.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies charm-quark dynamics in Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV within the PHSD off-shell transport approach, with the background electromagnetic field (EMF) generated dynamically by all charged particles (spectators, participants, and produced partons/hadrons). The authors compute the directed-flow splitting between D0 and D0bar mesons and compare it with STAR data, and they propose the pT-dependent splitting of D+ and D- directed flow at backward rapidity as a novel probe of the produced EMF. They also report that the EMF has negligible impact on D-meson elliptic flow.

Significance. If the calculation is quantitatively reliable, the paper provides a falsifiable prediction: a substantial EMF-induced splitting in v1(pT) of D+ and D- at -3<y<-1, which could be tested by future measurements and would be a genuinely new observable. The work builds on the well-established PHSD/DQPM machinery, includes a self-consistent dynamical treatment of the EMF coupled to the transport evolution, and correctly identifies that the STAR-region rapidity splitting is a null test rather than a discriminating measurement. The conclusion that v2 is almost unaffected by the EMF is a clean, useful negative result. The main limitation is that the central prediction rests on an unquantified simplification of the Liénard-Wiechert fields.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (2)-(5)] The central claim of the paper is the pT-dependent v1 splitting predicted in Fig. 2, which accumulates from the early-time EMF acting on charm quarks. The implementation drops the acceleration (radiation) term from the full Liénard-Wiechert expression in Eq. (2) and then uses the present-time velocity-field formulas in Eqs. (4)-(5) without solving the retardation equation. The manuscript states that solving the full time-dependent equation is 'very complicated,' but it gives no estimate of the error incurred by this approximation. During the first ~1 fm/c, when the field is strongest, the sources are rapidly accelerated, so the neglected term is not obviously small. Since the sign and magnitude of the predicted Delta v1(pT) are the paper's main proposed observable, the authors should quantify the uncertainty, for example by comparing with a toy-model evaluation of the full Liénard-Wiechert field for representative early-time trajectories, or by otherwise demonstrating that the radiation term is subdominant.
  2. [Sec. IV and Fig. 1] The comparison with STAR data is not a validation of the EMF treatment: in Fig. 1 the 'with EMF' and 'without EMF' curves are nearly indistinguishable over the measured rapidity range, so the statement in the abstract that the splitting is 'consistent with the experimental data' is true but equally consistent with no EMF at all. The paper should state this explicitly and should not present the RHIC comparison as evidence for the EMF implementation; the positive support for the EMF effect must come from the out-of-sample prediction in Fig. 2, which is not yet tested.
  3. [Sec. V] The concluding claim that 'the heavy quark directed flow is the only observable to characterize the EMF' overstates the scope of the study, since only v1 and v2 are examined and other potential observables (for example, charm baryon yields, event-plane correlations, or rapidity-odd fluctuations) are not considered. This sentence should be restricted to the observables actually studied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states '0–80% central' while the text and all other figures specify 10–80%; this inconsistency should be corrected because the centrality selection directly affects the predicted v1 splitting.
  2. [Sec. II] The phrase 'the rapidity distribution and transverse momentum from PYTHIA are then rescaled such that they are consistent with those from the FONLL calculations' would benefit from a citation to the specific FONLL implementation and a brief statement of the rescaling procedure, since this is an input that affects the charm production distribution.
  3. [Sec. III] The text contains a typo: 'chargeed particles' should be 'charged particles.'
  4. [Sec. V] The summary repeats 'electromagnetic filed' instead of 'electromagnetic field' in the final paragraph.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'D+ (upper) and D− mesons (lower)' but the figure appears to show both species with and without EMF; please clarify which curves correspond to which meson and whether the curves overlap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the v1 splitting is an out-of-sample PHSD prediction, with no parameter fitted to the compared STAR data; self-citations anchor the framework but are backed by external lattice-QCD and heavy-flavor observables.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: initial charm production uses PYTHIA/FONLL and EPS09; charm-medium interaction uses DQPM quasiparticles whose masses and widths are fixed by lattice QCD thermodynamics; EMF is computed from the explicit Lienard-Wiechert velocity-field formulas (Eqs. 4-5) summed over dynamically evolving charged sources, and applied to charm through the Lorentz force (Eq. 6). The D-meson flow coefficients (Eqs. 7-8) are then evaluated with and without EMF. The reported Delta v1(D0-D0bar) comparison to STAR is an out-of-sample prediction: no parameter in this paper is adjusted to STAR v1 data, and the baseline PHSD without EMF already provides the flow background. The proposed pT-dependent D+ versus D- splitting at backward rapidity is likewise a forward model output, not a fitted quantity. The neglect of the Lienard-Wiechert acceleration/radiation term in Eqs. (4)-(5) is an explicit approximation ('Solving the full equation in the time-dependent case is very complicated'), and its unquantified impact is a correctness/uncertainty concern, not a tautology: it does not insert the predicted splitting into the input. The heavy self-citation of PHSD/DQPM is normal framework attribution, and the framework's key ingredients are anchored to external lattice QCD results and to independent heavy-flavor RAA and v2 measurements cited in the text. Consequently no step can be exhibited in which an equation reduces by construction to its own input, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The calculation relies on the PHSD/DQPM framework, which carries parameters fixed in earlier work to lattice thermodynamics and heavy-quark observables. No parameter in this paper is fitted to the target v1 splitting, which keeps the circularity burden low. The main model-dependent inputs are the DQPM interaction rates, the coalescence thresholds, the initial charm spectrum rescaling, and the approximation of neglecting acceleration fields.

free parameters (3)
  • DQPM strong coupling and quasi-particle parameters = not given in this paper; fixed in Refs. [45,48-52] to reproduce lattice QCD thermodynamics
    These parameters set the partonic interaction rates that control charm quark momentum evolution; they were not fitted to v1 splitting.
  • Coalescence energy density thresholds = 0.75 GeV/fm3 and 0.4 GeV/fm3
    Chosen by hand to set the hadronization window; they affect the final D meson kinematics and hence v1 and v2.
  • PYTHIA to FONLL rescaling for initial charm spectrum = not specified
    Initial charm pT and rapidity distributions are rescaled to FONLL, which directly shapes the v1(pT) prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The retarded electromagnetic field can be approximated by the velocity-field term alone, neglecting the acceleration or radiation term in Eq. (2).
    Stated explicitly in Sec. III as a simplification; this is the weakest assumption and could affect early field evolution.
  • domain assumption The QGP is described by DQPM off-shell quasiparticles whose masses and widths reproduce lattice QCD thermodynamics.
    Used throughout for partonic interactions; relied on from Refs. [45,48-52].
  • domain assumption The time evolution of the EMF computed from moving charges in PHSD accounts for the electric conductivity of the medium.
    The paper asserts this connection without deriving it explicitly, citing Refs. [32,57].
  • domain assumption Heavy quarks are produced in initial hard scatterings via PYTHIA with EPS09 nuclear shadowing and hadronize via coalescence or fragmentation.
    Initial conditions and hadronization model are taken from prior PHSD heavy-flavor papers, Refs. [23,25].
  • standard math The Lorentz force (Eq. 6) acts on electrically charged quasiparticles.
    Standard classical electrodynamics applied to the transport description.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The influence of electromagnetic fields on the generation of the directed and elliptic flows of heavy quark in relativistic heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOCZLHEF

@misc{pith2026250722620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The influence of electromagnetic fields on the generation of the directed and elliptic flows of heavy quark in relativistic heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOCZLHEF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22620}
}
abstract

We study the impact of self-generated electromagnetic fields (EMF) on the charm quarks momentum evolution in the partonic and hadronic medium created in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC energy within the Parton-Hadron-String Dynamics (PHSD) off-shell transport approach. In the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) phase, the charm quark interacts with the off-shell partons whose mass and widths are given by the Dynamical Quasi-Particle Model (DQPM), which can reproduce the lattice QCD thermodynamics. The background electromagnetic fields are computed dynamically within the PHSD considering both the spectators and participants protons as well as newly produced charged hadrons, quarks, and antiquarks, which reflects naturally the electric conductivity $\sigma_{el}$ of the medium. We study the directed and elliptic flow of the $D$ mesons in the presence of the electromagnetic fields. We find that electromagnetically induced splitting in the $D$ meson $v_1$ through $D^0$ and $\overline{D}^0$ mesons is consistent with the experimental data. Furthermore, we notice that the splitting in the heavy quark $v_1$ as a function of $p_T$ is more prominent as a probe of the produced electromagnetic fields. However, we find only a small impact of electromagnetic fields on the heavy quark elliptic flow $v_2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22620 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Variation of the directed flow splitting, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Elliptic flow, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Elliptic flow, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 64 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0405066

    work page arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    B. V. Jacak and B. Muller, Science 337, 310 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Prino and R

    F. Prino and R. Rapp, J. Phys. G 43, 093002 (2016), arXiv:1603.00529 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Andronic et al., Eur

    A. Andronic et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 107 (2016), arXiv:1506.03981 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Beraudo et al

    A. Beraudo et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 979, 21 (2018), arXiv:1803.03824 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Aarts et al

    G. Aarts et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 93 (2017), arXiv:1612.08032 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Cao et al

    S. Cao et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, 054907 (2019), arXiv:1809.07894 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Dong and V

    X. Dong and V. Greco, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 104, 97 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Xu et al

    Y. Xu et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, 014902 (2019), arXiv:1809.10734 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. K. Das, J. M. Torres-Rincon, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rept. 1129-1131, 1 (2025), arXiv:2406.13286 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    van Hees, V

    H. van Hees, V. Greco, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034913 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0508055

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    van Hees, M

    H. van Hees, M. Mannarelli, V. Greco, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 192301 (2008), arXiv:0709.2884 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    P. B. Gossiaux and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C 78, 014904 (2008), arXiv:0802.2525 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    P. B. Gossiaux, R. Bierkandt, and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C 79, 044906 (2009), arXiv:0901.0946 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. K. Das, J.-e. Alam, and P. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. C 82, 014908 (2010), arXiv:1003.5508 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    W. M. Alberico, A. Beraudo, A. De Pace, A. Molinari, M. Monteno, M. Nardi, and F. Prino, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1666 (2011), arXiv:1101.6008 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    T. Lang, H. van Hees, J. Steinheimer, G. Inghirami, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 93, 014901 (2016), arXiv:1211.6912 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Uphoff, O

    J. Uphoff, O. Fochler, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 84, 024908 (2011), arXiv:1104.2295 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. He, R. J. Fries, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 112301 (2013), arXiv:1204.4442 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Uphoff, O

    J. Uphoff, O. Fochler, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B 717, 430 (2012), arXiv:1205.4945 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. K. Das, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044901 (2014), arXiv:1312.6857 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. K. Das, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B 747, 260 (2015), arXiv:1502.03757 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    T. Song, H. Berrehrah, D. Cabrera, J. M. Torres-Rincon, L. Tolos, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 92, 014910 (2015), arXiv:1503.03039 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Nahrgang, J

    M. Nahrgang, J. Aichelin, S. Bass, P. B. Gossiaux, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 91, 014904 (2015), arXiv:1410.5396 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. Song, H. Berrehrah, D. Cabrera, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034906 (2016), arXiv:1512.00891 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 94, 014909 (2016), arXiv:1605.06447 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Scardina, S

    F. Scardina, S. K. Das, V. Minissale, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Rev. C 96, 044905 (2017), arXiv:1707.05452 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y. Xu, J. E. Bernhard, S. A. Bass, M. Nahrgang, and S. Cao, Phys. Rev. C 97, 014907 (2018), arXiv:1710.00807 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Plumari, V

    S. Plumari, V. Minissale, S. K. Das, G. Coci, and V. Greco, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 348 (2018), arXiv:1712.00730 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. Katz, C. A. G. Prado, J. Noronha-Hostler, J. Noronha, and A. A. P. Suaide, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024906 (2020), arXiv:1906.10768 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 83, 054911 (2011), arXiv:1103.4239 [nucl- th]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. K. Das, S. Plumari, S. Chatterjee, J. Alam, F. Scar- dina, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B 768, 260 (2017), arXiv:1608.02231 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Chatterjee and P

    S. Chatterjee and P. Bozek, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134955 (2019), arXiv:1804.04893 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Oliva, S

    L. Oliva, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, JHEP 05, 034 (2021), arXiv:2009.11066 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Oliva, Eur

    L. Oliva, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 255 (2020), arXiv:2007.00560 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dubla, U

    A. Dubla, U. G¨ ursoy, and R. Snellings, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2050324 (2020), arXiv:2009.09727 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. Sun, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136271 (2021), arXiv:2004.09880 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Beraudo, A

    A. Beraudo, A. De Pace, M. Monteno, M. Nardi, and F. Prino, JHEP 05, 279 (2021), arXiv:2102.08064 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jiang, S

    Z.-F. Jiang, S. Cao, W.-J. Xing, X.-Y. Wu, C. B. Yang, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054907 (2022), arXiv:2202.13555 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y. Sun, S. Plumari, and S. K. Das, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138043 (2023), arXiv:2304.12792 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 162301 (2019), arXiv:1905.02052 [nucl-ex]

    2019

  35. [43]

    Acharya et al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharya et al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 022301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14406 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cassing and E

    W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034919 (2008), arXiv:0808.0022 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cassing, Eur

    W. Cassing, Eur. Phys. J. ST 168, 3 (2009), arXiv:0808.0715 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cassing and E

    W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Nucl. Phys. A 831, 215 (2009), arXiv:0907.5331 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Linnyk, E

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

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Moreau, O

    P. Moreau, O. Soloveva, L. Oliva, T. Song, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014911 (2019), arXiv:1903.10257 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cassing, Nucl

    W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 795, 70 (2007), arXiv:0707.3033 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cassing, Nucl

    W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 791, 365 (2007), arXiv:0704.1410 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Soloveva, D

    O. Soloveva, D. Fuseau, J. Aichelin, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 103, 054901 (2021), arXiv:2011.03505 [nucl-th]. 7

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V. D. Toneev, V. Voronyuk, E. L. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034910 (2012), arXiv:1112.2595 [hep- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    V. D. Toneev, V. P. Konchakovski, V. Voronyuk, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. C 86, 064907 (2012), arXiv:1208.2519 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, S. A. Voloshin, and W. Cass- ing, Phys. Rev. C 90, 064903 (2014), arXiv:1410.1402 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    V. D. Toneev, V. Voronyuk, E. E. Kolomeitsev, and W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. C 95, 034911 (2017), arXiv:1610.06319 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Oliva, P

    L. Oliva, P. Moreau, V. Voronyuk, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 101, 014917 (2020), arXiv:1909.06770 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Cacciari, S

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, JHEP 10, 137 (2012), arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, JHEP 04, 065 (2009), arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Berrehrah, E

    H. Berrehrah, E. Bratkovskaya, W. Cassing, P. B. Gos- siaux, J. Aichelin, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054901 (2014), arXiv:1308.5148 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Peterson, D

    C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. D 27, 105 (1983)

    1983

  54. [62]

    L. M. Abreu, D. Cabrera, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, and J. M. Torres-Rincon, Annals Phys. 326, 2737 (2011), arXiv:1104.3815 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  55. [63]

    T. Song, H. Berrehrah, J. M. Torres-Rincon, L. Tolos, D. Cabrera, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014905 (2017), arXiv:1605.07887 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    T. Song, W. Cassing, P. Moreau, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064907 (2018), arXiv:1803.02698 [nucl- th]

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    T. Song, P. Moreau, Y. Xu, V. Ozvenchuk, E. Bratkovskaya, J. Aichelin, S. A. Bass, P. B. Gossiaux, and M. Nahrgang, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044903 (2020), arXiv:2001.07951 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    T. Song, I. Grishmanovskii, O. Soloveva, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034906 (2024), arXiv:2404.00425 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifschits, The Classical Theory of Fields, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. Volume 2 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1975)

    1975

  60. [68]

    Cassing, O

    W. Cassing, O. Linnyk, T. Steinert, and V. Ozvenchuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 182301 (2013), arXiv:1302.0906 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Soloveva, P

    O. Soloveva, P. Moreau, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 101, 045203 (2020), arXiv:1911.08547 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. A. Fotakis, O. Soloveva, C. Greiner, O. Kaczmarek, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. D 104, 034014 (2021), arXiv:2102.08140 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    B. B. Brandt, A. Francis, H. B. Meyer, and H. Wittig, JHEP 03, 100 (2013), arXiv:1212.4200 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, A. Amato, P. Giudice, S. Hands, and J.-I. Skullerud, JHEP 02, 186 (2015), arXiv:1412.6411 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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