Paper detail

Comparison of heavy ion transport simulations: Ag+Ag collisions at Elab = 1.58 AGeV

We compare the microscopic transport models UrQMD, PHSD, PHQMD, and SMASH to make predictions for the upcoming Ag+Ag data at $E_\mathrm{lab}=1.58$~$A$GeV ($\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=2.55$~GeV) by the HADES collaboration. We study multiplicities, spectra and effective source temperatures of protons, $π^{\pm,0}$, $K^\pm$, the $η$, $Λ+Σ^0$ and the $Ξ^-$ within these models. Despite variations in the detailed implementation of the dynamics in the different models, the employed transport approaches all show consistent multiplicities of the bulk of investigated hadrons. The main differences are in the $Ξ^-$ production, which is treated differently between UrQMD/SMASH on one side employing high mass resonance states with explicit decays to $\mathrm{Resonance}\rightarrow Ξ+K+K$ in contrast to PHSD/PHQMD which account only non-resonant $Ξ$ production channels. A comparison of the spectra, summarized by effective source temperatures, shows that all models provide similar source temperatures around $T_\mathrm{source}=80-95$~MeV, and show substantial radial flow on the order of $\langle v_T\rangle=0.22c-0.3c$ even for such a small system.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.