Understanding transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions at 100 and 400 AMeV: Comparison of heavy ion transport codes under controlled conditions
Jun Xu, Lie-Wen Chen, ManYee Betty Tsang, Hermann Wolter, Ying-Xun, Zhang, Joerg Aichelin, Maria Colonna, Dan Cozma, Pawel Danielewicz, Zhao-Qing, Feng, Arnaud Le Fevre, Theodoros Gaitanos, Christoph Hartnack, Kyungil Kim,, Youngman Kim, Che-Ming Ko, Bao-An Li, Qing-Feng Li

TL;DR
This study compares 18 heavy-ion transport codes at 100 and 400 AMeV to assess their consistency and uncertainties in simulating Au+Au collisions, highlighting significant variability especially at lower energies.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive comparison of transport codes under controlled conditions, identifying sources of discrepancies and quantifying uncertainties in collision simulations.
Findings
Uncertainties in collective flow predictions are about 30% at 100 AMeV and 13% at 400 AMeV.
Differences in initializations and collision handling strategies cause significant variations.
Higher incident energy reduces the spread in simulation results.
Abstract
Transport simulations are very valuable for extracting physics information from heavy-ion collision experiments. With the emergence of many different transport codes in recent years, it becomes important to estimate their robustness in extracting physics information from experiments. We report on the results of a transport code comparison project. 18 commonly used transport codes were included in this comparison: 9 Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck-type codes and 9 Quantum-Molecular-Dynamics-type codes. These codes have been required to simulate Au+Au collisions using the same physics input for mean fields and for in-medium nucleon-nucleon cross sections, as well as the same initialization set-up, the impact parameter, and other calculational parameters at 100 and 400 AMeV incident energy. Among the codes we compare one-body observables such as rapidity and transverse flow distributions. We…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
