Systematic study reveals influences of nucleon mean-field potentials on proton anisotropic flows in heavy-ion collisions, indicating critical parameters for analysis.
Within the framework of the lattice Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model, we present a systematic study of proton anisotropic flow observables measured by the HADES collaboration, by utilizing the recently developed density-, momentum- and isospin-dependent N$5$LO Skyrme pseudopotential. In particular, we investigate the impacts of the momentum dependence of nucleon mean-field potentials, the stiffness of symmetric nuclear matter (SNM) EOS, the high-density behaviors of the symmetry energy and the in-medium modification of nucleon-nucleon elastic cross sections on proton v₁, v₂, v₃, and v₄ in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 2.4\,GeV. Our results show that the proton anisotropic flows are strongly sensitive to the momentum dependence of nucleon mean-field potential as well as the incompressibility coefficient K₀ of SNM. In addition, the transverse momentum dependence of the proton v₂ exhibits a modest sensitivity to the higher-order skewness coefficient J₀ and kurtosis coefficient I₀ of SNM as well as the momentum dependence of the symmetry potential, while the transverse momentum dependence of the proton v₁ is shown to modestly depend on the in-medium modification of nucleon-nucleon elastic cross sections. Moreover, the high-density symmetry energy seems to have limited effects on the proton anisotropic flows. These findings highlight the necessity of considering the momentum dependence of nucleon mean-field potentials including the symmetry potential, the higher-order characteristic parameters of SNM EOS beyond K₀, and the in-medium modification of nucleon-nucleon elastic cross sections, in future Bayesian transport model analyses on proton anisotropic flows in heavy-ion collisions at HADES energies, thereby to extract information on nuclear matter EOS as well as the associated underlying nuclear effective interactions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anonymous (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: