Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Hadronization using the Wigner function approach for a multiphase transport model

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The improved hadronization algorithm preserves partonic directed flow, reproducing the measured proton flow sign change with collision energy.

desk verdict A useful, clearly specified Wigner-coalescence upgrade for AMPT, but the headline v1 comparison uses mismatched centralities and needs a sensitivity check before the sign-change claim is settled. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04956 v2 pith:5TSTZHEN submitted 2019-08-14 nucl-th hep-exnucl-ex

Feng-Tao Wang , Jun Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exnucl-ex
keywords WignerfunctionquarkcoalescencehadronizationAMPTmodeldirectedflowdi-hadroncorrelationsanisotropicbeamenergyscan
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 rewrites the hadronization step of the string-melting multiphase transport model so that partons are combined into hadrons not by spatial proximity alone but by the highest value of a Wigner function, a Gaussian in both relative coordinate and relative momentum. The widths are fixed by the measured charge radii of pions and protons, and the relative meson/baryon weights are fixed constants, so the algorithm introduces no free parameters. The payoff is that hadronization no longer scrambles the partonic dynamics: the proton directed-flow slope now changes sign with collision energy in the pattern seen in beam-energy-scan data, and baryon-baryon and antibaryon-antibaryon correlations in p+p collisions acquire the near-side anticorrelation measured in high-energy hadron collisions. These features were absent in the original spatial-coalescence algorithm. If the claim holds, hadronization is a controllable element of transport simulations rather than an adjustable black box.

What carries the argument

The Wigner function of the valence parton combination. For a quark-antiquark pair it reads $f_M(\rho,k_\rho) = 8g_M\exp(-\rho^2/\sigma_\rho^2 - k_\rho^2\sigma_\rho^2)$, with $\rho$ and $k_\rho$ the relative coordinate and momentum in the pair's center-of-mass frame; for baryons an analogous product over two Jacobi coordinates. The selection rule is to form the hadron from the combination whose Wigner function is largest, repeated until all partons are used, which simultaneously removes the ordering ambiguity between meson-first and baryon-first coalescence and favors partons that are close in momentum as well as space. The widths $\sigma_\rho,\sigma_\lambda$ are fixed from the root-mean-square charge radii of pions (0.61 fm) and protons (0.877 fm) through Eqs. (3) and (6).

What would settle it

Vary the Gaussian widths in Eqs. (3) and (6) by $\pm 30\%$ or change the $g_M/g_B$ ratio while rerunning the hadronization on the same freeze-out parton distribution; if the proton $\mathrm{d}v_1/\mathrm{d}y$ sign change between 11.5 and 19.6 GeV or the near-side baryon-antibaryon anticorrelation disappears, the central claim is not robust. Also compare the resulting $v_1$ slope magnitude quantitatively with the measured values, since the paper only claims qualitative agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the choice of which partons coalesce controls whether the hadron phase inherits the partonic directed flow. With the improved algorithm, the slope $\mathrm{d}v_1/\mathrm{d}y|_{y=0}$ for protons is negative at collision energies above 7.7 GeV and flips sign between 11.5 and 19.6 GeV in agreement with measured beam-energy-scan results, whereas the original nearest-in-space coalescence turns these slopes positive at all energies. The same algorithm produces a dip instead of a peak on the near side of baryon-baryon and antibaryon-antibaryon azimuthal correlations in p+p collisions at 7 TeV, consistent with measured data. This is achieved by ranking all possible two- and three-parton combinations by the value of the corresponding Wigner function, with Gaussian widths fixed by vacuum pion and proton radii.

Load-bearing premise

The ranking of meson versus baryon formation depends on fixed Gaussian widths taken from vacuum pion and proton radii and on hand-set statistical weights of $1/36$ and $1/108$; if these do not represent the in-medium coalescence probability for freeze-out partons, the preferred parton combinations and all downstream observables change, yet the paper does not test this sensitivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hadronization step acts as a dynamical filter: from the same parton freeze-out distribution, spatial coalescence overestimates hadron elliptic flow, so the parton-scattering cross section needed to match data rises from 1.5 mb to 3 mb at 200 GeV and to 2 mb at 2.76 TeV.
  • The near-side anticorrelation between two baryons or two antibaryons in p+p collisions emerges naturally from momentum-favored coalescence rather than from a separate fragmentation mechanism.
  • The sign change of the proton directed-flow slope with collision energy survives hadronization only if coalescence preserves the partonic flow; the original spatial coalescence destroys the sign change entirely.
  • The relative production of strange baryons and antibaryons depends strongly on whether mesons or baryons are formed first; the Wigner ranking removes this ordering ambiguity and brings these ratios closer to measured values at top collision energies.
  • Both the original and improved algorithms preserve the constituent-quark-number scaling of anisotropic flows, but the improved model yields better $v_n/v_2^{n/2}$ scaling, especially at the higher collision energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the widths are fixed by vacuum charge radii, a natural test is to rerun the algorithm with in-medium or temperature-dependent widths; if the $v_1$ sign change or the p+p anticorrelation is sensitive to those widths, then hadronization itself is encoding in-medium information that current transport models discard.
  • The same Wigner-function ranking could be applied to leftover partons that are currently forced into hadrons despite being far apart in phase space; fragmenting those instead would provide a direct handle on the transition between coalescence and fragmentation at high transverse momentum.
  • If the improved hadronization preserves partonic dynamics this well, other observables that encode early-time flow, such as the mass ordering of $v_2$ at low $p_T$ or HBT radii, may shift as well; the paper does not examine these.
  • The larger cross sections required to fit the elliptic flow after the hadronization change suggest that earlier extractions of the specific shear viscosity from this transport model would need to be revisited with the new algorithm.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper modifies the hadronization step of the string-melting AMPT model by replacing spatial-only nearest-neighbor coalescence with a greedy algorithm that forms mesons, baryons, and antibaryons from parton combinations having the largest Wigner function in phase space. The Wigner widths are fixed using vacuum pion and proton charge radii, the statistical weights are set to gM=1/36 and gB=1/108, and net baryon, electric, and strangeness charges are conserved by consuming all partons. The authors compare the original and improved versions for elliptic flow and vn scaling at RHIC and LHC energies, the directed-flow slope at RHIC beam energy scan energies, particle yield ratios, and di-hadron correlations in p+p collisions. The main claims are that the improved algorithm preserves parton dynamics better through hadronization, reproduces the qualitative collision-energy dependence of the proton v1 slope, gives reasonable yield ratios at top RHIC and LHC energies, and produces the near-side anti-correlation in baryon-baryon and antibaryon-antibaryon correlations seen by ALICE.

Significance. Hadronization is a major uncertainty in interpreting transport model results, and the proposed algorithm is a concrete, reproducible modification of a widely used code. The paper's strengths are that the Wigner-function inputs are tied to measured charge radii, the algorithm removes the coalescence-ordering ambiguity of the original model, and several predictions (the v1 sign sequence, di-hadron correlations, and yield ratios) are not used to fit parameters. If the centrality and parameter-sensitivity concerns below are resolved, the paper would provide a useful benchmark for future AMPT studies. However, the headline v1 validation is weakened by a centrality mismatch and by a simultaneous rescaling of the parton cross section, so the significance of the central claim is currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.D, Fig. 8] The central validation of the v1 claim compares model protons in midcentral 20-30% Au+Au collisions with STAR data from the 10-40% centrality bin, as stated in the figure caption, while the improved model also uses a parton scattering cross section of 3 mb rather than the 1.5 mb used by the original model. Since the directed-flow slope is known to depend on centrality, the apparent reproduction of the positive-to-negative sign change may be an artifact of the narrower centrality selection or of the recalibrated cross section. The authors should either compute the same centrality bin as the data or demonstrate that the sign sequence is stable across centralities and for a fixed parton cross section.
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (1)-(7)] The ranking of meson versus baryon formation in Eq. (7) depends on the relative magnitudes of fM, fB, and fbarB, which are controlled by the Gaussian widths fixed to vacuum pion and proton charge radii and by the statistical weights gM=1/36 and gB=1/108. These choices are asserted without a sensitivity test, and if in-medium widths or relative weights differ, the preferred parton combinations and all downstream hadron observables change. The paper should include a sensitivity scan over these widths and weights, or provide a physical derivation for them, before claiming that the Wigner-function approach is parameter-free.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (7); Section IV] The algorithm selects the globally largest Wigner function and consumes all partons, rather than sampling from the Wigner function as a formation probability, so the relation between the stated 'formation probabilities' and the actual greedy maximum selection is not established. The final paragraph acknowledges that partons largely separated in phase space are still forced to coalesce; this limitation should be quantified by comparing the greedy selection with a probabilistic sampling version or with a version that leaves non-coalescing partons to fragmentation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title and Section III.A] There are several typographical errors: the title has 'mult iphase' instead of 'multiphase', Section III.A has 'scarifices' instead of 'sacrifices', and 'presumedly' should be 'presumably'.
  2. [Section III] In the paragraph describing the Lund string fragmentation parameters, 'from 7.7 GeV to 39 TeV' should read 'from 7.7 GeV to 39 GeV', since the paper otherwise discusses RHIC BES energies.
  3. [Section III.F, Fig. 10] The text states that the improved model's near-side anti-correlation is qualitatively consistent with ALICE data, but Fig. 10 contains only model curves and no data points; the comparison would be more transparent if the ALICE data were included in the figure or if the specific ALICE reference were cited directly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the hadronization probabilities use external PDG radii, and the v1 slope, yield-ratio, and di-hadron correlation predictions are not fitted to the benchmark data.

full rationale

The paper's coalescence probabilities are fixed by Eqs. (1)-(6) from the pion and proton RMS radii (PDG values) and stated degeneracy factors; none of the predicted observables is used to determine those inputs. The parton cross section is explicitly fitted so the final charged-particle v2 reproduces data (Sec. III), and the paper does not present this v2 agreement as a prediction, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a derived result. The centrally claimed proton directed-flow slope sequence (Fig. 8), the relative yield ratios (Tables I-II and Fig. 9), and the baryon/antibaryon near-side anti-correlations (Fig. 10) are compared with STAR and ALICE data without having been used in any fit. The self-citations (Refs. 33, 43, 44) motivate the study and document the original model's hadronization behavior, but that behavior is also displayed in the present figures, so the citations are not load-bearing. One validation caveat is that Fig. 8 compares 20-30% model results with STAR 10-40% data, and the improved model uses a larger fitted cross section; that is a correctness or comparison concern, not a circularity. The algorithm is designed to favor momentum-space proximity, so observing that it preserves parton collective flow is a built-in consistency; the external data comparisons nevertheless remain independent, and no derivation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

The central claim rests on the assumed Wigner function form and hand-set statistical factors, plus calibration of the parton cross section to elliptic flow data. No new particles or forces are introduced. The 'no free parameters' claim applies only to the coalescence widths, not to the full model, which uses a fitted cross section and hand-chosen string parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • parton scattering cross section = 1.5 mb (original), 3 mb (improved) at 200 GeV; 2 mb (improved) at 2.76 TeV; 3 mb (improved) at BES energies
    Fitted so that the final charged hadron elliptic flow in the AMPT model reproduces experimental data, as stated in Sec. III.
  • Lund string fragmentation parameters a and b = a=0.5, b=0.9 GeV^-2 (RHIC/LHC); a=2.2, b=0.5 GeV^-2 (BES)
    Taken from previous studies rather than fitted here, but they are hand-set inputs that affect hadron multiplicities and transverse momentum spectra.
  • statistical factors gM and gB = gM=1/36 for pions, gB=1/108 for protons
    Set by hand in Eqs. (1) and (4). They enter the cross-species comparison in Eq. (7) and therefore affect the meson-to-baryon yield ratio; no derivation is given in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wigner function forms in Eqs. (1) and (4), with Gaussian dependence on relative coordinate and momentum, describe the coalescence probability for hadron formation.
    Borrowed from dynamical coalescence models; not derived or validated within this paper.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian width parameters are fixed by the pion and proton RMS charge radii via the oscillator relations in Eqs. (3) and (6).
    This assumes a harmonic-oscillator wavefunction and that vacuum charge radii set the in-medium coalescence scale.
  • ad hoc to paper All partons must be consumed by coalescence; a greedy algorithm selects the globally maximum Wigner function value repeatedly until no partons remain (Eq. 7).
    This is a practical algorithm with no stochastic sampling. The paper notes in Sec. IV that some partons are largely separated in phase space and could instead fragment.
  • domain assumption The parton scattering cross section formula and screening mass from the ZPC model describe the partonic evolution.
    Standard AMPT ingredient, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The statistical factors gM=1/36 and gB=1/108 are the correct spin-isospin-color weights for pion and proton formation.
    Set without derivation; the cross-species ratios in Eq. (7) depend on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hadronization using the Wigner function approach for a multiphase transport model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5TSTZHEN

@misc{pith2026190804956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hadronization using the Wigner function approach for a multiphase transport model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5TSTZHEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04956}
}
read the original abstract

In the string melting version of a multiphase transport model, the hadronization algorithm has been improved by favoring parton combinations close in not only coordinate space but also momentum space. Formation probabilities of mesons, baryons, and antibaryons during hadronization are determined by their corresponding Wigner functions for the valence parton combinations with no free parameters, and the net baryon, electric, and strangeness charges are conserved during quark coalescence. Effects of the hadronization on anisotropic flows, collision energy dependence of the proton directed flow, relative particle yield ratios, as well as di-hadron correlations in relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the energies ranging from RHIC beam energy scan to LHC have been extensively discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) Histograms of the relative distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (Color online) Baryon-to-meson ratios of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) Transverse momentum dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Same as Fig. 4 but in midcentral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) Ratios of anisotropic flows for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) Directed flow slope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) Antiparticle-to-particle yield rat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Color online) Azimuthal angular dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Isospin splitting of pion elliptic flow in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A transport model with a strong vector-isovector quark interaction reproduces the pion elliptic flow splitting seen at RHIC, constraining the isovector quark matter equation of state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. A. Bass et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41, 255 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Xu and C

    Z. Xu and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064901 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    Z. W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B. A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Cassing and E

    W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Nucl. Phys. A 831, 215 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Huovinen, P

    P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 503, 58 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    B. Betz, J. Noronha, G. Torrieri, M. Gyulassy, I. Mishus- tin, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034902 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 042301 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Bozek, Phys

    P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014911 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Petersen, J

    H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044901 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Werner, I

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher, and K. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. C 82, 044904 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 192301 (2011); ibid. 109, 139904(E) (2012)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. L´ evai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202302 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. L´ evai, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034904 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    R. J. Fries, B. M¨ uller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202303 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    R. J. Fries, B. M¨ uller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 68, 044902 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    R. C. Hwa and C. B. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 67, 064902 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjos- trand, Phys. Rep. 97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  10. [18]

    Cooper and G

    F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D 10, 186 (1974)

    1974

  11. [19]

    Cassing and E

    W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034919 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 052302 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 72, 014904 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122301 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 162301 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 052301 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 77, 054901 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Moln´ ar and S

    D. Moln´ ar and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 092301 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    P. F. Kolb, L. W. Chen, V. Greco, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 69, 051901(R) (2004)

    2004

  20. [29]

    Lacey, R

    Roy A. Lacey, R. Wei, N. N. Ajitanand, J. M. Alexander, X. Gong, J. Jia, A. Taranenko, R. Pak, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. C 81, 061901 (2010)

    2010

  21. [30]

    Lacey, R

    Roy A. Lacey, R. Wei, J. Jia, N. N. Ajitanand, J. M. Alexander, and A. Taranenko, Phys. Rev. C 83, 044902 (2011)

    2011

  22. [31]

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 202302 (2012)

    2012

  23. [32]

    Lacey, A

    Roy A. Lacey, A. Taranenko, J. Jia, N.N. Ajitanand, and J. M. Alexander, arXiv: 1105.3782 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  24. [33]

    C. J. Zhang and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 93, 024906 (2016)

    2016

  25. [34]

    St¨ ocker, Nucl

    H. St¨ ocker, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 121 (2005)

    2005

  26. [35]

    Brachmann et al

    J. Brachmann et al. , Phys. Rev. C 61, 024909 (2000)

    2000

  27. [36]

    L. P. Csernai and D. R¨ ohrich, Phys. Lett. B 458, 454 (1999)

    1999

  28. [37]

    R. J. M. Snellings, H. Sorge, S. A. Voloshin, F. Q. Wang, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2803 (2000)

    2000

  29. [38]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 162301 (2014)

    2014

  30. [39]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 062301 (2018)

    2018

  31. [40]

    Steinheimer, J

    J. Steinheimer, J. Auvinen, H. Petersen, M. Bleicher, a nd H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054913 (2014)

    2014

  32. [41]

    V. P. Konchakovski, W. Cassing, Y. B. Ivanov, and V. D. Toneev, Phys. Rev. C 90, 014903 (2014). 11

    2014

  33. [42]

    Y. Nara, H. Niemi, A. Ohnishi, and H. Stocker, Phys. Rev. C 94, 034906 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    C. Q. Guo, C. J. Zhang, and J. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 233 (2017)

    2017

  35. [44]

    C. Q. Guo and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 98, 024914 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Braun-Munzinger, K

    P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, in: R. Hwa and X. N. Wang (Eds.), Quark Gluon Plasma 3, World Scientific, Singapore, 2004, p. 491, arXiv: nucl-th/0304013

    2004 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Cleymans, H

    J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034905 (2006)

    2006

  38. [48]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 569 (2017)

    2017

  39. [49]

    L. Y. Zhang, J. H. Chen, Z. W. Lin, Y. G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034912 (2018)

    2018

  40. [50]

    X. N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3501 (1991)

    1991

  41. [51]

    Zhang, Comput

    B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 109, 193 (1998)

    1998

  42. [52]

    B. A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037 (1995)

    1995

  43. [53]

    Y. C. He and Z. W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 96, 014910 (2017)

    2017

  44. [54]

    K. J. Sun and L. W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 95, 044905 (2017)

    2017

  45. [55]

    Beringer et al

    J. Beringer et al. [Particle Data Group Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012)

    2012

  46. [56]

    Xu and C

    J. Xu and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014903 (2011)

    2011

  47. [57]

    Xu and C

    J. Xu and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 83, 034904 (2011)

    2011

  48. [58]

    C. J. Zhang and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 96, 044907 (2017)

    2017

  49. [59]

    Broniowski and W

    W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. C 65, 024905 (2002)

    2002

  50. [60]

    Moln´ ar, arXiv: 1906.12313 [nucl-th]

    D. Moln´ ar, arXiv: 1906.12313 [nucl-th]

    1906 arXiv

  51. [61]

    B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 77, 054901 (2008)

    2008

  52. [62]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 86, 014907 (2012)

    2012

  53. [63]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 86, 054908 (2012)

    2012

  54. [64]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 96, 044904 (2017)

    2017

  55. [65]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 062301 (2007)

    2007

  56. [66]

    Suire [STAR Collaboration], Nucl

    C. Suire [STAR Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A 715, 470c (2003)

    2003

  57. [67]

    B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 79, 034909 (2009)

    2009

  58. [68]

    Schuchmann, Ph

    S. Schuchmann, Ph. D. thesis, Goethe University Frank- furt, 2015

    2015

  59. [69]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 728, 216 (2014); ibid. 734, 409 (E) (2014)

    2014

  60. [70]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 88, 044910 (2013)

    2013

  61. [71]

    H. Liu, F. T. Wang, K. J. Sun, J. Xu, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 798, 135002 (2019)

    2019

  62. [72]

    L. W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B. A. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 729, 809 (2003)

    2003

  63. [73]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671 (1998)

    1998

  64. [74]

    S. A. Voloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, Landolt-Bornstein 23, 293 (2010), arXiv: 0809.2949 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.