Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 78 references

Nuclear modification of $B_c$ mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions based on a linear Boltzmann transport model

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that nearly all B_c mesons created in the initial hard collisions dissociate inside the quark-gluon plasma, and the observed yield is rebuilt by recombination at low momentum and bottom-quark fragmentation at high momentum.

desk verdict Solid LBT extension to B_c with real RHIC predictions; the quasifree dissociation rate is the one uncontrolled input that should decide whether the 'most primordial B_c melt' conclusion holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10107 v2 pith:B3GG5DB5 submitted 2025-02-14 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Lejing Zhang , Xiaowen Li , Wen-Jing Xing , Shanshan Cao , Guang-You Qin This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords B_cmesonsquark-gluonplasmanuclearmodificationfactorheavyquarkenergylosslinearBoltzmanntransportmodelcoalescenceandfragmentationquasifreedissociationstringinteraction
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

B_c mesons—bound states of one charm and one anti-bottom quark—sit between charmonium and bottomonium in size and binding energy, making their nuclear modification factor a distinct probe of how the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) interacts with heavy quarks. This paper tries to show that one linear Boltzmann transport framework can describe the measured $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ of B_c mesons in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV by treating dissociation, recombination, and fragmentation together. Its central finding is that almost all B_c mesons produced in the initial hard collisions dissociate inside the QGP, so the final yield is dominated by coalescence of medium-modified charm and anti-bottom quarks at low transverse momentum and by bottom-quark fragmentation at high transverse momentum. The nonperturbative string interaction, rather than the perturbative Yukawa interaction, drives this modification. If this picture is right, B_c measurements give a new window onto heavy-quark energy loss and hadronization in the QGP, with concrete predictions for RHIC.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the quasifree dissociation criterion, Eq. (12): a B_c bound state breaks when either constituent heavy quark scatters with a thermal parton and the four-momentum transfer exceeds the in-medium binding energy. The binding energies come from the T-matrix spectral functions of Ref. [40], which give dissociation temperatures of 420 MeV for the 1S state and 260 MeV for the 1P state. The scattering rates are computed from an in-medium Cornell-type potential, Eq. (5), separated into a Yukawa term and a string term; the string term is more sensitive to small momentum transfers, which is why it dominates the dissociation rate. Regeneration is handled by extending the instantaneous coalescence model of Ref. [49] to charm–anti-bottom pairs, with the overall normalization $C_{\rm rec}$ constrained to 3.6–6.3 by the CMS data, and by applying the bottom-quark fragmentation function of Ref. [50] to medium-modified bottom quarks.

What would settle it

Measure the B_c $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV in the window $7<p_T<13$ GeV: the model predicts a larger value than in Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV with a weak dependence on centrality, so a smaller or strongly centrality-dependent result would indicate that the dissociation rate or the volume dependence is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the nuclear modification of B_c mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions is controlled by quasifree dissociation of the initially produced mesons followed by regeneration from medium-modified heavy quarks. A B_c bound state is destroyed whenever one of its constituent heavy quarks scatters with a thermal parton and receives a four-momentum transfer larger than the in-medium binding energy; with the T-matrix binding energies adopted from Ref. [40], this removes most primordial B_c mesons. The surviving and regenerated population is then dominated by $c$–$\bar{b}$ coalescence at low $p_T$ and by $\bar{b}$ fragmentation at high $p_T$. The same transport calculation also reproduces the measured $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ of D and B mesons, and it yields a reasonable description of the CMS B_c $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ data in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV, together with predictions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture rests on the quasifree dissociation rule that a B_c meson breaks whenever one of its heavy quarks is hit harder than its T-matrix binding energy, together with the simplification that regenerated B_c mesons are not dissociated again.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the B_c yield measured in Pb+Pb collisions tells us little about primordial B_c production and mostly measures how many charm and bottom quarks survive to recombine near hadronization.
  • The weak participant-number dependence of the B_c $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ at low $p_T$ follows from the competition between the growing heavy-quark abundance and the growing QGP volume; using a fixed volume would instead produce a rising $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$.
  • Because the string interaction dominates both dissociation and energy loss, B_c suppression becomes a targeted probe of the nonperturbative component of heavy-quark interactions with the plasma.
  • At RHIC energy the model predicts a larger B_c $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ than at the LHC at low $p_T$ and a smaller one at high $p_T$, driven mainly by the softer pp baseline rather than by less energy loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implied experimental test is the RHIC measurement the paper quantifies: with a B_c cross section near 30 microbarns in minimum-bias Au+Au collisions, over 400,000 B_c mesons could be collected in 100 billion events, which would check the dissociation–recombination balance at a lower plasma temperature.
  • The omission of secondary dissociation of regenerated B_c mesons likely makes the extracted recombination constant $C_{\rm rec}$ an upper limit; implementing full back-conversion between heavy quarks and B_c mesons would probably lower the low-$p_T$ enhancement.
  • The volume dependence that is unique to B_c coalescence implies that precise centrality-dependent B_c data could constrain the spatial extent of the plasma at hadronization, something single-heavy-quark hadrons cannot do.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript extends the linear Boltzmann transport (LBT) model to the nuclear modification of B_c mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The authors compute a p+p baseline using FONLL heavy-quark spectra and a perturbative fragmentation function for B_c, then simulate heavy-quark propagation in a hydrodynamic QGP background with both Yukawa and string interactions. B_c dissociation is treated through a quasifree picture in which a bound state breaks when a constituent heavy quark receives a momentum transfer exceeding the temperature-dependent binding energy taken from a T-matrix calculation. Final-state B_c mesons are produced from medium-modified charm and bottom quarks via instantaneous coalescence and from bottom-quark fragmentation. The model is compared with CMS data for the B_c R_AA in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, and predictions are given for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The central claims are that most primordial B_c mesons dissociate in the QGP, that regeneration via coalescence dominates at low pT and fragmentation at high pT, and that the string interaction dominates over the Yukawa interaction in the nuclear modification of B_c mesons.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is one of the first transport-model descriptions of B_c mesons that simultaneously describes open heavy-flavor mesons and a heavy quarkonium-like bound state within the same LBT framework. The paper has clear strengths: the p+p B_c baseline is anchored to CMS data, the D- and B-meson R_AA validation in Fig. 2 supports the credibility of the medium-modified heavy-quark spectra, and the Au+Au predictions are falsifiable. The result that B_c R_AA is recombination-dominated at low pT and fragmentation-dominated at high pT is physically interesting and would complement existing charmonium and bottomonium studies. However, the significance is moderated by the fact that the coalescence normalization is fit to the same Pb+Pb B_c R_AA data that are later presented as a description, and by the uncontrolled approximation in the quasifree dissociation rate, which is the key input behind the 'most primordial B_c dissociate' conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (12)] The quasifree dissociation rate is the load-bearing input for the claim that most primordial B_c mesons dissociate, but it is not validated against the T-matrix results of Ref. [40] from which the binding energies are taken. In Eq. (12), a B_c is destroyed whenever a constituent heavy quark receives a 4-momentum transfer larger than E_B(T); with E_B(1S) small at T ~ 200-500 MeV and T_diss(1S)=420 MeV, almost any scattering counts as dissociative. The authors do not compare this step-function estimate with the actual in-medium dissociation widths or reaction rates obtained in Ref. [40], so the magnitude of the dissociation rate is an uncontrolled approximation. I ask the authors to benchmark Eq. (12) against the T-matrix widths of Ref. [40] and to show how the R_AA and the recombination/fragmentation decomposition respond to a factor-of-two change in the dissociation rate, or to removing the 1S-only assumption.
  2. [Sec. IV, Figs. 6 and 8] The normalization C_rec in Eq. (13) is extracted by requiring the model's pT-integrated R_AA to fall within the CMS error bars (Sec. IV, Fig. 6), and the same comparison is then presented as a 'reasonable description' in Fig. 8. This is partly circular: the C_rec fit ensures agreement for the integral, so only the pT shape and the Npart dependence are genuine predictions. The manuscript should explicitly distinguish the fitted normalization from the predicted shape, and should state how much of the agreement in Fig. 8 is attributable to the single fitted constant C_rec in the range (3.6, 6.3).
  3. [Sec. IV (limitations paragraph) and Sec. V] The manuscript acknowledges in Sec. IV that secondary dissociation of regenerated B_c mesons, inelastic dissociation, and 1P dissociation are not included, and asserts that these have negligible impact because most primordial B_c are destroyed. However, Sec. V states that secondary dissociation of regenerated B_c 'could be important'. Since regenerated B_c are the low-pT dominant component in the central claim, the neglect of their dissociation is not a minor technicality; it could systematically enhance the recombination contribution. The authors should quantify this effect, at least in a simplified estimate, before concluding that the simplifications are negligible.
  4. [Sec. IV (limitations paragraph)] The acknowledged double counting between B_c mesons produced from fragmentation of initially generated b quarks and from medium-modified b quarks is relevant to the claim that fragmentation dominates at high pT. The statement that this double counting is negligible because only a tiny fraction of b quarks fragment into B_c does not fully address the issue: if the same b quark can be counted once as a primordial B_c and once as a medium-modified fragment, the high-pT yield could be overestimated even when the fraction is small. The authors should either remove the initially generated b-quark fragmentation contribution from the medium-modified spectrum or estimate the double-counted fraction quantitatively.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3] The binding-energy curves are taken from Ref. [40] without uncertainty bands; given that T_diss enters the dissociation rate decisively, an uncertainty estimate or a brief discussion of the T-matrix systematic uncertainty would be useful.
  2. [Fig. 8] The legend in Fig. 8(a) contains the typo 'fragmenation'; please correct it to 'fragmentation'.
  3. [Sec. III C] The hadronization temperature used for B_c(1S) coalescence is 220 MeV while heavy-quark hadronization for open heavy-flavor mesons is at 165 MeV; the physical motivation for this difference beyond the larger binding energy should be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the recombination normalization C_rec is fit to the same Pb+Pb R_AA data that the paper reports describing, but the dissociation rates, binding energies, and heavy-quark transport inputs are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (13) and Fig. 6; also Abstract/Section V]
    "The model parameter Crec in Eq. (13) is determined by ensuring that our model's output for the Bc meson RAA falls within the error bars of the experimental data [37]."

    C_rec is the overall normalization of the recombination term in Eq. (13), and it is explicitly tuned so that the model reproduces the CMS Pb+Pb B_c R_AA data. The later statements that the authors 'obtain a reasonable description of the R_AA of B_c mesons in Pb+Pb collisions' (Abstract and Section V) and the comparison of the pT-differential R_AA in Fig. 8(a) to those same CMS data are therefore not fully independent tests: the overall level of the Pb+Pb R_AA is partly built in by construction. The pT shape and the relative recombination-versus-fragmentation decomposition retain predictive content because C_rec is a single pT-independent constant, so this is partial rather than total circularity.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is largely self-contained or rests on independent inputs. Initial charm and bottom spectra come from FONLL with CT14NLO PDFs; the LBT elastic/inelastic rates use a Yukawa-plus-string potential whose parameters were previously benchmarked against D- and B-meson R_AA and v_2 data; the B_c binding energies and radii are taken from the T-matrix calculation of Ref. [40], which is not by the present authors; and the fragmentation function of Eq. (1) is a published form normalized to p+p CMS data. The one genuinely fitted quantity in the A+A part is C_rec, the overall normalization of the coalescence term, and the paper openly states that it is chosen to make the Pb+Pb R_AA fall inside the CMS error bars. Thus the phrase 'reasonable description' applied to Pb+Pb data is not a pure prediction, and any claim that the model's absolute level of B_c R_AA is confirmed by CMS data would be circular. However, the central physics conclusions, namely that most primordial B_c mesons dissociate, that recombination dominates at low pT while fragmentation dominates at high pT, and that the string interaction dominates over the Yukawa interaction, are driven by the computed dissociation rates, the medium-modified heavy-quark spectra, and the pT-dependent coalescence/fragmentation competition rather than by the single fitted normalization. The Au+Au predictions are genuine model predictions. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the cited LBT and potential papers from the present group were validated against external D/B observables, and Ref. [40] provides independent T-matrix input. Overall, the circularity is limited to one fitted parameter feeding the same observable it is used to describe, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The B_c R_AA calculation rests on one newly fitted coalescence normalization, C_rec, plus potential and hadronization parameters established in prior LBT work, and on the quasifree dissociation picture with T-matrix binding energies from Ref. [40]. No new particles or forces are introduced; the ledger consists entirely of model inputs and physics assumptions rather than invented entities.

free parameters (8)
  • C_rec (coalescence normalization) = 3.6 to 6.3
    Overall normalization of the instantaneous coalescence formula (Eq. 13), fit to the CMS B_c R_AA in Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV (Sec. IV, Fig. 6). This is the only parameter adjusted for the coalescence model.
  • N (fragmentation normalization) = 0.002
    Normalization of the b to B_c fragmentation function (Eq. 1), fit to the CMS B_c cross section in p+p at 5.02 TeV (Sec. II, Fig. 1b), implying about 0.3% of b quarks fragment to B_c.
  • alpha_s (Yukawa coupling) = 0.27
    Strength of the short-range Yukawa interaction in the in-medium Cornell potential (Eq. 5); tuned in prior LBT work to D and B meson R_AA and v_2, not newly fit here.
  • sigma (string tension) = 0.45 GeV^2
    Strength of the long-range string interaction in Eq. (5); tuned to open heavy flavor observables in prior LBT studies.
  • Yukawa screening mass coefficients = a = 0.20 GeV, b = 2.0
    Sets m_d = a + b T in Eq. (5); chosen from prior fits to heavy flavor data and used as the Debye mass in Eq. (4).
  • String screening mass coefficients = a_s = 0, b_s = 0.10 GeV
    Sets m_s = sqrt(a_s + b_s T) in Eq. (5); chosen from prior fits to heavy flavor data.
  • Hadronization temperatures for B_c coalescence = 220 MeV for B_c(1S), 165 MeV for B_c(1P)
    Chosen by hand in Sec. III C to reflect the different binding of 1S and 1P states; directly affects the coalescence yield and QGP volume used in Eq. (13).
  • B_c radii for Wigner functions = r_1S = 0.35 fm, r_1P = 0.75 fm
    Taken from Ref. [40] and entered into Eqs. (16) and (17) for the width parameters of the harmonic oscillator Wigner functions. The paper states uncertainties in these radii have minor impact, but they are input values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The in-medium Cornell potential V(r) = -4/3 alpha_s exp(-m_d r)/r - sigma exp(-m_s r)/m_s describes heavy quark interactions with QGP partons.
    Eq. (5) is used to compute all elastic scattering rates and dissociation rates. Its functional form and parameters come from prior LBT work, and the paper notes it is consistent with lattice QCD data.
  • domain assumption Quasifree dissociation: a B_c meson dissociates when one constituent heavy quark receives a 4-momentum transfer larger than the binding energy.
    Sec. III B, Eq. (12). This defines the dissociation rate and is central to the conclusion that most primordial B_c mesons melt.
  • domain assumption The T-matrix binding energies of B_c(1S) and B_c(1P) from Ref. [40] are correct in-medium values.
    Sec. III B and Fig. 3. The binding energies determine the dissociation temperatures 420 MeV (1S) and 260 MeV (1P), and therefore the entire dissociation rate.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous coalescence with harmonic oscillator Wigner functions, Eqs. (14) and (15), is a valid hadronization model for c and bbar pairs.
    Sec. III C extends the heavy quark plus light quark coalescence model of Ref. [49] to heavy-heavy coalescence, introducing C_rec as a free normalization.
  • domain assumption The QGP background from the CLVisc hydrodynamic model, including local temperatures and flow, accurately describes the medium, and the volume at Th can be estimated from the average temperature.
    Sec. III A and III C. The QGP volume enters the Wigner function normalization and the coalescence yield, and the centrality dependence of R_AA is sensitive to it.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglecting secondary dissociation of regenerated B_c mesons, 1P dissociation, inelastic dissociation, and double counting between initial and medium-modified b quark fragmentation has negligible impact.
    Sec. IV, paragraph beginning 'We note that our current calculation of dissociation involves certain simplifications.' The authors assert negligible impact without a quantitative sensitivity study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear modification of $B_c$ mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions based on a linear Boltzmann transport model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B3GG5DB5

@misc{pith2026250210107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear modification of $B_c$ mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions based on a linear Boltzmann transport model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B3GG5DB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10107}
}
abstract

The nuclear modification factor ($R_\mathrm{AA}$) of $B_c$ mesons in high-energy nuclear collisions provides a novel probe of heavy quark interactions with the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Based on a linear Boltzmann transport model that incorporates both Yukawa and string types of interactions between heavy quarks and the QGP, we study the production and evolution of heavy quarks and $B_c$ mesons within the same framework. A $B_c$ bound state dissociates while one of its constituent heavy quarks scatters with the QGP with momentum transfer greater than its binding energy. The medium-modified charm and bottom quarks can recombine into $B_c$ mesons, and the medium-modified bottom quarks can also fragment to $B_c$ mesons. We find that most primordial $B_c$ mesons generated from the initial hard collisions dissociate inside the QGP. The production of $B_c$ mesons is primarily driven by the recombination mechanism at low transverse momentum and fragmentation at high transverse momentum. The string interaction dominates over the Yukawa interaction in the nuclear modification of $B_c$ mesons. The participant number dependence of the $B_c$ meson $R_\mathrm{AA}$ is determined by the complicated interplay between the heavy quark yield, energy loss, and the QGP volume. We obtain a reasonable description of the $R_\mathrm{AA}$ of $B_c$ mesons in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV, and provide predictions for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10107 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) The binding energies of the 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) The dissociation rates of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) The QGP volumes within a space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: , we investigate how the QGP volume affects the RAA of Bc mesons. If fixed volumes are used instead of varying volumes with Npart, one would observe an in￾creasing RAA of Bc mesons as Npart increases. Here, for illustrative purposes, we use fixed volumes of 310 fm3 for…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a), one can observe that the majority of the ini￾tially produced Bc mesons dissociate inside the QGP when both Yukawa and string interactions are included in our model calculation. The final state Bc mesons in 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 pT (GeV) 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) Predictions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    B. Wu, Z. Tang, M. He, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014906 (2024), arXiv:2302.11511

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    Jacobs and X.-N

    P. Jacobs and X.-N. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 54, 443 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0405125

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    Muller, J

    B. Muller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wyslouch, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 361 (2012), arXiv:1202.3233

    arXiv 2012

  5. [4]

    Andronic et al., Eur

    A. Andronic et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 107 (2016), arXiv:1506.03981

    arXiv 2016

  6. [5]

    Dong, Y.-J

    X. Dong, Y.-J. Lee, and R. Rapp, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69, 417 (2019), arXiv:1903.07709

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Dong and V

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

    2019

  8. [7]

    Cao et al

    S. Cao et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, 054907 (2019), arXiv:1809.07894

    arXiv 2019

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Beraudo et al., Nucl

    A. Beraudo et al., Nucl. Phys. A 979, 21 (2018), arXiv:1803.03824

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Xu et al

    Y. Xu et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, 014902 (2019), arXiv:1809.10734

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Liu, X.-Y

    F.-L. Liu, X.-Y. Wu, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138355 (2024), arXiv:2304.08787

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Zhao et al., Phys

    J. Zhao et al., Phys. Rev. C 109, 054912 (2024), arXiv:2311.10621

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Matsui and H

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 178, 416 (1986)

    1986

  6. [13]

    H. Satz, J. Phys. G 32, R25 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0512217

    2006

  7. [14]

    Vogt, Phys

    R. Vogt, Phys. Rept. 310, 197 (1999)

    1999

  8. [15]

    Wong, Phys

    C.-Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C 72, 034906 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0408020

    2005

  9. [16]

    R. Rapp, D. Blaschke, and P. Crochet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 65, 209 (2010), arXiv:0807.2470

    2010 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Chatrchyan et al., Phys

    CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 222301 (2012), arXiv:1208.2826, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 120, 199903 (2018)]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Andronic et al., Eur

    A. Andronic et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 88 (2024), arXiv:2402.04366

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Braun-Munzinger and J

    P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B 490, 196 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0007059

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    R. L. Thews, M. Schroedter, and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054905 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0007323

    2001 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Zhao and R

    X. Zhao and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A 859, 114 (2011), arXiv:1102.2194

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Yao and B

    X. Yao and B. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D100, 014008 (2019), arXiv:1811.09644

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Chen, Chin

    B. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 43, 124101 (2019), arXiv:1811.11393

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Wu and R

    B. Wu and R. Rapp, Universe 10, 244 (2024), 11 arXiv:2404.09881

    2024

  18. [25]

    ALICE, B. B. Abelev et al., Phys. Lett. B 734, 314 (2014), arXiv:1311.0214

    2014 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Adare et al., Phys

    PHENIX, A. Adare et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 232301 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0611020

    2007 arXiv

  20. [27]

    X. Du, M. He, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 96, 054901 (2017), arXiv:1706.08670

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Y. Liu, B. Chen, N. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Lett. B 697, 32 (2011), arXiv:1009.2585

    2011 arXiv

  22. [29]

    X. Yao, W. Ke, Y. Xu, S. A. Bass, and B. M¨ uller, JHEP 01, 046 (2021), arXiv:2004.06746

    2021 arXiv

  23. [30]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 49, 5845 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9402210

    1994 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ebert, R

    D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014027 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210381

    2003 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Godfrey, Phys

    S. Godfrey, Phys. Rev. D 70, 054017 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0406228

    2004

  26. [33]

    E. J. Eichten and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054025 (2019), arXiv:1902.09735

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Schroedter, R

    M. Schroedter, R. L. Thews, and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. C 62, 024905 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004041

    2000 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Y. Liu, C. Greiner, and A. Kostyuk, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014910 (2013), arXiv:1207.2366

    2013 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Abe et al., Phys

    CDF, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 58, 112004 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9804014

    1998 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Tumasyan et al., Phys

    CMS, A. Tumasyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 252301 (2022), arXiv:2201.02659

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    B. Chen, L. Wen, and Y. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137448 (2022), arXiv:2111.08490

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Zhao and P

    J. Zhao and P. Zhuang, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 41 (2025), arXiv:2209.13475

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhao and M

    S. Zhao and M. He, Phys. Lett. B 861, 139283 (2025), arXiv:2407.05234

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

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

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. Luo, Y. He, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034919 (2024), arXiv:2306.13742

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Xing, S.-Q

    W.-J. Xing, S.-Q. Li, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C 110, 024903 (2024), arXiv:2404.12601

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Grandchamp and R

    L. Grandchamp and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 523, 60 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0103124

    2001 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. J. Fries, V. Greco, and P. Sorensen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 177 (2008), arXiv:0807.4939

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 595, 202 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0312100

    2004 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Plumari, V

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

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Cao et al

    S. Cao et al. , Phys. Lett. B 807, 135561 (2020), arXiv:1911.00456

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Braaten, K.-m

    E. Braaten, K.-m. Cheung, and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 48, R5049 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9305206

    1993 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. V. Berezhnoy, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, and A. I. Onishchenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 60, 1729 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703341

    1997 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cacciari, S

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, and P. Nason, JHEP 03, 006 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102134

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cacciari et al

    M. Cacciari et al. , JHEP 10, 137 (2012), arXiv:1205.6344

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. L. Mangano, and P. Nason, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 610 (2015), arXiv:1507.06197

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

    2006 arXiv

  48. [56]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Sal- gado, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 163 (2017), arXiv:1612.05741

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl- ex/0701025

    2007

  50. [58]

    CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 782, 474 (2018), arXiv:1708.04962

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 152301 (2017), arXiv:1705.04727

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chang and Y.-Q

    C.-H. Chang and Y.-Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4086 (1993)

    1993

  53. [61]

    Chang, C

    C.-H. Chang, C. Driouichi, P. Eerola, and X. G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 159, 192 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0309120

    2004

  54. [62]

    Aaij et al., Phys

    LHCb, R. Aaij et al., Phys. Rev. D 100, 112006 (2019), arXiv:1910.13404

    2019

  55. [63]

    Particle Data Group, R. L. Workman et al., PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Xing, G.-Y

    W.-J. Xing, G.-Y. Qin, and S. Cao, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137733 (2023), arXiv:2112.15062

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Dang, W.-J

    Y. Dang, W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064901 (2024), arXiv:2307.14808

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Burnier, O

    Y. Burnier, O. Kaczmarek, and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 082001 (2015), arXiv:1410.2546

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    B. L. Combridge, Nucl. Phys. B 151, 429 (1979)

    1979

  60. [68]

    Riek and R

    F. Riek and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 82, 035201 (2010), arXiv:1005.0769

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Megias, E

    E. Megias, E. Ruiz Arriola, and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. D 75, 105019 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702055

    2007 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Zhang, E

    B.-W. Zhang, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0309040

    2004 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Zhang, D.-F

    L. Zhang, D.-F. Hou, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034907 (2019), arXiv:1812.11048

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Guo and X.-N

    X.-f. Guo and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3591 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005044

    2000 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Majumder, Phys

    A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. D 85, 014023 (2012), arXiv:0912.2987

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 86, 024911 (2012), arXiv:1205.5019

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064918 (2018), arXiv:1802.04449

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Wu, L.-G

    X.-Y. Wu, L.-G. Pang, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 98, 024913 (2018), arXiv:1805.03762

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Wu, G.-Y

    X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034909 (2022), arXiv:2107.04949

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Chang, X.-Y

    C.-H. Chang, X.-Y. Wang, and X.-G. Wu, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197, 335 (2015), arXiv:1507.05176

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.