Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Study of octupole deformations in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Octupole deformation of lead suppresses hadron yields and barely moves v2 and v3 in central Pb-Pb collisions

desk verdict A genuinely new beta_3-only HYDJET++ scan with a plausible flow result, but the central multiplicity claim is internally contradicted in the Fig. 3 discussion and needs major revision before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03055 v1 pith:4I2CM6ZD submitted 2025-05-05 hep-ph nucl-th

Saraswati Pandey , B.K. Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords octupoledeformationPb-PbcollisionsHYDJET++anisotropicflowquark-gluonplasmanuclearbody-bodyandtip-tiptransversemomentumspectra
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 asks whether the lead nucleus, usually treated as spherical in heavy-ion simulations, could carry an octupole (pear-shaped) deformation, and what that would do to basic collision observables. Using the HYDJET++ model, it computes pseudorapidity density, transverse-momentum spectra, and elliptic and triangular flow for most-central Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, isolating the octupole parameter $\beta_3$ and running two geometrical setups, body-body and tip-tip. It finds that introducing $\beta_3$ suppresses charged-hadron production: the deformed-to-spherical multiplicity ratio falls by up to 33.5% and the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra soften. Flow harmonics $v_2$ and $v_3$ respond only weakly, with a slight positive correlation in body-body collisions and a slight negative one in tip-tip. If correct, the result means a small octupole deformation of $^{208}$Pb would be visible mainly in particle yields, not in the flow ratios that motivated the study.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deformed Woods-Saxon nuclear density profile with radius $R_A = R_0 A^{1/3}(1 + \beta_2 Y_{20} + \beta_3 Y_{30} + \beta_4 Y_{40})$, in which the paper sets $\beta_2 = \beta_4 = 0$ and varies $\beta_3$ only. This profile is sampled into discrete nucleon positions and fed into the HYDJET++ Monte Carlo event generator, which superposes a soft (hydro-like) thermal state and a hard state from medium-modified jets. The body-body ($\theta_p = \theta_t = \pi/2$) and tip-tip ($\theta_p = \theta_t = 0$) orientations define two extreme collision geometries, connected to the density profile through a coordinate transformation between cylindrical and spherical polar coordinates. This machinery isolates how the octupole term changes the initial nuclear shape and, through it, the final-state hadron distributions and flow harmonics.

What would settle it

Repeat the same HYDJET++ runs with $\beta_2 = 0.0544$ and $\beta_4 = -0.003$ included alongside $\beta_3$; if the body-body versus tip-tip differences in $v_2$ and $v_3$ change sign or vanish, the claim that flow is weakly correlated with $\beta_3$ as an isolated parameter fails. Alternatively, compare the predicted 33.5% suppression of charged-hadron multiplicity in 0–5% central collisions against measured data at 5.02 TeV; a several-percent-level agreement would rule out the parameter set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the strength of the octupole deformation parameter $\beta_3$ alone controls the geometry effect in most-central (0–5%) Pb–Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. When $\beta_3$ is raised from 0.120 to 0.130, the pseudorapidity density of charged hadrons increases nearly thirtyfold in their scaled display, while the ratio of deformed to spherical yields falls by about 33.5% at the largest $\beta_3$, meaning deformation depletes particle production. Transverse momentum spectra shift downward with $\beta_3$, and the spectral slope decreases, which the paper reads as a hotter fireball. Average $v_2$ and $v_3$ respond weakly: body-body collisions show a weak positive correlation with $\beta_3$, tip-tip collisions a weak negative correlation, in the most-central region. The authors interpret this as evidence that octupole deformation primarily changes multiplicity and momentum spectra, leaving harmonic-flow magnitudes almost unaffected.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes lead has no quadrupole or hexadecapole deformation, so every geometric difference between body-body and tip-tip collisions is credited to $\beta_3$ alone; if $^{208}$Pb has a nonzero $\beta_2$ (the paper notes $\beta_2 = 0.0544$ from ref. [16]), the reported $\beta_3$ trends would mix in quadrupole geometry effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $^{208}$Pb carries an octupole deformation near the tabulated values, charged-hadron production in 0–5% central collisions is suppressed relative to a spherical nucleus, by up to about a third at $\beta_3 = 0.13$.
  • Elliptic ($v_2$) and triangular ($v_3$) flow in the most-central bin are almost flat as $\beta_3$ varies, so octupole shape information is not strongly encoded in harmonic flow at 5.02 TeV.
  • Tip-tip collisions yield higher multiplicity and $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra than body-body collisions for the same $\beta_3$, with multiplicity differences of order 10–30%.
  • The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectral slope decreases with increasing $\beta_3$, which the paper interprets as a higher freeze-out (fireball) temperature for stronger octupole deformation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to scan $\beta_2$ and $\beta_4$ together with $\beta_3$ in the same model; the paper itself notes that $\beta_2 = 0.0544$ changes the body-type density profile, so the isolated-$\beta_3$ trends may not survive when quadrupole deformation is admitted.
  • If the multiplicity suppression is real, it is large enough that existing 5.02 TeV centrality data could already constrain $\beta_3$ without any new measurement; a null result would falsify the parameter range used here.
  • The geometric dependence of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ slope suggests a shape-selection strategy: events selected by spectator asymmetry or flow orientation might separate octupole-shape effects from generic hydrodynamic response.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the HYDJET++ Monte Carlo model to study the effect of a nonzero octupole deformation parameter β3 on basic QGP observables in most-central Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The authors generate 1.5×10^5 events per β3 value in two nuclear orientations (body-body and tip-tip), with β2 = β4 = 0, and compute the charged-hadron pseudorapidity distribution, transverse-momentum spectra, and average v2 and v3. The stated central observations are that charged hadron multiplicity and pT spectra depend on the strength of β3, with deformed Pb suppressing particle production relative to spherical Pb, while v2 and v3 show weak correlations with β3 that differ between body-body and tip-tip configurations.

Significance. If the results are correct, this would be a useful first systematic scan of octupole deformation in a widely used Monte Carlo heavy-ion framework, providing reference predictions for how β3 enters basic observables and motivating more differential studies of the v2-v3 puzzle. The paper is transparent about its model setup, uses a five-point β3 scan, and separately studies two geometric configurations with a fixed kinematic range. However, the current significance is conditional: the central multiplicity claim is undermined by an internal contradiction in the Fig. 3 discussion, quantitative statements are made without statistical uncertainties, and the relationship of the scanned β3 values to existing constraints is not addressed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 and accompanying text] The discussion of Fig. 3 is internally contradictory. The text states that 'the charged hadron pseudorapidity density increases almost 30 times as octupole deformation was increased by a magnitude of 0.010 (0.120 to 0.130)', while the lower ratio panel is described as showing values 'less than 1' and a decrease of 'almost 33.5% for the maximum value of β3', with the explicit conclusion that deformed Pb-Pb collisions produce fewer particles. These statements cannot both describe the same distributions. Since the upper-panel curves are also said to be 'scaled by some value for proper visualization', the 30-fold increase cannot be read off as a physics result. The sign and magnitude of the multiplicity-β3 correlation are therefore unsupported as written, and the abstract's claim of a dependence on β3 is not quantitatively established.
  2. [Figs. 2-7 (statistical uncertainties)] None of the figures show statistical uncertainties, despite the use of a Monte Carlo generator with a finite sample of 1.5×10^5 events per setting. This is particularly important for the flow results in Fig. 7, where the claimed body-body vs tip-tip differences are described as 'weak' and 'opposite' in sign; without error bars, the correlations could be consistent with statistical fluctuations. The ratio panels in Figs. 3 and 5 should also include ratio uncertainties. The visibility of small effects is central to the paper's conclusions, so the absence of error bars is a load-bearing issue.
  3. [Fig. 4 and text after it] The statement that 'tip-tip collisions are higher than body-body collisions by a difference of 10 to 30' is not quantitative as written: no units are given, and the caption of Fig. 4 states that each distribution has been scaled by some value for visualization. A scaled offset or arbitrary normalization cannot support a numerical comparison. The authors should report unscaled dNch/dη values, or at least define a common normalization, before claiming that tip-tip multiplicity exceeds body-body multiplicity.
  4. [Motivation and Fig. 3 beta_3 range] The manuscript cites a recent study finding β3 ≲ 0.0375 for 208Pb from the v3{4}/v3{2} ratio, yet the scan presented in Fig. 3 uses β3 values around 0.120-0.130 and Fig. 1 shows β3 = 0.110. The authors should either justify their chosen β3 values relative to the cited nuclear-structure tables or explain how results at β3 ≈ 0.12-0.13 are relevant given the heavy-ion constraint they explicitly quote. As written, the physical interpretation of the scan for actual 208Pb is left unclear.
  5. [Eq. (1) and coordinate transformation paragraph] The coordinate transformation used to implement body-body and tip-tip configurations is not described in a consistent way. The text says 'the transformation equation ρ = sqrt(z^2 + r^2) is changed to r = sqrt(z^2 + b_c^2)' and then states that 'r becomes the new variable b_c and ρ is changed to r'; this does not define a clear change of variables and mixes spherical and cylindrical notation. Since the body-body vs tip-tip distinction underlies several claims in the paper, the transformation should be stated precisely, and ideally validated by showing that the sampled Woods-Saxon density reproduces the intended orientation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs Fig. 7] The abstract says the flow correlations are in the 'most-central collision region', while Fig. 7 and its caption report 'minimum bias deformed Pb-Pb collisions'; the centrality definition used for the flow analysis should be clarified.
  2. [Kinematic ranges] The abstract and introduction state 0 < pT < 20 GeV/c, while Fig. 7 integrates pT from 0.001 to 10 GeV/c; the relationship between these ranges should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 3/five beta_3 values] The five values of β3 used in the scan are not listed in the text or a table; only isolated values (0.110, 0.120, 0.130) are mentioned. A table of the exact β3 values and corresponding event counts would improve reproducibility.
  4. [General presentation] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including missing spaces ('Pbnucleus', 'centreof mass'), inconsistent use of 'tan^-1' and 'tan-1', and the notation ρ(r,z,θ) for a spherical-coordinate density; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the beta_3 sensitivity is a forward HYDJET++ calculation driven by external nuclear-structure inputs, not by a fitted or self-referential loop.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that charged-hadron multiplicity, pT spectra, and (weakly) v2/v3 depend on the octupole deformation parameter beta_3. The beta_3 values are taken from the external low-energy nuclear-structure compilation Ref. [17] ('The values of deformation parameters have been taken from the reference [17]'), and the observables are produced by the external Monte Carlo code HYDJET++ with 1.5e5 events per beta_3 value. No parameter is fitted to the computed observables, and the response to beta_3 is not guaranteed by construction: HYDJET++ could return a null or even opposite dependence, and the paper reports only weak correlations for the flow harmonics. The self-citations (Refs. [18]-[20]) are used only for qualitative context (body/tip geometry terminology and 'similar to other deformed collision systems [18]'); they are not the source of the predicted beta_3 dependence and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The remaining concerns are internal-consistency and assumption issues rather than circularity: the Fig. 3 discussion states that dN/deta increases 'almost 30 times' for a 0.010 increase in beta_3 while the lower ratio panel is described as <1 with a 33.5% decrease, and the calculation sets beta_2=beta_4=0. These affect the support for the quantitative claim but do not reduce the derivation to its inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the HYDJET++ model and a modified Woods-Saxon density with beta_3 only. The beta_3 scan values are inputs from nuclear structure tables, not fitted to the QGP observables, which keeps circularity low. However, the choice to drop beta_2 and beta_4, the coordinate transformation, and the transfer of low-energy deformation parameters to high-energy color-charge geometry are load-bearing assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • beta_3 (octupole deformation) = five values in approx. 0.120 to 0.130 (per Fig. 3 discussion)
    The scan range is chosen from ref [17], not fitted to the computed observables; the reported multiplicity and flow changes are defined relative to these values.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper beta_2 = beta_4 = 0 for 208Pb in the density profile, isolating beta_3.
    Eq. (1) sets R_A = R_0 A^{1/3}(1 + beta_3 Y_30) with beta_2 and beta_4 dropped; the paper's sensitivity claims depend on this isolation. The paper cites beta_2 = 0.0544 (ref [16]) but does not include it.
  • ad hoc to paper The spherical-to-cylindrical coordinate transformation with theta = tan^-1(z/b_c) (body-body) or tan^-1(b_c/z) (tip-tip) correctly encodes the deformed density in HYDJET++.
    Section 2: 'we perform a transformation of coordinates using the relations theta = tan^-1(z/b_c)...'. If this mapping is incorrect, all orientation-dependent results are artifacts. No independent validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Low-energy nuclear structure deformation parameters (ref [17]) apply to the color-charge density probed in relativistic heavy-ion collisions.
    Section 1: 'lower energy nuclear structure experiments involve electric charge density ... heavy-ion collisions probe the colour charge density ... This may cause a difference in the initial geometry.' The paper assumes transferability despite this caveat.
  • domain assumption HYDJET++ with its default soft/hard parameters is a valid description of Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV.
    The paper uses HYDJET++ without benchmarking against measured Pb-Pb data at 5.02 TeV; the model's freeze-out and jet parameters come from prior calibrations that are not restated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of octupole deformations in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4I2CM6ZD

@misc{pith2026250503055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of octupole deformations in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4I2CM6ZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03055}
}
abstract

In this letter, we present the study of the role of octupole deformation in non-spherical nuclei in most-central Pb--Pb collisions at the LHC energy regime. The sensitivity of octupole deformation $\beta_3$ to the QGP observables is presented by employing the Monte Carlo HYDJET++ model. Motivated by the discrepancies in the $v_2$-to-$v_3$ puzzle found in Pb--Pb collisions and the low-energy nuclear structure calculations of nuclear deformation, we studied the first basic observables necessary for any study in heavy-ion collisions. Using the HYDJET++ framework, we calculate the pseudorapidity distribution, transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$) spectra, and average anisotropic flow ($v_2$ and $v_3$) of primary charged hadrons with different parameters in two geometrical configurations: body-body and tip-tip types of Pb--Pb collisions. The kinematic ranges $0 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 20~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $|\eta| < 0.8$ are considered. We observe that the charged hadron multiplicity and transverse momentum spectra are dependent on the strength of the octupole deformation parameter. The $\langle v_2 \rangle$ and $\langle v_3 \rangle$ in body-body collisions show a weak positive correlation with $\beta_3$, while the average anisotropic flow in tip-tip collisions is weakly correlated with $\beta_3$ in the most-central collision region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03055 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The nuclear density profile for lead nucleus purely having octupole de￾formation 𝛽3 =0.110. Shown are the non-deformed and deformed Woods-Saxon nuclear density profiles. Two types of geometries are shown: body-type and tip￾type of geometrical configuration [19]. obtained from a parameterization of relativistic hydrodynamics with preset freezeout conditions [34,35]. In HYDJET++, it is assumed that the hadronic matter… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel: Pseudorapidity distribution of primary charged particles in most-central (0–5)% class of Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The distribution for each case has been scaled by some value for proper visualization. Lower panel: The ratio of pseudorapidity distribution of deformed to spherical Pb￾Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The figure shows results for five different values of (positive-) octupole deformation para… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variation of number of participants 𝑁𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡 and number of binary col￾lisions 𝑁𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙 with respect to nuclear octupole deformation parameter 𝛽3 in deformed Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV centre of mass energy. polar coordinates (𝜌, 𝜙, z) whereas the nuclear density function is de￾scribed in spherical polar coordinates (r,𝜃,𝜙). Therefore, we perform a transformation of coordinates using the relations 𝜃 = tan−1(𝑧∕𝑏𝑐) and 𝜃 =… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper subfigure: Variation of 𝑑𝑁𝑐ℎ∕𝑑𝜂 with respect to 𝜂 of primary charged hadrons in body-body configuration of Pb-Pb collisions over five dif￾ferent values of (positive-) octupole deformation parameter. Lower subfigure: Variation of 𝑑𝑁𝑐ℎ∕𝑑𝜂 with respect to 𝜂 of prima…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variation of normalized 𝑝𝑇 -spectra with respect to transverse momen￾tum 𝑝𝑇 of primary charged hadrons in body-body configuration (upper subfig￾ure) and in tip-tip configuration (lower subfigure) of Pb-Pb collisions over five different values of (positive-) octupole de…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of average anisotropic flow 𝑣𝑛 (n=2,3) with respect to nuclear octupole deformation parameter 𝛽3 in minimum bias deformed Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV centre of mass energy using HYDJET++ model. The figure presents comparison of the results with those from bo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Karsch, in: 15th Int

    F. Karsch, in: 15th Int. Conf. on Ultra-Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions, Quark Matter 2001, Nucl. Phys. A 698 (2002) 199, ISSN 0375-9474

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Lin, C.M

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

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    L. Ma, G.L. Ma, Y.G. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 044915

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Alver, G

    B. Alver, G. Roland, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 054905, https://doi .org /10 .1103 / PhysRevC .81 .054905

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Y.-G. Ma, S. Zhang, Influence of Nuclear Structure in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Col- lisions, Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, ISBN 978-981-15-8818-1, 2020, pp.1–30

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Carzon, S

    P. Carzon, S. Rao, M. Luzum, M. Sievert, J. Noronha-Hostler, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 054905

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Gardim, F

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

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Bo˙zek, W

    P. Bo˙zek, W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 014903

    work page 2013

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Giacalone, J

    G. Giacalone, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. C 97 (2018) 034904

    2018

  2. [10]

    Acharya, F

    S. Acharya, F. Acosta, D. Adamová, J. Adolfsson, M. Aggarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ahn, et al., Phys. Lett. B 784 (2018) 82, ISSN 0370-2693

    2018

  3. [11]

    Acharya, F.-

    S. Acharya, F.-. Acosta, D. Adamová, J. Adolfsson, M. Aggarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella, M. Agnello, N. Agrawal, Z. Ahammed, S. Ahn, et al., Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 166, ISSN 0370-2693

    2019

  4. [12]

    Adamczyk, J.K

    L. Adamczyk, J.K. Adkins, G. Agakishiev, M.M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, I. Alekseev, J. Alford, A. Aparin, D. Arkhipkin, E.C. Aschenauer, et al., STAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 222301

    2015

  5. [13]

    Giacalone, Phys

    G. Giacalone, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 024910

    2019

  6. [14]

    Möller, A

    P. Möller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, H. Sagawa, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 109–110(1) (2016), ISSN 0092-640X

    2016

  7. [15]

    Robledo, G.F

    L.M. Robledo, G.F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 054302

    2011

  8. [16]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, M. Horoi, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 107 (2016) 1, ISSN 0092-640X

    2016

  9. [17]

    Kibédi, R

    T. Kibédi, R. Spear, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 80 (2002) 35, ISSN 0092-640X

    2002

  10. [18]

    Pandey, S.K

    S. Pandey, S.K. Tiwari, B.K. Singh, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 014903

    2021

  11. [19]

    Pandey, B.K

    S. Pandey, B.K. Singh, J. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys. 49 (2022) 095001

    2022

  12. [20]

    Pandey, B.K

    S. Pandey, B.K. Singh, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Lokhtin, L

    I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, S. Petrushanko, A. Snigirev, I. Arsene, K. Tywoniuk, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 779, ISSN 0010-4655

    2009

  14. [22]

    Lokhtin, L

    I. Lokhtin, L. Malinina, S. Petrushanko, A. Snigirev, I. Arsene, K. Tywoniuk, arXiv preprint arXiv :0903 .0525, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Lokhtin, A.M

    I.P. Lokhtin, A.M. Snigirev, Eur. Phys. J. C Part. Fields 45 (2006) 211

    2006

  16. [24]

    Bjorken, Phys

    J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 140

    1983

  17. [25]

    Braaten, M.H

    E. Braaten, M.H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) R2625

    1991

  18. [26]

    Lokhtin, A.M

    I.P. Lokhtin, A.M. Snigirev, Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000) 527, arXiv :hep -ph /0004176

    2000

  19. [27]

    Baier, Y.L

    R. Baier, Y.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, D. Schiff, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 064902

    1999

  20. [28]

    Baier, Y.L

    R. Baier, Y.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, D. Schiff, Phys. Rev. C 64 (2001) 057902

    2001

  21. [29]

    Andersson, The Lund Model, vol

    B. Andersson, The Lund Model, vol. 7, Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  22. [30]

    Tywoniuk, I

    K. Tywoniuk, I. Arsene, L. Bravina, A. Kaidalov, E. Zabrodin, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 170, ISSN 0370-2693

    2007

  23. [31]

    Gribov, Sov

    V. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP 29 (1969) 064905

    1969

  24. [32]

    Svetitsky, Phys

    B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 2484

    1988

  25. [33]

    Srivastava, B.K

    P.K. Srivastava, B.K. Patra, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (2017) 116

    2017

  26. [34]

    Amelin, R

    N.S. Amelin, R. Lednicky, T.A. Pocheptsov, I.P. Lokhtin, L.V. Malinina, A.M. Sni- girev, I.A. Karpenko, Y.M. Sinyukov, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 064901

    2006

  27. [35]

    Amelin, R

    N.S. Amelin, R. Lednicky, I.P. Lokhtin, L.V. Malinina, A.M. Snigirev, I.A. Karpenko, Y.M. Sinyukov, I. Arsene, L. Bravina, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 014903

    2008

  28. [36]

    Akkelin, P

    S. Akkelin, P. Braun-Munzinger, Y. Sinyukov, Nucl. Phys. A 710 (2002) 439, ISSN 0375-9474

    2002

  29. [37]

    Md Rihan Haque, Zi-Wei Lin, Bedangadas Mohanty, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 034905

    2012

  30. [38]

    Singh, P

    A. Singh, P. Srivastava, O. Chaturvedi, S. Ahmad, B. Singh, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 1

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.