Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Squeezing effect on three-dimensional Hanbury Brown-Twiss radii

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 squeezing effect from in-medium mass modification should inflate the three-dimensional HBT radii of boson pairs in heavy-ion collisions and make them depend non-monotonically on transverse pair momentum.

desk verdict A clean forward calculation of 3D HBT radii with the squeezing effect, genuinely extending prior work to a cylinder source, but the constant-τ freeze-out assumption deserves a sensitivity check before the non-monotonic KT prediction is taken as robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07178 v1 pith:7AQ75PCR submitted 2025-06-08 hep-ph nucl-th

Yong Zhang , Peng Ru This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 25.75.Gz21.65.jk
keywords squeezingeffectin-mediummassmodificationHBTradiiBose-Einsteincorrelationsheavy-ioncollisionsphipairsD0D0K+K+
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 argues that the squeezing effect—the change in boson statistics caused by a particle's mass differing inside the hot medium from its vacuum value—leaves a visible imprint on the three-dimensional Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) radii measured in heavy-ion collisions. Using a locally thermalized cylinder source that expands transversely, the authors compute HBT radii for $φφ$, $D^0D^0$, and $K^+K^+$ pairs. They find that squeezing suppresses the influence of transverse flow on the transverse source distribution and broadens the space-time rapidity distribution, so the out-direction and longitudinal radii grow, especially at large pair momentum. As a result the radii no longer fall monotonically as transverse pair momentum rises, a "non-flow" behavior that could serve as a new experimental signal for in-medium mass modification. The effect is stronger for heavier mesons, with $D^0$ affected more than $φ$, and $φ$ more than $K^+$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the squeezing-modified emission function used inside a cylinder-expanding source: $f(r,k)=|c_{k'}|^2 n_{k'} + |s_{-k'}|^2 (n_{-k'}+1)$, with $c_{k'}=\cosh r_{k'}$, $s_{-k'}=\sinh r_{k'}$, and $r_{k'}=\frac{1}{2}\log(E_{k'}/\varepsilon_{k'})$, where $\varepsilon_{k'}=\sqrt{E_{k'}^2-m^2+m_*^2}$ uses the in-medium mass $m_*$. Convolution with the source's transverse Gaussian, space-time rapidity Gaussian, and $\delta(\tau-\tau_0)$ freeze-out gives the HBT correlation function, from which the out, side, and longitudinal radii are read off from the Gaussian form. Comparing $\delta m=m-m_*>0$ with $\delta m=0$ isolates the squeezing contribution and traces it to the two source-level changes.

What would settle it

Measure the three-dimensional HBT radii of $φφ$ or $D^0D^0$ pairs as a function of transverse pair momentum in heavy-ion collisions where in-medium mass reduction is expected; if $R_o$ and $R_l$ continue to fall monotonically through the highest accessible $K_T$, with no flattening or upturn, the predicted non-flow signal is absent. A companion calculation replacing $\delta(\tau-\tau_0)$ with a finite freeze-out duration while keeping all other parameters fixed would show whether the signal depends on that assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the squeezing effect changes the emitting source in two specific ways: it weakens the transverse-flow-induced shift of the transverse source distribution at high single-particle transverse momentum, and it widens the space-time rapidity distribution, with both effects growing with transverse momentum and being larger at a lower freeze-out temperature. Through the Gaussian HBT radii $R_o$, $R_s$, and $R_l$, these source changes translate into an increase of the out and longitudinal radii, a smaller increase of the side radius when transverse flow is present, and a non-monotonic dependence of the radii on transverse pair momentum $K_T$. The authors further find that the effect is stronger for $D^0D^0$ than for $φφ$, and stronger for $φφ$ than for $K^+K^+$, matching the ordering of the vacuum masses, and that the non-flow behavior appears at smaller $K_T$ for the heavier mesons.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation rests on the assumption that all particles freeze out at exactly the same proper time $\tau_0$, built into the emission function through $\delta(\tau-\tau_0)$; if freeze-out instead lasts a finite time, the squeezing-induced broadening of the out and longitudinal radii may not appear in measured HBT radii.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $φφ$ and $D^0D^0$, $R_o$ and $R_l$ should stop decreasing monotonically with $K_T$ and begin to rise at high pair momentum, a signal that in-medium mass modification has occurred.
  • The non-flow signature should appear at smaller transverse pair momentum for heavier mesons, making $D^0D^0$ and $φφ$ more accessible than $K^+K^+$ within current momentum reach.
  • The effect is largest in the out and longitudinal directions, while the side radius changes only modestly and only when transverse flow is present.
  • A lower freeze-out temperature strengthens the squeezing imprint on all three HBT radii.
  • In the longitudinally co-moving system the calculation shifts $R_o$ down and $R_l$ up relative to the rapidity-integrated result, and the shift is larger when squeezing is present.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the effect scales with meson mass, pion-pair HBT should show almost no squeezing imprint, which would provide a control channel for the same measurement.
  • Editorial inference: repeating the calculation with a finite-width proper-time distribution instead of $\delta(\tau-\tau_0)$ would isolate how much of the predicted broadening depends on the instantaneous freeze-out assumption.
  • Editorial inference: if hydrodynamic sources with finite freeze-out duration reproduce the non-flow behavior, HBT radii could become a practical probe of mass shifts even in systems where squeezed back-to-back correlations are washed out.
  • Editorial inference: the same framework could be applied to other heavy boson pairs, such as $D_s^+D_s^-$ or $B_c$ pairs, where the predicted effect would be stronger still.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies how the squeezing effect, induced by in-medium mass modification, affects three-dimensional Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) radii for identical phi-phi, D0-D0, and K+-K+ pairs. The authors adopt a locally thermalized cylinder-expansion source, Eq. (2), with a Gaussian transverse profile and space-time rapidity distribution and a delta-function freeze-out at constant proper time. The squeezing effect is included through a Bogoliubov-transformed phase-space distribution, Eqs. (6)-(11). Using the standard Gaussian form of the correlation function, Eqs. (12)-(16), they compute Ro, Rs, and Rl as second moments of the emission function. They find that squeezing reduces the influence of transverse flow on the transverse source and broadens the space-time rapidity distribution, increasing Ro and Rl at high KT; this produces a non-monotonic KT dependence that is more pronounced for D0D0 than for phi-phi, and more for phi-phi than for K+K+. The paper is a forward model calculation with no comparison to data.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, the paper offers a new observable for in-medium mass modification: the non-monotonic KT dependence of three-dimensional HBT radii, complementary to squeezed back-to-back correlations, which are suppressed for broad temporal sources. The paper is a forward calculation: all model parameters are stated, the in-medium mass shifts are taken from previous literature, and no parameter is tuned to reproduce HBT data. The mass ordering D0 > phi > K+ is an explicit, falsifiable prediction. The figures support the qualitative claims, and the writing is generally clear. Its significance is limited by the idealized freeze-out geometry and by the Gaussian extraction procedure; both need to be checked before the phenomenological claim can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (12)-(15); Sec. IV] The constant proper-time freeze-out encoded by the delta function in Eq. (2) is load-bearing for the central prediction. Since t = tau cosh eta and z = tau sinh eta, the squeezing-induced broadening of the space-time rapidity distribution is converted directly into temporal and longitudinal broadening, and hence into larger Ro and Rl. The authors themselves state in Sec. IV that the cylinder source's independent transverse and temporal distributions "conflict with the actual situation." A finite freeze-out duration Delta_tau would add a contribution of order cosh^2(eta) Delta_tau^2 to the temporal variance and could dilute or erase the high-KT rise in Ro and Rl, especially for the beta = 0 curves in Figs. 3, 7, and 11, where the effect is carried entirely by the eta-widening. Please quantify the robustness by replacing delta(tau - tau0) with a Gaussian of width Delta_tau = 1-3 fm/c and showing how the non-monotonic behavior changes. Without this check, the claim that the non-flow behavior is a measurable signal is not established.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (12)-(15); Sec. IV] The paper computes Ro^2, Rs^2, and Rl^2 as second moments of the emission function S(r,K). Experimental HBT analyses, however, fit a Gaussian to the two-particle correlation function. For a non-Gaussian source, which the authors acknowledge in Sec. IV may occur under the squeezing effect, the fitted radii do not in general equal these second moments. The non-monotonic KT dependence could be weaker or modified when the actual correlation function from Eq. (1) is fitted with a Gaussian. Please test at least one representative case, e.g., phi at T = 0.14 GeV, beta = 0.3, delta_m = 0.01 GeV, by computing C(q,K) directly and extracting the fitted Gaussian radii, and compare the resulting KT dependence with that shown in Fig. 3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The denominator in Eq. (1) should be written explicitly as [integral d4r S(r,k1)] [integral d4r S(r,k2)] to avoid ambiguity about whether the product of two single-particle integrals is intended.
  2. [Sec. III.A] Several sentences contain incomplete phrases, for example "the temporal distribution of and the longitudinal distribution of the source"; these should read "the temporal distribution and the longitudinal distribution of the source."
  3. [Sec. II, Eqs. (13)-(16)] The variables r_o, r_s, r_l and beta_o, beta_l are used without explicit definitions in the text; please define them or refer explicitly to the standard out-side-longitudinal coordinate system and the pair velocity components.
  4. [Fig. 3] The figure legend distinguishes lines for Y in (-1,1) from symbols for the LCMS, but the caption does not explain which line style corresponds to which combination of beta and delta_m; adding a unified legend, or a table of line styles, would improve readability.
  5. [Sec. III.A, parameter discussion] The parameter delta_eta = 3.0 is adopted from Ref. [18], but the effective space-time rapidity width is strongly narrowed by the thermal factor exp(-k_mu u^mu/T) in Eqs. (3) and (6). A brief comment clarifying the role of delta_eta relative to the thermally weighted width would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HBT radii are forward-computed from a standard cylinder source with literature-fixed inputs; the only self-citation ([16]) supplies the name 'non-flow behavior' and a 1D precedent but is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a genuine forward calculation with no fitted target. The emission function (Eq. 2, cylinder source with delta(tau - tau0)) is taken from Refs. [17,18]; the squeezing-modified momentum distribution (Eq. 6) is the standard Bogoliubov form from Refs. [7-10,16]; the HBT radii (Eqs. 13-15) are the standard Gaussian moments of that emission function. All inputs are fixed a priori: vacuum masses from PDG [76]; in-medium shifts delta_m = 0.01 GeV (phi, K+), 0.005 GeV (D0) from Refs. [70,66]; RG = 6 fm, delta_eta = 3.0, tau0 = 10 fm/c from Ref. [18]; T = 0.14/0.15 GeV; beta scanned over 0, 0.3, 0.5. No parameter is fitted to the reported radii, and the paper itself states that 'there are no HBT experimental measurements for phi-phi and D0-D0,' so no tuning to target data is possible. The predicted non-monotonic K_T dependence is an explicit integrand consequence shown in the source distributions (Figs. 2, 6, 10) and radii (Figs. 3, 7, 11), not an assumed output; the space-time rapidity broadening is displayed directly as a source property before any radius is computed. The self-citation [16] names the phenomenon and provides the earlier spherically symmetric 1D result, but the 3D cylinder-source claim here is derived in-paper and does not reduce to [16]; the independent refs. [7-10] already established the flow-reduction effect. Two caveats are model limitations rather than circularity. First, the delta(tau - tau0) constraint in Eq. (2) forces the temporal and longitudinal widths to track the eta-width through t = tau cosh eta, z = tau sinh eta, so the predicted rise in R_o and R_l is sensitive to the instantaneous-freeze-out assumption, especially for the beta = 0 curves in Figs. 3, 7, and 11. Second, Sec. IV concedes that the cylinder source's 'independent transverse spatial distribution and temporal distribution ... conflict with the actual situation.' These affect robustness against finite freeze-out duration, but no step in the derivation is defined in terms of its own output, so no circular reduction is present.

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

All model parameters are adopted from prior literature [18] or standard values; none are fitted to the HBT results. The in-medium mass shifts are inputs from theoretical estimates [66,70]. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • In-medium mass shift delta_m for phi = 0.01 GeV
    Chosen from expected mass reduction in pionic medium per ref [70]; not fitted to HBT data.
  • In-medium mass shift delta_m for D0 = 0.005 GeV
    Chosen from expected mass reduction in pionic medium per ref [66]; not fitted to HBT data.
  • In-medium mass shift delta_m for K+ = 0.01 GeV
    Chosen from expected mass reduction in pionic medium per ref [70]; not fitted to HBT data.
  • Transverse flow velocity parameter beta = 0, 0.3, 0.5
    Model parameter scanning the transverse expansion strength; chosen for illustration.
  • Freeze-out temperature T = 0.14 and 0.15 GeV
    Standard freeze-out temperatures for heavy-ion collisions, chosen from prior work [9,16].
  • Transverse source radius RG = 6 fm
    Taken from ref [18].
  • Space-time rapidity width delta_eta = 3.0
    Taken from ref [18].
  • Proper time tau_0 = 10 fm/c
    Taken from ref [18].
assumptions (6)
  • standard math HBT correlation is given by the standard formula C(q,K)=1+|integral d^4r S e^{iq.r}|^2 / (integral S(k1) integral S(k2)).
    Eq. (1), standard quantum-statistical correlation formula.
  • domain assumption Emission function for a cylinder source factorizes as in Eq. (2) with delta(tau-tau0).
    Assumes sudden freeze-out at constant proper time, Gaussian transverse and rapidity profiles.
  • domain assumption The momentum distribution with squeezing is given by Eq. (6) with c_k', s_k', and r_k' defined by the Bogoliubov transformation.
    Taken from refs [1-10,16]; assumes in-medium mass modification m* and thermal occupation with modified energy.
  • domain assumption Transverse flow rapidity profile eta_T(r_T) as in Eq. (5).
    Assumed blast-wave-like flow profile.
  • domain assumption The correlation function is well approximated by a Gaussian form (Eq. 12) even when squeezing modifies the source.
    The paper uses Gaussian radii but acknowledges in the summary that the source may be non-Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Particles freeze out with a Bose-Einstein distribution at temperature T.
    Eq. (3)/(11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Squeezing effect on three-dimensional Hanbury Brown-Twiss radii." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AQ75PCR

@misc{pith2026250607178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Squeezing effect on three-dimensional Hanbury Brown-Twiss radii},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AQ75PCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07178}
}
abstract

This paper examines the impacts of the squeezing effect caused by the particle's in-medium mass modification on the three-dimensional Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) radii. An analysis is conducted on how the squeezing effect impacts the three-dimensional HBT radii of $\phi\phi$, $D^0$$D^0$, and $K^+$$K^+$. The squeezing effect suppresses the impacts of transverse flow on the transverse source distribution and broadens the space-time rapidity distribution of the particle-emitting source, leading to an increase in the HBT radii, notably in out and longitudinal direction. This phenomenon becomes more significant for higher transverse pair momentum, resulting in a non-monotonic decrease in the HBT radii with increasing transverse pair momentum. The impact of the squeezing effect on the HBT radii is more pronounced for $D^0$$D^0$ than for $\phi\phi$. Furthermore, this effect is also more significant for $\phi$$\phi$ than for $K^+$$K^+$. The findings presented in this paper could offer fresh perspectives on investigating the squeezing effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) Normalized distributions of transve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Normalized distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) HBT radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Normalized distributions of transve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) HBT radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) HBT radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) Normalized distributions of transve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) HBT radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Color online) Normalized distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: (Color online) HBT radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (Color online) HBT radii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Zhang and P

    Y. Zhang and P. Ru, Phys. Rev. C 109: 024902 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Gyulassy, S

    M. Gyulassy, S. K. Kauffmann, and Lance W. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 20: 2267 (1979)

    work page 1979

  3. [2]

    C. Y. Wong, Introduction to High-Energy Heavy-Ion Col- lisions (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994), Chap. 17

    1994

  4. [3]

    U. A. Wienemann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rep. 319: 145 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    R. M. Weiner, Phys. Rep. 327: 249 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    Cs¨ org˝ o, arXiv:hep-ph/0001233

    T. Cs¨ org˝ o, arXiv:hep-ph/0001233

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz et al. , Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55: 357 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Asakawa and T

    M. Asakawa and T. Cs¨ org˝ o, Heavy Ion Physics 4: 233 (1996); hep-ph/9612331

    arXiv 1996

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Asakawa, T

    M. Asakawa, T. Cs¨ org˝ o, and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83: 4013 (1999)

    1999

  2. [9]

    S. S. Padula, G. Krein, T. Cs¨ org˝ o et al. , Phys. Rev. C 73: 044906 (2006)

    2006

  3. [10]

    D. M. Dudek and S. S. Padula, Phys. Rev. C 82: 034905 (2010). 10

    2010

  4. [11]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Yang, and W. N. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 92: 024906 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Yang, and W. N. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 39 (3): 034103 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Zhang and W

    Y. Zhang and W. N. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76: 419 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    A. G. Yang, Y. Zhang, L. Cheng et al. , Chin. Phys. Lett. 35: 052501 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    P. Z. Xu, W. N. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99: 011902(R) (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    U. A. Wiedemann, P. Scotto, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C, 53: 918 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    H. Yang, Q. C. Feng, Y. Y. Ren et al. , Chin. Phys. C, 44 (5): 054105 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Adler et al

    C. Adler et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87: 082301 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 152302 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 71: 044906 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 89: 024911 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 92: 014904 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93: 024905 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    I. G. Bearden et al. (NA44 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87: 112301 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Afanasiev et al

    S. Afanasiev et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103: 142301 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 92: 034914 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 92: 054908 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 96: 064613 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 100: 024002 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127: 092301 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 102: 014905 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99: 034908 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120: 202301 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

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

    2018

  28. [36]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 01: 174 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 80: 979 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 10: 174 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 03: 081 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11: 205 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 90: 034904 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111: 102301 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 83: 540 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C, 106: 034907 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 81: 772 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78: 559 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116: 062301 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93: 021903(R) (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93: 024904 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 91: 024609 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 83: 024909 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 673: 183 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 79: 064903 (2009)

    2009

  46. [54]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99: 112301 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Afanasiev et al

    S. Afanasiev et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99: 052301 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 72: 014903 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Alessandro et al

    B. Alessandro et al. (NA50 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 555: 147 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Adler et al

    C. Adler et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 65: 041901(R) (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    S. V. Afanasiev et al. , (NA49 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 491: 59 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    Adler et al

    C. Adler et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 595: 143 (2004)

    2004

  53. [61]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 107: 024901 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Anticic et al

    T. Anticic et al. (NA49 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 86: 054903 (2012)

    2012

  55. [63]

    N. J. Abdulameer et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 109: 054910 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 101: 044907 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 832: 137242 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Fuchs, B

    C. Fuchs, B. V. Martemyanov, A. Faessler et al. , Phys. Rev. C 73: 035204 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Monta˜ na, `A

    G. Monta˜ na, `A. Ramos, L. Tol´ os et al. , Phys. Lett. B 806: 135464 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 101: 015202 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Braaten, R

    E. Braaten, R. Bruschini, L. P. He et al. , Phys. Rev. D 108: 076012 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Martemyanov, A

    B.V. Martemyanov, A. Faessler, C. Fuchs et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 93: 052301 (2004)

    2004

  63. [71]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 102: 045206 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    H. Kim, P. Gubler, Phys. Lett. B 805: 135412 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    M. Kaur, A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 110: 114054 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Gifari, P

    G. Gifari, P. T. P. Hutauruk, T. Mart, Phys. Rev. D 110: 014043 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ ınez, K. Tsushima, G. Kreinet al., Phys. Lett. B 771: 113 (2017)

    2017

  68. [76]

    (Particle Data Group), Phys

    S.Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110: 030001 (2024). 11

    2024

  69. [77]

    Cs¨ org˝ o, S

    T. Cs¨ org˝ o, S. Hegyi, W. A. Zajc, Eur. Phys. J. C 36: 67 (2004)

    2004

  70. [78]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 97: 064911 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Adhikary et al

    H. Adhikary et al. (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 83: 919 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    K´ orodi, D

    B. K´ orodi, D. Kincses, M. Csan´ ad, Phys. Lett. B 847: 138295 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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