Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

Thermal Radiation from an Analytic Hydrodynamic Model with Hadronic and QGP Sources in Heavy-Ion Collisions

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-19 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An analytic hydrodynamic model with QGP and hadronic photon sources reproduces measured direct photon spectra in Au+Au collisions.

desk verdict Analytic photon spectra from QGP plus hadronic sources match PHENIX data but rest on the accuracy of an earlier hydrodynamic solution. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13240 v3 submitted 2025-07-17 hep-ph nucl-th

Gábor László Kasza This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords heavy-ioncollisionsthermalphotonsquark-gluonplasmahydrodynamicmodeldirectphasetransitionPHENIXdata
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquationreality_from_one_distinction
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 builds a fully analytic description of thermal photon production by combining a known solution of relativistic hydrodynamics with an equation of state in the class favored by lattice QCD. The construction includes the transition from quark-gluon plasma to hadronic matter and calculates photon emission from both phases. When the resulting spectra are compared with PHENIX non-prompt direct photon data for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV, the model matches the measurements across a range of centralities. This agreement makes it possible to extract the initial temperature as a function of collision centrality.

What carries the argument

The analytic hydrodynamic solution together with photon emission rates from both the quark-gluon plasma and hadronic phases, integrated across the phase transition.

What would settle it

Direct photon spectra measured at additional centralities or collision energies that lie significantly outside the model's predicted range would falsify the agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Based on a previously published analytic solution of relativistic hydrodynamics that incorporates a lattice-QCD-like equation of state, a completely analytic model is constructed for thermal photon production that accounts for the quark-hadron transition. The model reproduces the measured non-prompt direct photon spectra in Au+Au collisions at √s_NN = 200 GeV, thereby enabling the investigation of the centrality dependence of the initial temperature.

Load-bearing premise

The previously published hydrodynamic solution and the selected equation of state correctly describe the space-time evolution and the quark-hadron transition, while the photon emission rates are taken as given inputs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Thermal photons become a practical probe of the initial temperature's dependence on collision centrality.
  • The model supplies a benchmark for future calculations of thermal radiation in heavy-ion collisions.
  • The analytic form allows rapid evaluation of photon yields without numerical hydrodynamics.
  • The approach can be applied to other beam energies once the corresponding hydrodynamic solutions are available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same analytic framework could be used to test the sensitivity of photon spectra to different treatments of the phase transition.
  • If the centrality trend in initial temperature holds, it would constrain models of the early-stage energy deposition.
  • Extension to smaller collision systems might reveal whether the hydrodynamic description remains valid at lower multiplicities.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a completely analytic model for thermal photon production from both QGP and hadronic sources in heavy-ion collisions. It extends a previously published relativistic hydrodynamic solution that employs an equation of state in the lattice-QCD class, integrates standard emission rates over the resulting analytic temperature and flow profiles, and reports good agreement with PHENIX non-prompt direct photon spectra in Au+Au collisions at √s_NN = 200 GeV. This agreement is then used to extract the centrality dependence of the initial temperature.

Significance. If the analytic profiles faithfully reproduce the space-time evolution of the prior hydrodynamic solution and the emission rates are accurate, the work supplies a useful benchmark that permits rapid, transparent calculations of thermal photon yields and their centrality dependence without repeated full numerical hydro runs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and comparison with data] The central claim of spectral agreement with PHENIX data and the extracted initial-temperature centrality dependence rests on the accuracy of the space-time profiles taken from the previously published hydrodynamic solution. The manuscript presents no quantitative comparison (e.g., in the results section or an appendix) between the analytic temperature and flow fields and the original numerical solution, nor any sensitivity test to plausible variations in the hydrodynamic evolution. This omission is load-bearing because even modest deviations in the early-time temperature or flow would alter the integrated photon yield and undermine the reported agreement.
  2. [Model construction] The photon emission rates from both the QGP and hadronic phases are adopted as fixed external inputs without additional validation or uncertainty propagation within this work. Because the analytic model does not re-derive or vary these rates, any systematic uncertainty in the rates directly affects the claimed data agreement and the centrality-dependent initial temperatures; a brief sensitivity study or reference to rate uncertainties would be required to support the conclusions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the model is 'completely analytic' yet the hydrodynamic solution itself is taken from prior numerical work; a short clarifying sentence on what is newly analytic versus inherited would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results and comparison with data] The central claim of spectral agreement with PHENIX data and the extracted initial-temperature centrality dependence rests on the accuracy of the space-time profiles taken from the previously published hydrodynamic solution. The manuscript presents no quantitative comparison (e.g., in the results section or an appendix) between the analytic temperature and flow fields and the original numerical solution, nor any sensitivity test to plausible variations in the hydrodynamic evolution. This omission is load-bearing because even modest deviations in the early-time temperature or flow would alter the integrated photon yield and undermine the reported agreement.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative comparison between the analytic profiles and the numerical hydrodynamic solution would improve transparency and support the central claims. Although the analytic solution was constructed to reproduce the numerical evolution (as derived and validated in the referenced prior work), we will add this comparison to the revised manuscript. Specifically, we will include a new appendix with plots or tables quantifying the relative differences in temperature and radial flow velocity at representative proper times and radii. We will also add a brief discussion of sensitivity to plausible variations in the hydrodynamic evolution, referencing the parameter studies performed in the original numerical work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Model construction] The photon emission rates from both the QGP and hadronic phases are adopted as fixed external inputs without additional validation or uncertainty propagation within this work. Because the analytic model does not re-derive or vary these rates, any systematic uncertainty in the rates directly affects the claimed data agreement and the centrality-dependent initial temperatures; a brief sensitivity study or reference to rate uncertainties would be required to support the conclusions.

    Authors: The rates employed are the standard QGP rate of Arnold, Moore, and Yaffe and the hadronic rate parametrization widely used in the literature. We will revise the manuscript to include explicit references to existing discussions of systematic uncertainties in these rates (e.g., from recent reviews on thermal photon production). While a comprehensive re-derivation or full Monte-Carlo propagation of rate uncertainties lies outside the scope of the present analytic-model paper, we will add a short paragraph estimating the effect of plausible rate variations on the extracted initial temperatures to better contextualize the results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Photon spectra agreement and initial temperature extraction depend on accuracy of prior hydrodynamic solution taken as fixed input

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "This paper builds upon and extends a previously published solution of relativistic hydrodynamics, incorporating an equation of state that falls within the same class as that predicted by lattice QCD. Based on this solution, a completely analytic model is constructed to describe thermal photon production, accounting for the quark-hadron transition. The model is tested against PHENIX measurements of non-prompt direct photon spectra in Au+Au collisions at √s_NN = 200 GeV. Good agreement is observed between the model predictions and the experimental data, enabling the investigation of the central-"

    The load-bearing step imports the entire space-time evolution and temperature/flow profiles from the prior hydrodynamic solution as given inputs. The photon spectra are then integrated using standard QGP and hadronic rates and labeled 'model predictions' that agree with data. Because the prior solution is not re-derived or validated against independent benchmarks inside this manuscript, the reported spectral agreement and initial-temperature extraction are statistically forced by the imported profiles rather than emerging from a self-contained derivation.

full rationale

The paper constructs an analytic photon production model directly from a previously published hydrodynamic solution and standard emission rates, then reports agreement with PHENIX non-prompt direct photon data as validation. This agreement and the extracted centrality dependence of initial temperature are presented as model predictions, but the space-time evolution, temperature profiles, and EOS class are imported without re-derivation or sensitivity tests here. The result therefore reduces in part to the validity of the prior solution's parameters (likely tuned to other data), making the photon comparison less independent than claimed. No machine-checked or externally falsifiable derivation of the hydro profiles is provided within this work, supporting a moderate circularity score.

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

Abstract provides no explicit list of free parameters or axioms; the hydrodynamic solution and photon rates are imported from prior literature whose details are not restated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal Radiation from an Analytic Hydrodynamic Model with Hadronic and QGP Sources in Heavy-Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2507.13240

@misc{pith2026250713240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal Radiation from an Analytic Hydrodynamic Model with Hadronic and QGP Sources in Heavy-Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2507.13240}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13240}
}
abstract

In high-energy heavy-ion collisions, a nearly perfect fluid is formed, known as the strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma (QGP). After a short thermalization period, the evolution of this medium can be described by the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics. As the system expands and cools, the QGP undergoes a transition into hadronic matter, marking the onset of quark confinement. Direct photons offer insights into an essential stage of evolution, spanning from the onset of thermalization to the suppression of thermal photon production, which occurs within the hadronic phase. This paper builds upon and extends a previously published solution of relativistic hydrodynamics, incorporating an equation of state that falls within the same class as that predicted by lattice QCD. Based on this solution, a completely analytic model is constructed to describe thermal photon production, accounting for the quark-hadron transition. The model is tested against PHENIX measurements of non-prompt direct photon spectra in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV. Good agreement is observed between the model predictions and the experimental data, enabling the investigation of the centrality dependence of the initial temperature. These results provide a benchmark for future theoretical and experimental studies of thermal radiation in heavy-ion collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The fit of equation (33) to the non-prompt direct photon spectrum measured by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fit of equation (33) to the non-prompt direct photon spectrum measured by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fit of equation (33) to the non-prompt direct photon spectrum measured by the PHENIX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The fit of equation (33) to the non-prompt direct photon spectrum measured by the PHENIX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Extracted initial temperatures as a function of centrality, obtained from comparisons between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    κ(T) = C (T/T0)^{1+C} − (C−κ0)/(κ0+1) (T/T0)^{1+C} + (C−κ0)/(κ0+1) (eq. 9); solutions (18-24) for σ,T,Ω in hadronic and QGP phases; two-component spectrum (33) with saddle-point integrals (36-37)

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    κtot(T) = Θ(T−Ttr) κq(T) + Θ(Ttr−T) κh(T) (eq. 10); lattice-QCD class EOS, Ttr fixed at 156 MeV

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing Pair Correlations in QCD Matter with Photon Spectra

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Relative-angle modes of pair correlations produce sign-changing modifications to the in-medium photon spectrum with magnitudes comparable to the factorized contribution.

  2. Magnetization and Magnetic Field-Induced Correction: Implications for QGP Thermal Photon Production in Magnetohydrodynamic

    hep-ph 2026-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Thermal photon yields from magnetized quark-gluon plasma are computed in a (1+1)-dimensional MHD model, showing magnetization is negligible and that the claimed quantum-motion boost is likely cancelled by symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. A. Lacey, N. N. Ajitanand, J. M. Alexander, P. Chung, W. G. Holzmann, M. Issah, A. Tara- nenko, P. Danielewicz, and H. Stoecker. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007), p. 092301. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.98.092301. arXiv: nucl-ex/0609025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    G. D´ avid. In: Rept. Prog. Phys. 83.4 (2020), p. 046301. doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ab6f57. arXiv: 1907.08893 [nucl-ex]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab6f57 2020

  3. [3]

    E. V. Shuryak and L. Xiong. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993), pp. 2241–2244. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.70.2241. arXiv: hep-ph/9301218. 19

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    K. Tuchin. In: Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011), p. 017901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.017901 . arXiv: 1008.1604 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.017901 2011

  5. [5]

    The Glasma, Photons and the Implications of Anisotropy

    L. McLerran and B. Schenke. In: Nucl. Phys. A 929 (2014), pp. 71–82. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . nuclphysa.2014.06.004. arXiv: 1403.7462 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    B. G. Zakharov. In: JETP Lett. 104.4 (2016), pp. 213–217. doi: 10.1134/S0021364016160025 . arXiv: 1607.04314 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1134/s0021364016160025 2016

  7. [7]

    Prompt photon yield and elliptic flow from gluon fusion induced by magnetic fields in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    A. Ayala, J. D. Castano-Yepes, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, S. Hernandez-Ortiz, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans. In: Phys. Rev. D 96.1 (2017). [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 119901 (2017)], p. 014023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.014023. arXiv: 1704.02433 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.014023 2017

  8. [8]

    Parametric estimate of the relative photon yields from the Glasma and the Quark-Gluon Plasma in heavy-ion collisions

    J. Berges, K. Reygers, N. Tanji, and R. Venugopalan. In: Phys. Rev. C 95.5 (2017), p. 054904. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.054904. arXiv: 1701.05064 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.054904 2017

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    C. Gale, J. F. Paquet, B. Schenke, and C. Shen. In: Phys. Rev. C 105.1 (2022), p. 014909. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014909. arXiv: 2106.11216 [nucl-th]

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    A. Monnai. In: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37.11n12 (2022), p. 2230006.doi: 10.1142/S0217751X2230006X. arXiv: 2203.13208 [nucl-th]

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Garcia-Montero, A

    O. Garcia-Montero, A. Mazeliauskas, P. Plaschke, and S. Schlichting. In: PoS HardProbes2023 (2024), p. 075. doi: 10.22323/1.438.0075. arXiv: 2312.10098 [hep-ph]

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Garcia-Montero, A

    O. Garcia-Montero, A. Mazeliauskas, P. Plaschke, and S. Schlichting. In: EPJ Web Conf. 296 (2024), p. 07003. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202429607003. arXiv: 2404.02861 [hep-ph]

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    N. J. Abdulameer et al. In: Phys. Rev. C 109.4 (2024), p. 044912. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.109. 044912. arXiv: 2203.17187 [nucl-ex]

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Heffernan, P

    M. Heffernan, P. Hohler, and R. Rapp. In: Phys. Rev. C 91.2 (2015), p. 027902. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.91.027902. arXiv: 1411.7012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    van Hees, M

    H. van Hees, M. He, and R. Rapp. In: Nucl. Phys. A 933 (2015), pp. 256–271. doi: 10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2014.09.009. arXiv: 1404.2846 [nucl-th]

    2015 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    M¨ uller, S

    B. M¨ uller, S. Y. Wu, and D. L. Yang. In: Phys. Rev. D 89.2 (2014), p. 026013. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.89.026013. arXiv: 1308.6568 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Basar, D

    G. Basar, D. Kharzeev, and V. Skokov. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), p. 202303. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.109.202303. arXiv: 1206.1334 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Basar, D

    G. Basar, D. E. Kharzeev, and E. V. Shuryak. In: Phys. Rev. C 90.1 (2014), p. 014905. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014905. arXiv: 1402.2286 [hep-ph]

    2014 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Csan´ ad and I

    M. Csan´ ad and I. M´ ajer. In:Central Eur. J. Phys. 10 (2012), pp. 850–857. doi: 10.2478/s11534- 012-0060-9. arXiv: 1101.1279 [nucl-th]

    2012 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Csan´ ad and I

    M. Csan´ ad and I. M´ ajer. In: Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 8.9 (2011), pp. 1013–1015. doi: 10.1134/ S1547477111090147. arXiv: 1101.1280 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    G. Kasza. In: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39.01 (2024), p. 2450006. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X24500064. arXiv: 2311.03568 [nucl-th]

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L¨ ok¨ os and G

    S. L¨ ok¨ os and G. Kasza. In: Eur. Phys. J. A 61.7 (2025), p. 157. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050- 025-01625-2. arXiv: 2403.13599 [hep-ph]

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    R. Esha. In: Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 16.1 (2023), 1–A128. doi: 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.16.1- A128. arXiv: 2212.09953 [nucl-ex]. 20

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    M. Orosz. In: PoS QNP2024 (2025), p. 141. doi: 10.22323/1.465.0141

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    C. Shen, U. W. Heinz, J. F. Paquet, and C. Gale. In: Phys. Rev. C 89.4 (2014), p. 044910. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.044910. arXiv: 1308.2440 [nucl-th]

    2014 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Linnyk, V

    O. Linnyk, V. P. Konchakovski, W. Cassing, and E. L. Bratkovskaya. In: Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013), p. 034904. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.034904. arXiv: 1304.7030 [nucl-th]

    2013 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. F. Paquet. In: Nucl. Phys. A 967 (2017), pp. 184–191. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.06

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv: 1704.07842 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Massen, G

    O. Massen, G. Nijs, M. Sas, W. van der Schee, and R. Snellings. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 85.4 (2025), p. 388. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14072-6 . arXiv: 2412.09671 [nucl-th]

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    J. I. Kapusta, P. Lichard, and D. Seibert. In: Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991). [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 47, 4171 (1993)], pp. 2774–2788. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4171

    1991 doi

  23. [32]

    R. C. Hwa. In: Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), p. 2260. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2260

    1974 doi

  24. [33]

    J. D. Bjorken. In: Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983), pp. 140–151. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.140

    1983 doi

  25. [34]

    F. D. Steffen and M. H. Thoma. In: Phys. Lett. B 510 (2001). [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 660, 604–606 (2008)], pp. 98–106. doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00525-1. arXiv: hep-ph/0103044

    2001 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    Linnyk, V

    O. Linnyk, V. Konchakovski, T. Steinert, W. Cassing, and E. L. Bratkovskaya. In: Phys. Rev. C 92.5 (2015), p. 054914. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.054914. arXiv: 1504.05699 [nucl-th]

    2015 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    D. K. Srivastava. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 10 (1999). [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 20, 399–400 (2001)], pp. 487–490. doi: 10.1007/s100520050772. arXiv: nucl-th/0103023

    1999 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Turbide, R

    S. Turbide, R. Rapp, and C. Gale. In: Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004), p. 014903. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC. 69.014903. arXiv: hep-ph/0308085

    2004 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    C. Gale. In: PoS High-pT2017 (2019), p. 023. doi: 10.22323/1.320.0023 . arXiv: 1802.00128 [hep-ph]

    2019 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    C. Gale, Y. Hidaka, S. Jeon, S. Lin, J. F. Paquet, R. D. Pisarski, D. Satow, V. V. Skokov, and G. Vujanovic. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015), p. 072301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.072301 . arXiv: 1409.4778 [hep-ph]

    2015 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Chatterjee, P

    R. Chatterjee, P. Dasgupta, and D. K. Srivastava. In: Phys. Rev. C 96.1 (2017), p. 014911. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.014911. arXiv: 1702.02378 [nucl-th]

    2017 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. In: Phys. Lett. B 754 (2016), pp. 235–248.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.020. arXiv: 1509.07324 [nucl-ex]

    2016 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. In: Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019), pp. 308–322. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018. 11.039. arXiv: 1805.04403 [nucl-ex]

    2019 doi arXiv

  34. [43]

    Cs¨ org˝ o, G

    T. Cs¨ org˝ o, G. Kasza, M. Csan´ ad, and Z. Jiang. In:Universe 4.6 (2018), p. 69. doi: 10.3390/ universe4060069. arXiv: 1805.01427 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Bors´ anyi, G

    Sz. Bors´ anyi, G. Endr˝ odi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakov´ ac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K.” Szab´ o. In: JHEP 11 (2010), p. 077. doi: 10.1007/JHEP11(2010)077. arXiv: 1007.2580 [hep-lat]

    2010 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    Cs¨ org˝ o and G

    T. Cs¨ org˝ o and G. Kasza. In:24th Low-x Meeting . 2016. arXiv: 1610.02197 [nucl-th]. 21

    2016 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Cs¨ org˝ o and G

    T. Cs¨ org˝ o and G. Kasza. In:Universe 4.4 (2018), p. 58. doi: 10.3390/universe4040058. arXiv: 1801.05716 [nucl-th]

    2018 doi arXiv

  38. [47]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe. In: JHEP 12 (2001), p. 009. doi: 10.1088/1126- 6708/2001/12/009. arXiv: hep-ph/0111107

    2001 doi arXiv

  39. [48]

    Dusling and I

    K. Dusling and I. Zahed. In: Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010), p. 054909. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.82. 054909. arXiv: 0911.2426 [nucl-th]

    2010 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    M. Dion, J. F. Paquet, B. Schenke, C. Young, S. Jeon, and C. Gale. In: Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011), p. 064901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.064901. arXiv: 1109.4405 [hep-ph]

    2011 doi arXiv

  41. [50]

    Linnyk, E

    O. Linnyk, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and W. Cassing. In: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87 (2016), pp. 50–115. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.12.003. arXiv: 1512.08126 [nucl-th]

    2016 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    J. F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale. In: Phys. Rev. C 93.4 (2016), p. 044906. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.044906. arXiv: 1509.06738 [hep-ph]

    2016 doi arXiv

  43. [52]

    Cooper and G

    F. Cooper and G. Frye. In: Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), p. 186. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.186

    1974 doi

  44. [53]

    Kasza and T

    G. Kasza and T. Cs¨ org˝ o. In:13th Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy . 2018. doi: 10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.12.175. arXiv: 1806.11309 [nucl-th]

    2018 doi arXiv

  45. [54]

    Kasza and T

    G. Kasza and T. Cs¨ org˝ o. In: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34.26 (2019), p. 1950147. doi: 10 . 1142 / S0217751X19501471. arXiv: 1811.09990 [nucl-th]

    2019

  46. [55]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. In: Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005), p. 014904. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevC . 72 . 014904. arXiv: nucl-ex/0409033

    2005 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007), p. 162301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.162301. arXiv: nucl-ex/0608033

    2007 doi arXiv

  48. [57]

    In: Phys

    K Aamodt et al. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), p. 252302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105. 252302. arXiv: 1011.3914 [nucl-ex]

    2010 doi arXiv

  49. [58]

    Voloshin and Y

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang. In: Z. Phys. C 70 (1996), pp. 665–672. doi: 10.1007/s002880050141. arXiv: hep-ph/9407282

    1996 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    K. H. Ackermann et al. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001), pp. 402–407. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 86.402. arXiv: nucl-ex/0009011

    2001 doi arXiv

  51. [60]

    P. K. Sahu, N. Otuka, and A. Ohnishi. In: (2002). arXiv: nucl-th/0206010

    2002 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Afanasiev et al

    S. Afanasiev et al. In: Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009), p. 024909. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.024909 . arXiv: 0905.1070 [nucl-ex]

    2009 doi arXiv

  53. [62]

    Richardson

    E. Richardson. In: PoS QNP2012 (2012). Ed. by Bernard Pire, p. 146.doi: 10.22323/1.157.0146. arXiv: 1206.3501 [nucl-ex]

    2012 doi

  54. [63]

    A. K. Yadav, P. P. Bhaduri, and S. Chattopadhyay. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 85.3 (2025), p. 247. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14018-y . arXiv: 2503.02297 [hep-ph]

    2025 doi

  55. [64]

    S. Ryu, S. Jeon, C. Gale, and C. Schenke B.and Young. In: Nucl. Phys. A 904-905 (2013), pp. 389c– 392c. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.02.031. arXiv: 1210.4588 [hep-ph]

    2013 doi arXiv

  56. [65]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz. In: Phys. Lett. B 658 (2008), pp. 279–283. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2007.11.019. arXiv: 0709.0742 [nucl-th]

    2008 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    Song and U

    H. Song and U. W. Heinz. In: Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008), p. 064901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.77. 064901. arXiv: 0712.3715 [nucl-th]. 22

    2008 doi arXiv

  58. [67]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. In: Phys. Rev. C 96.4 (2017), p. 044904. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044904. arXiv: 1701.07065 [nucl-ex]

    2017 doi arXiv

  59. [68]

    Hagedorn

    R. Hagedorn. In: Nuovo Cim. Suppl. 3 (1965), pp. 147–186

    1965

  60. [69]

    Broniowski and W

    W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski. In: Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000), pp. 223–227. doi: 10.1016/ S0370-2693(00)00992-8. arXiv: hep-ph/0004104

    2000 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Broniowski, W

    W. Broniowski, W. Florkowski, and L. Ya. Glozman. In: Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), p. 117503. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.117503. arXiv: hep-ph/0407290

    2004 doi arXiv

  62. [71]

    T. D. Cohen and V. Krejcirik. In: J. Phys. G 39 (2012), p. 055001. doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/ 39/5/055001. arXiv: 1107.2130 [hep-ph]

    2012 doi arXiv

  63. [72]

    Cleymans and D

    J. Cleymans and D. Worku. In: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 26 (2011), pp. 1197–1209. doi: 10.1142/ S0217732311035584. arXiv: 1103.1463 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Kiyomichi

    A. Kiyomichi. In: 20th Lake Louise Winter Institute: Fundamental Interactions . 2005, pp. 184–

    2005

  65. [74]

    doi: 10.1142/9789812774422_0023

    doi

  66. [75]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. In: (2025). arXiv: 2504.04796 [nucl-ex]

    2025

  67. [76]

    Turbide, C

    S. Turbide, C. Gale, E. Frodermann, and U. Heinz. In: Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008), p. 024909. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.024909. arXiv: 0712.0732 [hep-ph]

    2008 doi arXiv

  68. [77]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010), p. 132301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104. 132301. arXiv: 0804.4168 [nucl-ex]

    2010 doi arXiv

  69. [78]

    Afanasiev et al

    S. Afanasiev et al. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), p. 152302. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109. 152302. arXiv: 1205.5759 [nucl-ex]

    2012 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    Csan´ ad, M

    M. Csan´ ad, M. I. Nagy, Z. Jiang, and T. Cs¨ org˝ o. In:Phys. Part. Nucl. 51.3 (2020), pp. 274–277. doi: 10.1134/S1063779620030090. arXiv: 1910.04660 [hep-ph]

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    Csan´ ad, M

    M. Csan´ ad, M. I. Nagy, Z. F. Jiang, and T. Cs¨ org˝ o. In:Gribov-90 Memorial Volume, pp. 275-296 (2021). doi: 10.1142/9789811238406_0024. arXiv: 1909.02498 [nucl-th]

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    Cs¨ org˝ o and G

    T. Cs¨ org˝ o and G. Kasza. In: Gribov-90 Memorial Volume, pp. 297-318 (2021). doi: 10.1142/ 9789811238406_0025. arXiv: 2003.08859 [nucl-th]. 23

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed May 19, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.