Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

Polarization of the $\phi$ meson in the hadronic phase with nucleon scatterings and a viscous hydrodynamic background

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hadronic rescattering cannot explain the phi meson spin alignment seen in heavy-ion collisions.

desk verdict Clean null result: hadronic kaon and nucleon rescattering cannot explain STAR's phi spin alignment, but the unquantified pion and multi-kaon channels keep the exclusion narrower than the conclusion suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19228 v1 pith:WOLVYQK3 submitted 2025-07-25 hep-ph nucl-th

Eduardo Grossi , Andrea Palermo , Ismail Zahed This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords phimesonspinalignmentrho00densitymatrixhadronicrescatteringnucleonscatteringkaonvirialexpansionviscoushydrodynamicsheavyioncollisions
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 late-stage interactions in the hadronic phase of a heavy-ion collision can produce the large out-of-plane spin alignment of the phi meson reported by the STAR experiment. The authors compute the phi emission rate from a thermal strange-current correlation function, including rescattering with kaons and, new here, with nucleons and the N(1880) resonance, on top of viscous dissipative corrections. The rates are integrated over a realistic (2+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic background simulated with the Fluidum code, with coupling constants fixed by fitting phi transverse momentum spectra independently of the alignment data. The result is that every contribution -- kaon rescattering, viscous corrections, and nucleon scattering -- leaves $\rho_{00}$ consistent with $1/3$, with nucleon scattering essentially negligible unless the phi-nucleon couplings are enlarged by an order of magnitude. The paper concludes that hadronic-phase rescattering cannot explain the observed phi alignment, so its origin must lie in the earlier, pre-hadronic stages of the collision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the thermal strange-current propagator $W^F_{\mu\nu}(q) = (1/Z)\,\mathrm{Tr}\,\left[e^{-\beta H} T(J^s_\mu(x) J^s_\nu(0))\right]$, organized as a virial expansion (Eq. (3)) over the most populated hadronic states: vacuum, kaons, and nucleons. The imaginary part of this propagator, contracted with polarization vectors, yields the polarized phi emission rate, and the spin density matrix is the spacetime-integrated ratio of these rates. The argument is carried by the truncation of the expansion to kaon and nucleon states, the tree-level $\phi NN$ amplitudes with Dirac and Pauli couplings, and the viscous hydrodynamic background (Fluidum) over which the rates are integrated, with parameters tuned to phi spectra.

What would settle it

Evaluate the OZI-suppressed pion-strangeness contribution to Eq. (3) (the term set aside in Section II): if it moves $\rho_{00} - 1/3$ by more than about $10^{-2}$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 11.5$ GeV, the truncation of the virial expansion is incomplete and the paper's conclusion would not survive. Alternatively, a high-statistics measurement of the $q_T$ dependence of $\rho_{00}$ in the low-energy scan that resolves a deviation from $1/3$ larger than the model's few-permille prediction would indicate a missing hadronic mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working from a virial expansion of the thermal strange-current propagator, the paper computes the polarized emission rate of the phi meson as the sum of a spin-independent vacuum term, a kaon rescattering term, a viscous correction, and a new nucleon rescattering term built from a minimal $\phi NN$ Lagrangian with Dirac and Pauli couplings. These rates enter the spin density matrix $\rho_{\sigma\sigma'}$, which is integrated over the hadronic phase of a simulated viscous fluid for beam energies $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 11.5$ to 200 GeV. The authors find that $\rho_{00}$ stays essentially equal to $1/3$ for every energy and for both in-plane and out-of-plane quantization axes. The kaon term gives the largest effect, viscous corrections are subleading, and the nucleon contribution is negligible: matching the STAR data would require enlarging the phi-nucleon coupling by a factor of about ten beyond the OZI-suppressed values fixed by the Nijmegen hyperon-nucleon potential. Since the free parameters were tuned to reproduce phi transverse momentum spectra, the null alignment is a prediction made without reference to the spin data, and the conclusion is that the large measured alignment must originate in the earlier stages of the collision rather than in hadronic rescattering.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the virial expansion of the thermal strange-current propagator, truncated to vacuum, kaon, and nucleon states, captures every relevant hadronic-phase rescattering contribution to the phi spin alignment; if pion strangeness or multihadron states contribute non-negligibly, the integrated $\rho_{00}$ could shift away from $1/3$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive measurement of $\rho_{00} - 1/3$ for the phi meson cannot be explained by kaon or nucleon rescattering, nor by shear and bulk viscous corrections, in the hadronic phase.
  • Nucleon scattering contributes negligibly even at low beam energy (11.5 GeV) where baryon density is highest; reproducing the data would require phi-nucleon couplings roughly ten times larger than the OZI-suppressed values adopted here.
  • The predicted alignment is isotropic: the same $\rho_{00} \simeq 1/3$ appears for in-plane and out-of-plane quantization axes, in tension with both STAR alignment measurements.
  • Because the parameters are fixed by phi transverse momentum spectra, the near-zero alignment prediction does not come from fitting the spin data, so the mismatch with STAR is a genuine predictive failure of late-stage equilibrium mechanisms.
  • The conclusion directs the search for the phi alignment mechanism to the pre-hadronic or early-time stage of the collision, such as strong-field fluctuations, rather than to hadronic physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same virial-expansion machinery could be applied to the $K^{*0}$ meson, whose measured spin alignment is consistent with zero; a near-zero prediction for $K^{*0}$ would match that observable and make it a control channel that sharpens the species-specific nature of the phi puzzle.
  • The truncation to vacuum, kaon, and nucleon states leaves out pion strangeness (dismissed as OZI-suppressed) and multihadron states; quantifying the pion's strangeness content from lattice or chiral models is a direct test of whether the near-zero prediction could shift.
  • The paper's negative result strengthens the case for early-time mechanisms such as strong-field fluctuations; confronting those models with the measured $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of the alignment would be a concrete next step.
  • At the highest beam energies the discrepancy with STAR is smaller, so the energy dependence of the model's prediction could be used to isolate whether a late-stage contribution grows at low energy, where the data deviate most.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the spin density matrix element rho_00 of the phi meson produced in heavy-ion collisions, extending a previous kaon-rescattering calculation to include nucleon scatterings and a realistic (2+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic background from the Fluidum code. The rates are based on a virial expansion of the thermal strange-current propagator truncated to vacuum, kaon, and nucleon intermediate states, with viscous corrections estimated in the Navier-Stokes limit. Free parameters (the vector-meson coupling G_V and the initial-state normalization) are fixed by fitting phi-meson transverse momentum spectra at six collision energies, independently of the spin alignment data. The resulting rho_00 is found to be consistent with 1/3 for both local and global observables, in contrast to the positive out-of-plane alignment reported by STAR. Individual contributions are decomposed in Figure 5, showing that kaon rescattering dominates, viscous corrections are subleading, and nucleon contributions are negligible even when artificially enhanced by a factor of ten. The authors conclude that the hadronic-phase mechanisms considered are insufficient to explain the measured phi spin alignment and that its origin must lie in earlier stages of the collision.

Significance. If the central result stands, it provides a useful negative constraint on hydrodynamic/equilibrium mechanisms for phi spin alignment, sharpening the case that the STAR signal requires physics beyond late-stage hadronic rescattering (e.g., initial-state strong-field fluctuations). The paper has several strengths: the parameters are tuned to phi spectra rather than to alignment data, giving the prediction a falsifiable character; the use of a realistic hydrodynamic background and multiple beam energies makes the study more comprehensive than the previous static/Bjorken treatment; and the explicit decomposition of kaon, viscous, and nucleon contributions, including a tenfold enhancement test, makes the numerical smallness of the nucleon effect transparent. The main weakness is that the negative conclusion rests on the completeness of the truncated virial expansion: omitted strangeness channels (notably pion contributions and multi-kaon states) are not quantitatively bounded, so the stronger final claim that the origin must lie in earlier stages goes beyond what the calculation demonstrates. This is fixable by softening the conclusion and adding estimates of the omitted channels.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (3); Sec. V] The central negative claim that hadronic-phase interactions cannot explain the observed spin alignment depends on the completeness of the virial expansion in Eq. (3), truncated to vacuum, single-kaon, and single-nucleon intermediate states. Pions are dismissed in Sec. II solely by an OZI-suppression argument against Ref. [38], with no numerical estimate. At T around 150 MeV the pion density exceeds the kaon density by roughly a factor of five, so an OZI suppression factor of order 1/20 would make the pion contribution comparable to the kaon contribution. Likewise, two-kaon (e.g., K Kbar -> phi) and kaon-pion intermediate states are of order n_K^2 and are dropped at O(n_K). Because these omitted channels are not bounded, the concluding sentence of Sec. V that the origin of the phi alignment 'must be looked for in the earlier stages of the collision' is stronger than the computed result supports. The quantitative statement that the included mechanisms are insufficient is supported, but the completeness claim needs either a numerical estimate of the omitted channels or a more limited conclusion.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (11); Appendix A] The nucleon contribution is computed from a tree-level effective phi-NN Lagrangian with Dirac and Pauli couplings, using g_phi p = g_phi n = 1 and the nucleon magnetic moments for kappa. These values are not derived from the OZI rule or from a controlled expansion, and no uncertainty or form-factor dependence is given. The tenfold enhancement test in Fig. 5 mitigates this concern for the conclusion that nucleons are negligible, since even a factor of ten leaves the effect small. However, the claim that a factor of ten corresponds to 'unrealistically large couplings' is relative to these ad hoc values; a more systematic exploration of the coupling parameter space (or a lattice/experimental constraint) would strengthen the statement.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (14)] The spacetime integral in Eq. (14) is written as d4V without a precise definition, and the hadronic-phase integration region is specified only as fluid cells with 110 MeV < T < 170 MeV. It is not clear whether the four-volume includes the full space-time history of each fluid cell or only a hypersurface, and how the switching between the hydrodynamic phase and the hadronic phase is implemented. This matters for a quantitative comparison with STAR data and should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I] There is a typo in the introduction: 'alignmnet' should be 'alignment'.
  2. [Sec. III] The text 'initialize the temperature from the Fluid um equation of state' appears to have a broken word; it should read 'Fluidum'.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] In Eq. (8), 'foru-velocity' should be 'four-velocity'.
  4. [Fig. 5] The y-axis of Fig. 5 uses a different scale from Fig. 3, and the text acknowledges this; however, the reader would benefit from a panel with a common scale to directly compare the size of the individual contributions to the final rho_00.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the predicted rho00 is not fit to spin-alignment data; parameters are fixed to phi pT spectra, and the small alignment is a structural output.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction, rho00, is not obtained by fitting the target observable. Section III states: 'We tune our codes independently of spin alignment data, namely on phi transverse momentum dependent spectra,' and the free parameters G_V and the initial-state normalization are fixed by comparing the model to phi pT spectra from refs. [49, 50]. The spin density matrix is then evaluated from Eqs. (13)-(15) using the rates (5), (6), (10), and (12). The leading vacuum/resonance-gas rate, Eq. (5), is explicitly spin-independent, so any nonzero rho00 - 1/3 must come from the density-suppressed kaon, viscous, and nucleon corrections; it is a structural output of the calculation, not an input. The omission of pion strangeness via OZI suppression in Section II is a completeness or correctness concern about the virial expansion in Eq. (3), not a case of the target being defined in terms of the input. The reliance on the authors' earlier papers [27, 35, 36, 39] is ordinary use of prior derivations; no 'uniqueness theorem' is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no equation is defined in terms of rho00. The negative conclusion may be stronger than the computed channels warrant, but overreach is not circularity. Therefore no specific circular reduction can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predictive content of the calculation rests on tuned or externally chosen inputs: per-energy G_V, initial-state normalization, viscosity ratios, the hadronic temperature window, and phi-NN couplings. The virial truncation, vector meson dominance, and tree-level scattering assumptions are imported from prior work and are the main structural assumptions behind the negative result.

free parameters (6)
  • G_V (vector-meson coupling to strange current) = 1.3, 1.6, 1.5, 1.5, 2.0, 2.0 at sqrt(s_NN)=11.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 62.4, 200 GeV (Table I)
    Fitted per collision energy to phi pT spectra via grid search; the non-monotonic energy dependence is not predicted from first principles.
  • initial-state normalization factor = not reported
    Fixed to reproduce absolute phi yields as part of the pT spectrum grid search; the numerical value is not given.
  • eta/s and zeta/s = 0.14, 0.12
    Chosen constant shear and bulk viscosity over entropy density ratios used in Fluidum; not fitted to spin alignment.
  • hadronic phase temperature window = 110 MeV < T < 170 MeV
    Hand-chosen range defining the fluid cells whose emission is integrated; changing the window changes the spacetime integration volume.
  • phi-NN couplings for protons, neutrons, and N(1880) = p,n: g=1, kappa=2.79,-1.91; N(1880): g=-1.47, kappa=-1.65
    Taken from nucleon magnetic moments and the Nijmegen hyperon-nucleon potential; the N(1880) effective coupling carries sizable uncertainty.
  • mu/T matching time for chemical potential evolution = tau = 10 fm
    Bjorken-like evolution of the baryon chemical potential anchored to experimental freeze-out mu/T at tau=10 fm, because Fluidum lacks charge diffusion.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The thermal strange-current propagator can be expanded in a dilute virial series truncated to vacuum, kaon, and nucleon states (Eq. 3).
    The calculation assumes multimeson, multibaryon, and OZI-violating contributions are negligible; pion strangeness is explicitly dismissed as OZI suppressed in Section II.
  • domain assumption Vector meson dominance J_s = (m_phi^2/G_V) phi_mu is valid and converts strange-current correlators into phi emission rates.
    This standard but unproved identification underlies the rate formulas in Section II, especially Eqs. (4) and (5).
  • domain assumption The chiral master formula spectral functions from refs. [35,36] and [27] remain valid for the phi meson in the hadronic medium.
    The kaon and viscous rates in Eqs. (6), (7), and (10) are imported from previous work without re-derivation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The baryon chemical potential evolves as a Bjorken flow matched to experimental freeze-out mu/T at tau=10 fm.
    Fluidum does not implement charge diffusion, so the baryon density history used for nucleon scattering is approximate.
  • domain assumption Tree-level s- and u-channel phi-N amplitudes with effective Dirac and Pauli couplings capture nucleon and resonance scattering (Eq. 11, Appendix A).
    No loop corrections or in-medium modifications are included for the phi-N interaction, and N(1880) is the only baryonic resonance considered.
  • domain assumption The emission-rate weighted density matrix in Eq. (14) equals the observed phi spin alignment, with no final-state scattering or feed-down corrections after emission.
    The measured alignment is identified with the thermally integrated production rate; post-freeze-out spin modifications are neglected.
  • domain assumption Boost-invariant (2+1)D viscous hydrodynamics with Trento initial conditions describes the hadronic phase of the collision.
    This is a standard heavy-ion modeling choice, but it restricts the description to a boost-invariant background and does not include event-by-event spin backgrounds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization of the $\phi$ meson in the hadronic phase with nucleon scatterings and a viscous hydrodynamic background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOLVYQK3

@misc{pith2026250719228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization of the $\phi$ meson in the hadronic phase with nucleon scatterings and a viscous hydrodynamic background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOLVYQK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19228}
}
abstract

We extend our previous work on the spin alignment of the $\phi$ vector meson in the hadronic phase of the Quark Gluon Plasma, by including effects of nucleon scatterings. The emission rates are calculated in a realistic hydrodynamic background simulated with the code Fluid$u$m, for different beam energies. We find that all the effects taken into account cannot explain the out-of-plane spin alignment of the $\phi$ meson observed experimentally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the matter modified vacuum “ϕ-spectral function” entering the emission rates. The vacuum contribution (solid-blue line), is modified by hadronic correlations at T = 150 MeV (dashed-orange line) mostly by rescattering with kaons, and by a baryon chemical potential µB/T = 6 (green-dotted line) by rescattering through nucleons. As stable hadronic matter is mostly dom￾inated by pions, kaons and nucleons, strangene… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Transverse momentum dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Local ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Collision energy dependence of the spin density matrix. Experimental data from ref [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The different components contributing to spin alignment are shown individually. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    J. V. Steele, H. Yamagishi, and I. Zahed, Phys. Lett. B 384, 255 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9603290

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

  2. [1]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2402.04540 [nucl-th]. 14 I(JPC ) m[MeV] f[MeV] Γ 0[MeV] MBR ω 0(1−−) 782.66 44 .26 8.68 3 mπ ϕ 0(1−−) 1019.461 −81.53 4.249 2 mK ω(1420) 0(1 −−) 1410 290 290 mρ +mπ ϕ(1680) 0(1 −−) 1680 150 150 2 mK +mπ ω(1650) 0(1 −−) 1670 315 315 mπ +mρ ϕ(2170) 0(1 −−) 2164 106 106 mϕ + ...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Chen, Z.-T

    J.-H. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y.-G. Ma, X.-L. Sheng, and Q. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68, 211001 (2025), arXiv:2407.06480 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [3]

    ϕ-spectral function

    in AuAu collisions. On one hand, one sees that for the ϕ meson ρ00− 1/3 > 0, indicating a ∗ eduardo.grossi@unifi.it † andrea.palermo@stonybrook.edu ‡ ismail.zahed@stonybrook.edu arXiv:2507.19228v1 [hep-ph] 25 Jul 2025 2 positive alignment especially for low collision energy. On the other, for K∗ 0 one finds that the spin alignment is consistent with zero ...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Nature 614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 012301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14408 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 815, 136146 (2021), arXiv:2005.11128 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 042303 (2023), arXiv:2204.10171 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Zhang, X.-G

    Z.-H. Zhang, X.-G. Huang, F. Becattini, and X.-L. Sheng, (2024), arXiv:2412.19416 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Kumar, D.-L

    A. Kumar, D.-L. Yang, and P. Gubler, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054038 (2024), arXiv:2312.16900 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Wagner, N

    D. Wagner, N. Weickgenannt, and E. Speranza, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013187 (2023), arXiv:2207.01111 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Wagner, N

    D. Wagner, N. Weickgenannt, and E. Speranza, Phys. Rev. D 108, 116017 (2023), arXiv:2306.05936 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    K. J. Gon¸ calves, G. Torrieri, and R. Ryblewski, Phys. Rev. C 112, 014901 (2025), arXiv:2410.16448 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    P. H. De Moura, K. J. Goncalves, and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034032 (2023), arXiv:2305.02985 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Yang, R.-H

    Y.-G. Yang, R.-H. Fang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034917 (2018), arXiv:1711.06008 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 096005 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 099903 (2022)], arXiv:1910.13684 [nucl-th]. 15

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, X.-G. Huang, and H. Zhong Huang, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136325 (2021), arXiv:2010.01474 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Sheng, S.-Y

    X.-L. Sheng, S.-Y. Yang, Y.-L. Zou, and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 299 (2024), arXiv:2209.01872 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Li, X.-L

    H. Li, X.-L. Xia, X.-G. Huang, and H. Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 044902 (2023), arXiv:2306.02829 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 042304 (2023), arXiv:2205.15689 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Sheng, S

    X.-L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054902 (2023), arXiv:2308.14038 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. M¨ uller, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 076025 (2023), arXiv:2212.13354 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    M¨ uller and D.-L

    B. M¨ uller and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 105, L011901 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 039904 (2022)], arXiv:2110.15630 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. M¨ uller, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 016020 (2023), arXiv:2304.04181 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Yang, Phys

    D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 111, 056005 (2025), arXiv:2411.14822 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Liang and S

    Y. Liang and S. Lin, Chin. Phys. C 49, 084105 (2025), arXiv:2502.05866 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Chen and S

    Z. Chen and S. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074002 (2025), arXiv:2501.16596 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Li and S

    F. Li and S. Y. F. Liu, (2022), arXiv:2206.11890 [nucl-th]

    2022

  21. [28]

    Grossi, A

    E. Grossi, A. Palermo, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. C 111, 014914 (2025), arXiv:2407.10524 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Li, Phys

    F. Li, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064916 (2024), arXiv:2404.02860 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    I. W. Park, H. Sako, K. Aoki, P. Gubler, and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074033 (2023), arXiv:2211.16949 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Sun, Y.-Y

    Z.-Y. Sun, Y.-Y. Li, and S. Y. F. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2503.13408 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Yin, W.-B

    Y.-L. Yin, W.-B. Dong, J.-Y. Pang, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2402.03672 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Zhao, X.-L

    Y.-Q. Zhao, X.-L. Sheng, S.-W. Li, and D. Hou, JHEP 08, 070 (2024), arXiv:2403.07468 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Sheng, Y.-Q

    X.-L. Sheng, Y.-Q. Zhao, S.-W. Li, F. Becattini, and D. Hou, (2024), arXiv:2403.07522 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Yang and X

    D.-L. Yang and X. Yao, (2024), arXiv:2405.20280 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Yamagishi and I

    H. Yamagishi and I. Zahed, Annals Phys. 247, 292 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9503413

    1996 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Kamano, Phys

    H. Kamano, Phys. Rev. D 81, 076004 (2010), arXiv:0909.1606 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    F. L. Braghin, J. Phys. G 49, 055101 (2022), [Erratum: J.Phys.G 50, 119501 (2023)], arXiv:2108.02748 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Liu and I

    Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 96, 116021 (2017), arXiv:1707.08523 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    P. D. Group, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2022, 083C01 (2022), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article-pdf/2022/8/083C01/49175539/ptac097.pdf

    2022

  34. [42]

    V. G. J. Stoks and T. A. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C 59, 3009 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    T. A. Rijken, V. G. J. Stoks, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 59, 21 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    Floerchinger, E

    S. Floerchinger, E. Grossi, and J. Lion, Phys. Rev. C 100, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1811.01870 [nucl-th]. 16

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Devetak, A

    D. Devetak, A. Dubla, S. Floerchinger, E. Grossi, S. Masciocchi, A. Mazeliauskas, and I. Selyuzhenkov, JHEP 06, 044 (2020), arXiv:1909.10485 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Capellino, A

    F. Capellino, A. Dubla, S. Floerchinger, E. Grossi, A. Kirchner, and S. Masciocchi, Phys. Rev. D 108, 116011 (2023), arXiv:2307.14449 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 102, 034909 (2020), arXiv:1906.03732 [nucl-ex]

    2020

  40. [48]

    Bollweg, H

    D. Bollweg, H. T. Ding, J. Goswami, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, and C. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054519 (2024), arXiv:2407.09335 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard, and S. A. Bass, Phys.Rev. C92, 011901 (2015), arXiv:1412.4708 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 79, 064903 (2009), arXiv:0809.4737 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 93, 021903 (2016), arXiv:1506.07605 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.