pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25838 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Analysis of quarkonium polarization in proton-proton (p-p) collisions at LHC using PYTHIA model

Deekshit Kumar , Ekata Nandy , Biswarup Paul , Subikash Choudhury , Tinku Sinha , Partha Pratim Bhaduri
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords quarkonium polarizationPYTHIA8LHCJ/psiUpsilondetector effectsmuon smearingpp collisions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Detector effects introduce artificial polarization in PYTHIA simulations of quarkonia at the LHC

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quarkonium polarization, extracted from the angular distribution of decay muons, probes the production mechanism of heavy quark bound states in hadronic collisions. This paper employs the PYTHIA8 Monte Carlo generator to compute transverse momentum spectra of J/ψ and Υ(1S) polarization parameters at 7 and 13 TeV in proton-proton collisions, using both helicity and Collins-Soper reference frames at forward rapidity. When detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing are added to replicate experimental conditions, the polarization parameters shift and acquire an artificial component. The corrected simulation outputs are compared directly to recent ALICE measurements, underscoring that uncorrected detector effects can distort interpretations of the underlying production dynamics.

Core claim

The analysis shows that PYTHIA8 simulations of charmonia and bottomonia polarization at LHC energies produce altered polarization parameters once detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing are incorporated, introducing an artificial degree of polarization that must be corrected to match experimental data.

What carries the argument

PYTHIA8 Monte Carlo generator with added detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing applied to quarkonium production and decay

If this is right

  • Polarization parameters measured in data require explicit corrections for detector effects to reflect true production mechanisms.
  • Uncorrected smearing can produce misleading non-zero polarization values even when the underlying process is unpolarized.
  • The artificial polarization effect appears in both J/ψ and Υ(1S) at forward rapidities and at both 7 and 13 TeV.
  • Direct comparison with ALICE data confirms that proper correction brings simulation into better agreement with observation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar detector-response modeling may be required when using other generators to predict polarization observables.
  • Analyses of quarkonium polarization in heavy-ion collisions will likely need even finer treatment of smearing because of higher particle densities.
  • Some existing tensions between theory and experiment on polarization could be reduced by consistently including momentum resolution effects.

Load-bearing premise

PYTHIA8 with its default or tuned parameters accurately reproduces the true quarkonium production and decay kinematics before detector effects are applied.

What would settle it

A simulation run in which polarization parameters remain unchanged after adding realistic muon momentum smearing and detector inefficiencies would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25838 by Biswarup Paul, Deekshit Kumar, Ekata Nandy, Partha Pratim Bhaduri, Subikash Choudhury, Tinku Sinha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Left panel: Definition of different reference axes view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The distributions of the cosine of the polar angle ( view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The polarization parameter ( view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The spin density matrix element ( view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The polarization parameters ( view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Angular distributions of smeared muons from view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The polarization parameter view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: J/ view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Single muon efficiency matrix as a function of p view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Dimuon efficiency as a function of cos view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The polarization parameter ( view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Comparison of the polarization parameter view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: A different form of single muon efficiency matrix view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: The polarization parameter ( view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The measurement of polarization serves as an important probe to investigate the production mechanism of quarkonia, the bound state of heavy quark anti-quark (charm or bottom) pairs, in hadronic collisions. In experimental invesigations, the polarization is usually measured by analyzing the anisotropies in the angular distribution of the muons originating from the decay of the quarkonium state. In the present article, we study the charmonia ($J/\psi$) and bottomonia ($\Upsilon(1S)$) polarization at $\sqrt{s} =7 $ and 13 TeV in proton-proton(p-p) collisions at LHC using Monte Carlo (MC) event generator model PYTHIA8, which is based on perturbative QCD. The transverse momentum ($p_{T}$) differential distribution has been calculated at forward rapidity ($2.5 < y_{\mu\mu} < 4.0$) and the polarization parameters are estimated in Helicity and Collins-Sooper reference frames. In addition, to mimic realistic experimental conditions, we have incorporated, in PYTHIA simulations, effects like detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing. These contributions alter the polarization parameters, introducing an artificial degree of polarization, if not properly corrected for. The simulation results have been compared with the recent ALICE measurements for quarkonia polarization in p-p collisions at LHC energy regime.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses the PYTHIA8 Monte Carlo event generator to simulate J/ψ and Υ(1S) production in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 13 TeV. It computes p_T-differential cross sections at forward rapidity (2.5 < y_μμ < 4) and extracts the polarization parameters λ_θ, λ_φ, and λ_θφ in both the Helicity and Collins-Soper frames. Detector effects (inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing) are applied to the simulated events, and the resulting shifts in the polarization parameters are interpreted as artificial polarization that must be corrected for. The simulated results are compared to published ALICE data.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work provides a concrete demonstration that realistic detector response can bias extracted quarkonium polarization parameters, which is relevant for interpreting production mechanisms in hadronic collisions. The approach leverages a publicly available generator (PYTHIA8) for reproducibility and directly addresses an experimental systematic that is often under-quantified in polarization analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation setup and results sections] The central claim that detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing introduce artificial polarization (abstract and results) rests on the assumption that the baseline PYTHIA8 kinematics (before detector response) accurately represent the true decay angular distributions. No validation of the generated cosθ or φ distributions against data or alternative models is presented prior to applying smearing, so shifts in λ parameters cannot be unambiguously attributed to detector effects rather than generator modeling choices.
  2. [Results and comparison with ALICE data] The manuscript provides no quantitative values, uncertainties, or error-propagation details for the polarization parameters before versus after detector effects (abstract states results are compared to ALICE but does not report extracted λ values or fit quality). This absence prevents assessment of the magnitude of the reported artificial polarization and its statistical significance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The abstract and text use inconsistent frame naming ('Collins-Sooper' vs. standard 'Collins-Soper'); standardize throughout.
  2. [Analysis method] No description is given of the exact procedure used to extract polarization parameters from the simulated muon angular distributions (e.g., likelihood fit, moment method, or binning).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation setup and results sections] The central claim that detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing introduce artificial polarization (abstract and results) rests on the assumption that the baseline PYTHIA8 kinematics (before detector response) accurately represent the true decay angular distributions. No validation of the generated cosθ or φ distributions against data or alternative models is presented prior to applying smearing, so shifts in λ parameters cannot be unambiguously attributed to detector effects rather than generator modeling choices.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the baseline angular distributions would strengthen the attribution of the observed shifts. The primary objective of the study is to quantify the relative change in extracted polarization parameters induced by realistic detector response (inefficiencies and momentum smearing) within the PYTHIA8 framework, which is a standard perturbative QCD-based generator used in the field. The baseline represents the generator-level prediction, and the difference after detector simulation isolates the artificial polarization effect. To address the concern, we will revise the manuscript to include direct comparisons of the generated cosθ and φ distributions (before detector effects) against available ALICE data and, where relevant, against alternative models such as NRQCD or other event generators. This will clarify that the reported shifts are due to detector response on top of the PYTHIA8 baseline. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and comparison with ALICE data] The manuscript provides no quantitative values, uncertainties, or error-propagation details for the polarization parameters before versus after detector effects (abstract states results are compared to ALICE but does not report extracted λ values or fit quality). This absence prevents assessment of the magnitude of the reported artificial polarization and its statistical significance.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the absence of explicit numerical values and uncertainties limits the ability to assess the magnitude and significance of the artificial polarization. In the revised version, we will add tables (or detailed supplementary figures) reporting the extracted values of λ_θ, λ_φ, and λ_θφ with statistical and systematic uncertainties in both the Helicity and Collins-Soper frames, before and after applying detector effects. We will also include the χ²/dof values for the fits to the angular distributions and propagate the uncertainties from the detector simulation into the final λ parameters. These additions will allow direct quantitative comparison with the ALICE measurements and evaluation of the size of the correction needed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; relies on external PYTHIA8 generator and direct ALICE data comparison.

full rationale

The paper generates J/ψ and Υ(1S) events with the publicly documented PYTHIA8 Monte Carlo generator (based on pQCD), applies parameterized detector inefficiencies and muon momentum smearing, extracts the angular distribution parameters λ_θ, λ_φ, λ_θφ in the Helicity and Collins-Soper frames, and compares the resulting p_T spectra to published ALICE measurements at 7 and 13 TeV. No polarization observable is fitted inside the paper, no target quantity is defined in terms of itself, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or internal ansatz. The claim that detector effects can induce spurious polarization is a direct numerical outcome of the simulation chain rather than a re-derivation of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the PYTHIA8 implementation of perturbative QCD for quarkonium production and on the assumption that detector response can be modeled by simple inefficiency and smearing factors without additional data-driven tuning.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Perturbative QCD is sufficient to describe the production of heavy quarkonia in proton-proton collisions at LHC energies.
    Stated in the abstract as the basis for using PYTHIA8.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1235 out tokens · 73474 ms · 2026-05-07T15:50:50.587638+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The ratios of yields between different angular bins are then used to infer the polarization parameters

    Population counting method In thepopulation countingorbin-by-bin ratio method, the (cosθ, ϕ) space is divided into discrete bins, and the number of signal events in each bin is counted. The ratios of yields between different angular bins are then used to infer the polarization parameters. This method provides an intuitive way to visualize the angular depe...

  2. [2]

    = 3 4 3λθ 3 +λ θ (7) 5 N((cos 2ϕ)>0)−N((cos 2ϕ)<0 N((cos 2ϕ)>0) +N((cos 2ϕ)<0) = 2 π 2λϕ 3 +λ θ (8) N(sin(2θ) cosϕ >0)−N(sin(2θ) cosϕ <0) N(sin(2θ) cos 2ϕ >0) +N(sin(2θ) cos 2ϕ <0) = 2λθϕ 3 +λ θ (9) The advantage of this method is that it is simple and less dependent on fitting assumptions but limited precision due to discrete bin counting and may not ful...

  3. [3]

    Average angular distribution method: The average angular distribution method relies on computing mean values of trigonometric functions of the decay angles, such as⟨cos 2 θ⟩,⟨sin 2 θcos 2ϕ⟩, and⟨sin 2θcosϕ⟩, which are directly related to the polarization parameters: In this methodλpolarization parameters are esti- mated following the Eqs. [10, 11 & 12] gi...

  4. [4]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, B. K. Heltsley, R. Vogt, G. T. Bodwin, E. Eichten, A. D. Frawley, A. B. Meyer, R. E. Mitchell and V. Papadimitriouet al. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1534 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    V. G. Kartvelishvili, A. K. Likhoded, and S. R. Slabospit- sky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 28:678, 1978. [Yad. Fiz. 28, 1315 (1978)]

    1978

  6. [6]

    Baier and R

    R. Baier and R. Ruckl, Z. Phys., C19:251, 1983

    1983

  7. [7]

    E. W. Nigel Glover, Alan D. Martin, and W. James Stir- ling, Z. Phys., C38:473, 1988. [Erratum: Z. Phys. C49, 526 (1991)]

    1988

  8. [8]

    Schub et al

    M.H. Schub et al. [E789 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 52, 1307 (1995)

    1995

  9. [9]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 572 (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995); [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 55, 5853 (1997)]

    1995

  11. [11]

    Kr¨ amer, Prog

    M. Kr¨ amer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 141 (2001)

    2001

  12. [12]

    Abe et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

    F. Abe et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 572 (1997)

    1997

  13. [13]

    Affolder et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

    T. Affolder et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2094 (2000)

    2094

  14. [14]

    Abachi et al., [D0 Collaboration], Phys

    S. Abachi et al., [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 370, 239 (1996)

    1996

  15. [15]

    U. A. Acharya et al., [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. 12 Rev. D 101, 052006 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Adam et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys

    J. Adam et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 100, 052009 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Trzeciak, [STAR Collaboration], J

    B. Trzeciak, [STAR Collaboration], J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 612, 012038 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    Acharyaetal., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur

    S. Acharyaetal., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 392 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Acharyaetal., [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 10, 084 (2019)

    S. Acharyaetal., [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 10, 084 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Adametal., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur

    J. Adametal., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 184 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    Aaijetal., [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 10, 172 (2015); [erratum: JHEP 05, 063 (2017)]

    R. Aaijetal., [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 10, 172 (2015); [erratum: JHEP 05, 063 (2017)]

    2015

  22. [22]

    Aaijetal., [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 07, 134 (2018); [erratum: JHEP 05, 076 (2019).]

    R. Aaijetal., [LHCb Collaboration], JHEP 07, 134 (2018); [erratum: JHEP 05, 076 (2019).]

    2018

  23. [23]

    A. M. Sirunyanetal., [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 780, 251 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Aadetal., [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur

    G. Aadetal., [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 283 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Aadetal., [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys

    G. Aadetal., [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 87, 052004 (2013)

    2013

  26. [26]

    Fritzsch, Phys

    H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B 67, 217 (1977)

    1977

  27. [27]

    Halzen, Phys

    F. Halzen, Phys. Lett. B 69, 105 (1977)

    1977

  28. [28]

    Gluck, J

    M. Gluck, J. F. Owens and E. Reya, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2324 (1978)

    1978

  29. [29]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Russ, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 64, 221 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    S. P. Baranov and A. V. Lipatov, Phys. Rev. D 96,034019 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    Beneke and M

    M. Beneke and M. Kr¨ amer, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5269 (1997)

    1997

  32. [32]

    P. L. Cho and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 346, 129 (1995)

    1995

  33. [33]

    Braaten et al., Phys

    E. Braaten et al., Phys. Rev. D 54, 3216 (1996)

    1996

  34. [34]

    Lansberg et al., Int

    J.-P. Lansberg et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 3857 (2006)

    2006

  35. [35]

    Ma and R

    Y.-Q. Ma and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 114029 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    T. H. Chang et al., [NuSea Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 211801 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    C. N. Brown et al., [NuSea Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2529 (2001)

    2001

  38. [38]

    Abt et al., [HERA-B Collaboration], Eur

    I. Abt et al., [HERA-B Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 517 (2009)

    2009

  39. [39]

    Abulencia et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

    A. Abulencia et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 99, 132001 (2007)

    2007

  40. [40]

    Affolder et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

    T. Affolder et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2886 (2000)

    2000

  41. [41]

    Acosta et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

    D. Acosta et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 161802 (2002)

    2002

  42. [42]

    Aaltonen et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

    T. Aaltonen et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 151802 (2012)

    2012

  43. [43]

    V. M. Abazov et al., [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 182004 (2008)

    2008

  44. [44]

    Adare et al., [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys

    A. Adare et al., [PHENIX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 82, 012001 (2010)

    2010

  45. [45]

    Adamczyk et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys

    L. Adamczyk et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Lett.B 739, 180 (2014)

    2014

  46. [46]

    Adam et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys

    J. Adam et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 102, 092009 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    Abelev et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Phys

    B. Abelev et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 082001 (2012)

    2012

  48. [48]

    Acharya et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur

    S. Acharya et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 562 (2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    Acharya et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Phys

    S. Acharya et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 815, 136146 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    Acharya et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Phys

    S. Acharya et al., [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 042303 (2023)

    2023

  51. [51]

    Etzion et al., [ATLAS Collaboration], Nucl

    E. Etzion et al., [ATLAS Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 187, 136 (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    Aaij et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Eur

    R. Aaij et al., [LHCb Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2631 (2013)

    2013

  53. [53]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2872 (2014)

    2014

  54. [54]

    Chatrchyan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys

    S. Chatrchyan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 727, 381 (2013)

    2013

  55. [55]

    Chatrchyan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys

    S. Chatrchyan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 081802 (2013)

    2013

  56. [56]

    Khachatryan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys

    V. Khachatryan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 761, 31 (2016)

    2016

  57. [57]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 082001 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C, 78, 562 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C, 73, 11 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    Lansberg, Phys

    J.-P. Lansberg, Phys. Rept. 889, 1-106 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Bhagyarathi Sahoo et al., Phys. Rev. C 109, 034910 (2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    Pythia8 online manual:(https://pythia.org/latest- man- ual/Welcome.html)

  63. [63]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. He- lenius, P. Ilten, L. L¨ onnblad, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel and C. T. Preuss, et al., SciPost Phys. Codebases 8 (2022)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867

    2008

  65. [65]

    Andersson et al., Physics Reports, 97, 31–145 (1983)

    B. Andersson et al., Physics Reports, 97, 31–145 (1983)

    1983

  66. [66]

    Sj¨ ostrand and M

    T. Sj¨ ostrand and M. vanZijl, Phys. Rev. D 36, 2019–2041 (1987)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Sj¨ ostrand and P

    T. Sj¨ ostrand and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 53, 0403, (2004),

    2004

  68. [68]

    Argyropoulos and T

    S. Argyropoulos and T. Sj¨ ostrand, JHEP 11, 043 (2014). arXiv:1407.6653 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Bodwin, E

    G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5853 (1997)

    1997

  70. [70]

    Baier and R

    R. Baier and R. Ruckl, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C Particles and Fields, 19, 251–266 (1983)

    1983

  71. [71]

    Gastmans, W

    R. Gastmans, W. Troost, and T. T. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 184, 257–260 (1987)

    1987

  72. [72]

    Cho and A.K.Leibovich, Phys

    P.L. Cho and A.K.Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6203 (1996)

    1996

  73. [73]

    P.Nason, et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0003142

    work page arXiv

  74. [74]

    Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Eur

    R. Aaij et al., (LHCb Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1645 (2011)

    2011

  75. [75]

    Abelev et al., (ALICE Collaboration), Eur

    B. Abelev et al., (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2974 (2014)

    2014

  76. [76]

    S Acharya et al., (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 62 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    Faccioli, C

    P. Faccioli, C. Lourenco, J. Seixas and H. K. Wohri, Eur. Phys. J. C 69, 657 (2010)

    2010

  78. [78]

    Gottfried and J

    K. Gottfried and J. D. Jackson, Nuovo Cim. 33, 309 (1964)

    1964

  79. [79]

    Sarkar, H

    S. Sarkar, H. Satz and B. Sinha, Lect. Notes Phys. 785 (2010). 13 Appendix: Frame Invariant Measurement It is well established that the polarization parameters λθ,λ φ, andλ θφ, extracted from the angular distribution of quarkonium decays, are frame-dependent i.e., their val- ues can vary significantly depending on the choice of the quantization axis. This...

    2010