pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05792 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · ⚛️ nucl-ex · hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Charmonium production in low energy nuclear collisions at SPS and FAIR: achievements \& prospects

Partha Pratim Bhaduri
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex hep-ph
keywords charmonium productionlow energy nuclear collisionscold nuclear matter effectshot medium effectsproduction thresholdSPSFAIR
0
0 comments X

The pith

Charmonium production in low-energy nuclear collisions is shaped by the interplay of cold nuclear matter effects and hot medium suppression, with new near-threshold data expected to reduce model uncertainties.

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

This review examines measurements of charmonium states in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at low energies from experiments at CERN-SPS, Fermilab, and HERA facilities. It analyzes how cold effects such as nuclear absorption and shadowing combine with hot effects such as color screening to influence observed yields. The paper assesses the value of upcoming measurements close to the kinematic production threshold for clarifying remaining uncertainties in current models.

Core claim

The central claim is that a detailed understanding of charmonium production at low collision energies requires considering the combined influence of cold and hot medium effects, and that measurements near the production threshold will be crucial for clarifying the remaining uncertainties in current models.

What carries the argument

The interplay of cold nuclear matter effects (such as absorption and shadowing) and hot medium effects (such as Debye screening and dissociation) on the production and survival of c c-bar bound states.

If this is right

  • Current data can constrain the relative strengths of different suppression mechanisms in nuclear matter.
  • Near-threshold measurements will test models in a regime where production is more sensitive to medium properties.
  • This will improve the reliability of charmonium as a probe of the medium formed in low-energy nuclear collisions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed, the interplay picture could strengthen the interpretation of charmonium data as indicators of medium formation across a wider energy range.
  • These low-energy results may connect to observations at higher energies to build a unified description of quarkonium behavior.
  • The approach could motivate similar threshold studies for other heavy quark bound states.

Load-bearing premise

The existing body of experimental data and theoretical models is sufficiently complete and unbiased to allow a reliable assessment of remaining uncertainties and the expected impact of planned near-threshold measurements.

What would settle it

If new measurements at the planned experiments show charmonium yields or ratios that deviate strongly from predictions of all current models combining cold and hot effects, without an explanation within those models, the assessment of the interplay would be challenged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05792 by Partha Pratim Bhaduri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the muon spectrometer set up employed by view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: J/ψ production cross-sections per nucleon-nucleon collisions, in the di-muon decay channel (Bµµ ≃ 6%) plotted as a function the product of the mass numbers (A × B) of the projectile and target nuclei, measured by the NA38 and NA51 experiments at CERN SPS facility [143, 145]. The 450 GeV data points were rescaled to 200 GeV and reeval￾uated in the corresponding kinematic region. experiments, for various sys… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The raw invariant mass spectrum of opposite-sign di view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: J/ψ (left) and ψ(2S) (right) production cross-sections per target nucleon measured in the di-muon (µ +µ −) decay channel, from the three different NA50 data sets in 400 GeV and 450 GeV p+A collisions analyzed in [148]. The continuous line denotes the result of a simultaneous fit using Glauber model fit with two independent parameters for normalisation and one common parameter for absorption cross-section. … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of the muon spectrometer employed by view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Compilation of the values of the view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of J/ψ production cross section at mid-rapidity (xF = 0) in p+W and pp collisions calculated with EKS98 nPDF scheme, scaled to the Tungsten mass number, and shown as a function of the nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy ( √ sNN). The figure is adopted from [157]. (right) Variation of the central rapidity J/ψ cross section due to nuclear PDFs with the size of nuclear target in 158 GeV p+A collisions… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: √ sNN dependence of the mid-rapidity (ycms = 0) final state J/ψ absorption cross section, as reported in [157]. σ J/ψ abs values are extracted by fitting mid-rapidity J/ψ production cross sections in fixed target p+A collisions at different energies within a Glauber model framework using EKS98 (left) and EPS08 (right) nPDF schemes to model the nuclear modification of parton densities inside the target nucl… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (left) J/ψ/Drell-Yan (DY) cross-section ratios as a function of Npart, independently analyzed using three centrality estimators (ET , EZDC and Nch) measured by the NA50 experiment in 158 A GeV Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS facility. The line corresponds to the normal nuclear absorption pattern evaluated using pure Glauber model with an input absorption cross section of ∼ 4.2 mb. (right) The J/ψ/Drell-Yan (… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (left) J/ψ suppression in Pb+Pb collisions at SPS energy. The solid line denotes the calculation within the static threshold model scenario and the dashed line denotes result only with nuclear absorption. The figure is taken from [162]. (middle) J/ψ suppression in SPS Pb+Pb collisions within the hadronic comover absorption scenario. The figure is adopted from [168]. It is important to note that, both the … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (left) ψ(2S) (designated by ψ ′ in the axis labels)/Drell-Yan cross section ratio as a function of collision centrality (measured in terms of ET ) in 158 A GeV Pb+Pb collisions, for combined data samples collected in the years 1998 and 2000. (right) Centrality dependence of ψ(2S)/J/ψ cross section ratio for the same set of data samples. Both the results are adopted from [107]. was found to explain the ano… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ratio between measured and expected view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (left) Variation of the average p 2 T of J/ψ mesons as a function of L in p+A, S+U and Pb+Pb collisions measured by the NA50 experiment at CERN-SPS facility. (middle) Mean p 2 T and inverse slope parameter temperature (T) vs. L of J/ψ mesons in 158 A GeV Pb+Pb collisions, as reported in [181]. (right) Simultaneous fit to the pT spectra of J/ψ and ψ(2S) mesons following a non boost-invariant blast wave mod… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Second Fourier coefficient v2 of J/ψ as a function of collision centrality, measured in terms of ET (left) and transverse momentum, pT (right) in 158 A GeV Pb+Pb collisions [187]. Statistical uncertainties are denoted by error bars and the systematic uncertainties originating from the determination of event plane resolution are represented by the gray band. in the right panel of view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: (left) The acceptance corrected pT distribution of J/ψ mesons produced in 158 A GeV In+In collisions. The lines correspond to the exponential fits (∝ e −mT /T ) to the spectra in various centrality bins as well as centrality integrated spectra. (middle) The L-dependence of the < p 2 T >J/ψ in 158 A GeV In+In and Pb+Pb (two data sets corresponding to two different data taking periods) collisions. (right) C… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The polarization of J/ψ mesons produced in 158 A GeV In+In collisions, adopted from [176], as a function of pT (left), ycms (middle) and centrality expressed in terms of Npart (right), measured by the NA60 Collaboration. ularly focusing on the J/ψ meson, have been carried out in p+A and A+A collisions at the SPS. The most intrigu￾ing results obtained from SPS are possibly the discovery of anomalous J/ψ su… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Azimuthal distribution of J/ψ produced in 158 A GeV In+In collisions for (left) central and (right) peripheral events. The corresponding values of elliptic anisotropy, v2 estimated via the event plane method are also shown, after correcting for the event plane resolution, as reported in [176] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: J/ψ survival probability, SJ/ψ (left panel) and ψ(2S)/J/ψ ratio in the di-muon decay channel (right panel) as a function of Npart in 25 A GeV Au+Au collisions, as calculated by the HSD transport model. The figure is taken from [193]. The violet lines (with open dots) mimic the QGP threshold melting scenario for critical energy densities, εψ ′ = 6.55 GeV/fm3 , εχc = 2 GeV/fm3 and εJ/ψ = 16 GeV/fm3 . The ma… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Centrality dependence of the J/ψ nuclear modifi￾cation factor (RAA) in √ sNN = 7.7 GeV Au+Au collisions, as calculated in [197]. The black dotted line incorporates only normal nuclear absorption. Combined suppression ef￾fects to due QGP and hadronic phases are shown by the red solid line.The blue solid line assumes no QGP formation and charmonium suppression induced only by norml nuclear ab￾sorption and i… view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Collision energy dependence of the charmed hadron yields relative to the charm quark pair yield for two theoretically view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Variation of J/ψ RpA as a function of xF in 30 GeV p+Au collisions, adopted from [212]. Different curves cor￾respond to different models of resonance-nucleon inelastic collisions resulting in widely varying dissociation cross sec￾tion in the FAIR energy domain. This ultimately leads to dis￾tinguishably different J/ψ suppression patterns, as a func￾tion of xF. fast J/ψ will form late outside the target. At… view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Scaling plot for the available data on inclusive view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Multiplicity of strange and charmed hadrons as view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The foreseen setup of the NA60+/DiCE experiment at CERN SPS [ view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Foreseen statistics of J/ψ signal measured in Pb+Pb collisions by the NA60+ spectrometer, as a function of the integrated beam luminosity (Lint), for different values of the incident beam energy. The figure is adopted from [138]. proton beam. The use of Be, Cu and Pb targets is presently foreseen as default. The individual target thicknesses will be chosen to collect comparable event statistics for each n… view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: (left) Expected variation of the per nucleon view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Schematic of the CBM experimental setup along with the various sub-detectors at FAIR SIS100 accelerator complex. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this article, we review the status of the charmonium production in low energy fixed target proton-nucleus (p-A) and nucleus-nucleus (A-A) collisions as measured by different experimental collaborations at CERN-SPS, Fermilab and HERA accelerator facilities. The interplay of different cold and hot medium effects influencing the production of these $c\bar{c}$ bound states at low collision energies is discussed in detail. Prospect for upcoming charmonium measurements close to kinematic production threshold, in the CBM experiment at FAIR SIS100 and NA60+ experiment at CERN-SPS facilities are also investigated.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of charmonium production in low-energy fixed-target p-A and A-A collisions at CERN-SPS, Fermilab, and HERA. It synthesizes published experimental results, outlines the standard cold-nuclear-matter effects (nuclear absorption, shadowing, Cronin broadening) and hot-medium effects (Debye screening, regeneration), and qualitatively sketches prospects for near-threshold measurements in the CBM experiment at FAIR SIS100 and the NA60+ experiment at CERN-SPS.

Significance. As a literature synthesis rather than an original derivation or model, the paper's value lies in its compilation of existing data sets and its forward-looking discussion of how threshold measurements can constrain the interplay of medium effects. If the cited body of work is represented accurately and without selection bias, the review can serve as a useful reference point for planning and interpreting results from the upcoming CBM and NA60+ programs.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that prospects are 'investigated' but the provided description indicates only qualitative sketches; a sentence clarifying the level of quantitative detail (or lack thereof) would help readers set expectations.
  2. The title uses an ampersand ('achievements & prospects'); spelling out 'and' would align with conventional journal title style.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review of our manuscript and for the positive recommendation to accept it. The referee's summary correctly identifies the paper as a literature synthesis of existing charmonium data from low-energy fixed-target experiments, together with a discussion of cold- and hot-medium effects and prospects for near-threshold measurements at CBM and NA60+.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: review compiles external results only

full rationale

This is a literature review synthesizing published p-A and A-A data on charmonium production, standard cold-nuclear-matter effects (nuclear absorption, shadowing, Cronin broadening), and hot-medium effects (Debye screening, regeneration) from external experiments and models at SPS/Fermilab energies. No new model, quantitative prediction, derivation, or fitted parameter is advanced; all claims reduce to citations of independent prior work. The central statement that topics are discussed is satisfied by the compilation itself, with no self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review paper the manuscript introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all content is drawn from previously published experimental data and models whose validity is assumed rather than re-derived.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5391 in / 1123 out tokens · 40755 ms · 2026-05-08T03:28:47.266570+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

234 extracted references · 208 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. S. Bhalerao, doi:10.5170/CERN-2014-001.219 [arXiv:1404.3294 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2014-001.219 2014

  2. [2]

    Andronic, Int

    A. Andronic, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29(2014), 1430047 doi:10.1142/S0217751X14300476 [arXiv:1407.5003 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x14300476 2014

  3. [3]

    Properties of hot and dense matter from relativistic heavy ion collisions,

    P. Braun-Munzinger, V . Koch, T. Sch ¨afer and J. Stachel, Phys. Rept.621(2016), 76-126 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.003 [arXiv:1510.00442 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.003 2016

  4. [4]

    The exploration of hot and dense nuclear matter: introduction to relativistic heavy-ion physics.J

    H. Elfner and B. M ¨uller, J. Phys. G50(2023) no.10, 103001 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ace824 [arXiv:2210.12056 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ace824 2023

  5. [5]

    J. W. Harris and B. M ¨uller, Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no.3, 247 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12533-y [arXiv:2308.05743 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12533-y 2024

  6. [6]

    Satz, Lect

    H. Satz, Lect. Notes Phys.945(2018), pp.1-288 Springer, 2018, ISBN 978-3-319-71893-4, 978-3-319- 71894-1 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71894-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71894-1 2018

  7. [7]

    Chiral crossover in QCD at zero and non-zero chemical potentials.Phys

    A. Bazavovet al.[HotQCD], Phys. Lett. B795 (2019), 15-21 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.013 [arXiv:1812.08235 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.013 2019

  8. [8]

    H. T. Dinget al.[HotQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) no.6, 062002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.062002 [arXiv:1903.04801 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.062002 2019

  9. [9]

    Acharya, et al., The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C84 (2024) no.8, 813 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12935-y [arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12935-y 2024

  10. [10]

    The phase diagram of dense QCD,

    K. Fukushima and T. Hatsuda, Rept. Prog. Phys. 74(2011), 014001 doi:10.1088/0034-4885/74/1/014001 [arXiv:1005.4814 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/74/1/014001 2011

  11. [11]

    X. Luo, Q. Wang, N. Xu and P. Zhuang, Springer, 2022, ISBN 978-981-19-4440-6, 978-981-19-4443-7, 978-981- 19-4441-3 doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4441-3 35

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4441-3 2022

  12. [12]

    Approaches to the sign problem in lattice field theory

    C. Gattringer and K. Langfeld, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31 (2016) no.22, 1643007 doi:10.1142/S0217751X16430077 [arXiv:1603.09517 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x16430077 2016

  13. [13]

    P. J. Gunkel and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.5, 054022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054022 [arXiv:2106.08356 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.054022 2021

  14. [14]

    Gao and J

    F. Gao and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B820 (2021), 136584 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136584 [arXiv:2010.13705 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136584 2021

  15. [15]

    W. j. Fu, J. M. Pawlowski and F. Ren- necke, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.5, 054032 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054032 [arXiv:1909.02991 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.054032 2020

  16. [16]

    W. j. Fu, X. Luo, J. M. Pawlowski, F. Rennecke and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.3, L031502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L031502 [arXiv:2308.15508 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l031502 2025

  17. [17]

    QCD critical point, Lee-Yang edge singularities, and Padé resummations

    G. Basar, Phys. Rev. C110(2024) no.1, 015203 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.015203 [arXiv:2312.06952 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.015203 2024

  18. [18]

    Galatyuk, Nucl

    T. Galatyuk, Nucl. Phys. A982(2019), 163-169 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.11.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.11.025 2019

  19. [19]

    Charmonium: The model

    E. Eichten, K. Gottfried, T. Kinoshita, K. D. Lane and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D17(1978), 3090 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D21(1980), 313] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.3090

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.17.3090 1978

  20. [20]

    J. J. Aubertet al.[E598], Phys. Rev. Lett.33(1974), 1404-1406 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.33.1404 1974

  21. [21]

    J. E. Augustinet al.[SLAC-SP-017], Phys. Rev. Lett. 33(1974), 1406-1408 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1406

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.33.1406 1974

  22. [22]

    Heavy quarkonium: progress, puzzles, and opportunities

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, B. K. Heltsley, R. V ogt, G. T. Bodwin, E. Eichten, A. D. Frawley, A. B. Meyer, R. E. Mitchell and V . Papadimitriou,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011), 1534 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1534-9 [arXiv:1010.5827 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1534-9 2011

  23. [23]

    G. T. Bodwin, [arXiv:1208.5506 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    A. P. Chen, Y . Q. Ma and H. Zhang, Adv. High Energy Phys.2022(2022), 7475923 doi:10.1155/2022/7475923 [arXiv:2109.04028 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1155/2022/7475923 2022

  25. [25]

    G. A. Schuler, [arXiv:hep-ph/9403387 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  26. [26]

    Quarkonium production in hadronic collisions

    R. Gavai, D. Kharzeev, H. Satz, G. A. Schuler, K. Sridhar and R. V ogt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10(1995), 3043-3070 doi:10.1142/S0217751X95001443 [arXiv:hep-ph/9502270 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x95001443 1995

  27. [27]

    G. A. Schuler and R. V ogt, Phys. Lett. B387(1996), 181-186 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00999-9 [arXiv:hep- ph/9606410 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00999-9 1996

  28. [28]

    J. P. Lansberg, [arXiv:hep-ph/0201111 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  29. [29]

    Fritzsch, Phys

    H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B67(1977), 217-221 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90108-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90108-3 1977

  30. [30]

    Gluck, J

    M. Gluck, J. F. Owens and E. Reya, Phys. Rev. D17 (1978), 2324 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.17.2324

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.17.2324 1978

  31. [31]

    Y . Q. Ma and R. V ogt, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no.11, 114029 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.114029 [arXiv:1609.06042 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.114029 2016

  32. [32]

    S. D. Ellis, M. B. Einhorn and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. Lett.36(1976), 1263 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.36.1263

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.36.1263 1976

  33. [33]

    C. E. Carlson and R. Suaya, Phys. Rev. D14(1976), 3115 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3115

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.3115 1976

  34. [34]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D51(1995), 1125-1171 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 5853] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5853 [arXiv:hep-ph/9407339 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.55.5853 1995

  35. [35]

    Conformal four point functions and the operator product expansion

    N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. B566(2000), 275 doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(99)00693-8 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907240 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550- 2000

  36. [36]

    Schub et al

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

    1995

  37. [37]

    Abe et al

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

    1997

  38. [38]

    Abe et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

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

    1997

  39. [39]

    Affolder et al., [CDF Collaboration], Phys

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

    2094

  40. [40]

    Abachi et al., [D0 Collaboration], Phys

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

    1996

  41. [41]

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

    2020

  42. [42]

    Adam et al., [STAR Collaboration], Phys

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

    2019

  43. [43]

    Trzeciak, [STAR Collaboration], J

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

    2015

  44. [44]

    Acharyaetal., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur

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

    2017

  45. [45]

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

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

    2019

  46. [46]

    Adametal., [ALICE Collaboration], Eur

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

    2016

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

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

    2018

  50. [50]

    Aadetal., [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur

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

    2016

  51. [51]

    Aadetal., [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys

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

    2013

  52. [52]

    Brambillaet al.(Quarkonium Working Group), Heavy Quarkonium Physics 10.5170/CERN-2005-005 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0412158

    N. Brambillaet al.[Quarkonium Working Group], doi:10.5170/CERN-2005-005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0412158 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2005-005 2005

  53. [53]

    Andronic, F

    A. Andronic, F. Arleo, R. Arnaldi, A. Beraudo, E. Bruna, D. Caffarri, Z. Conesa del Valle, J. G. Con- treras, T. Dahms and A. Dainese,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C 76(2016) no.3, 107 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3819-5 [arXiv:1506.03981 [nucl-ex]]. 36

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3819-5 2016

  54. [54]

    J/ψ production and suppression

    R. V ogt, Phys. Rept.310(1999), 197-260 doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00074-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(98)00074-x 1999

  55. [55]

    Kluberg and H

    L. Kluberg and H. Satz, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01539- 7 13 [arXiv:0901.3831 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01539-

  56. [56]

    Andronic, Nucl

    A. Andronic, Nucl. Phys. A931(2014), 135-144 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.10.009 [arXiv:1409.5778 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.10.009 2014

  57. [57]

    Arnaldi, EPJ Web Conf.66(2014), 04001 doi:10.1051/epjconf/20146604001

    R. Arnaldi, EPJ Web Conf.66(2014), 04001 doi:10.1051/epjconf/20146604001

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/20146604001 2014

  58. [58]

    Arnaldi, EPJ Web Conf.97(2015), 00002 doi:10.1051/epjconf/20159700002

    R. Arnaldi, EPJ Web Conf.97(2015), 00002 doi:10.1051/epjconf/20159700002

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/20159700002 2015

  59. [59]

    Scomparin, PoSCHARM2016(2016), 008 doi:10.22323/1.289.0008 [arXiv:1611.02557 [nucl-ex]]

    E. Scomparin, PoSCHARM2016(2016), 008 doi:10.22323/1.289.0008 [arXiv:1611.02557 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.22323/1.289.0008 2016

  60. [60]

    Arnaldi, Nucl

    R. Arnaldi, Nucl. Phys. A956(2016), 128-135 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.03.033 [arXiv:1604.03139 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.03.033 2016

  61. [61]

    Arnaldi, PoSEPS-HEP2017(2017), 574 doi:10.22323/1.314.0574

    R. Arnaldi, PoSEPS-HEP2017(2017), 574 doi:10.22323/1.314.0574

    work page doi:10.22323/1.314.0574 2017

  62. [62]

    P. P. Bhaduri, AAPPS Bull.30(2020) no.5, 14-18 doi:10.22661/AAPPSBL.2020.30.5.14

    work page doi:10.22661/aappsbl.2020.30.5.14 2020

  63. [63]

    Arnaldi, Springer Proc

    R. Arnaldi, Springer Proc. Phys.250(2020), 121-127 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53448-6 17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53448-6 2020

  64. [64]

    Arnaldi, PoSHardProbes2020(2021), 029 doi:10.22323/1.387.0029

    R. Arnaldi, PoSHardProbes2020(2021), 029 doi:10.22323/1.387.0029

    work page doi:10.22323/1.387.0029 2021

  65. [65]

    Kamionkowski and A

    A. Andronic and R. Arnaldi, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75(2025) no.1, 351-375 doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl- 121423-101041 [arXiv:2501.08290 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl- 2025

  66. [66]

    J/ψ suppression by quark-gluon plasma formation

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B178, 416-422 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8 1986

  67. [67]

    Digal, P

    S. Digal, P. Petreczky and H. Satz, Phys. Rev. D64(2001), 094015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.094015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106017 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.094015 2001

  68. [68]

    Karsch, D

    F. Karsch, D. Kharzeev and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B637(2006), 75-80 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.03.078 [arXiv:hep-ph/0512239 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.03.078 2006

  69. [69]

    and Mukherjee, Swagato and Petreczky, Peter and Rothkopf, Alexander and Weber, Johannes Heinrich

    A. Bazavovet al.[HotQCD], Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.7, 074504 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074504 [arXiv:2308.16587 [hep-lat]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.074504 2024

  70. [70]

    Duari, N

    S. Duari, N. Chaudhuri, S. Sarkar and P. Roy, Eur. Phys. J. A61(2025) no.7, 174 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025- 01628-z [arXiv:2506.23646 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025- 2025

  71. [71]

    Braun-Munzinger and J

    P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B 490(2000), 196-202 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00991- 6 [arXiv:nucl-th/0007059 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)00991- 2000

  72. [72]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A789(2007), 334-356 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.02.013 [arXiv:nucl- th/0611023 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.02.013 2007

  73. [73]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, J. Phys. G35(2008), 104155 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/10/104155 [arXiv:0805.4781 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/10/104155 2008

  74. [74]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, M. K. K ¨ohler, A. Mazeliauskas, K. Redlich, J. Stachel and V . Vislavi- cius, JHEP07(2021), 035 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)035 [arXiv:2104.12754 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2021)035 2021

  75. [75]

    R. L. Thews, M. Schroedter and J. Rafelski, Phys. Rev. C63(2001), 054905 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.054905 [arXiv:hep-ph/0007323 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.63.054905 2001

  76. [76]

    Grandchamp and R

    L. Grandchamp and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B523(2001), 60-66 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01311-9 [arXiv:hep- ph/0103124 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)01311-9 2001

  77. [77]

    Wu and R

    B. Wu and R. Rapp, Universe10(2024) no.6, 244 doi:10.3390/universe10060244 [arXiv:2404.09881 [nucl- th]]

    work page doi:10.3390/universe10060244 2024

  78. [78]

    Rapp and X

    R. Rapp and X. Du, Nucl. Phys. A967(2017), 216-224 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.05.097 [arXiv:1704.07923 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2017.05.097 2017

  79. [79]

    Du and R

    X. Du and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B834(2022), 137414 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137414 [arXiv:2207.00065 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137414 2022

  80. [80]

    Akamatsu, Prog

    Y . Akamatsu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.123 (2022), 103932 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103932 [arXiv:2009.10559 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103932 2022

Showing first 80 references.