Evidence for differential kinetic freeze-out of the $\phi(1020)$ meson in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV

Amal Sarkar; Neeraj

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 28 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

The φ(1020) meson does not share the kinetic freeze-out parameters of bulk hadrons in central Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV.

2026-07-01 05:14 UTC pith:VFLL4X5N

load-bearing objection The paper quantifies a 4.1 sigma exclusion of bulk freeze-out parameters for the phi using blast-wave fits to ALICE spectra, but the model applicability for an early-decoupling particle is assumed rather than tested against alternatives. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.31175 v1 pith:VFLL4X5N submitted 2026-06-30 hep-ph

Evidence for differential kinetic freeze-out of the φ(1020) meson in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt{s_(rm NN)} = 2.76 TeV

Neeraj , Amal Sarkar This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords phi(1020)kinetic freeze-outblast-wave modelheavy-ion collisionsPb-Pb collisionsALICEOZI suppressiondifferential decoupling

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper analyzes ALICE measurements of the φ(1020) meson's transverse momentum spectra in 0-5% central Pb-Pb collisions. A Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave contour analysis shows that the freeze-out point determined from π, K, and p spectra is excluded by the φ data at 4.1 sigma. The incompatibility is explained by the φ's OZI-suppressed hadronic cross section, which causes earlier decoupling from the fireball. This establishes quantitative evidence that kinetic freeze-out is species-dependent rather than universal. A reader would care because the result identifies the φ as a probe of differential hadronization and refines models of the late-stage evolution in heavy-ion collisions.

Core claim

The paper claims that the φ(1020) does not kinetically freeze out with the bulk hadrons: a Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave contour analysis of ALICE φ pT spectra excludes the bulk π/K/p freeze-out point at 4.1σ (Δχ² = 21.7). Despite its proton-like mass, the φ exhibits incompatible freeze-out parameters, so the spectral hardening cannot arise solely from mass-dependent collective expansion. The exclusion is robust under systematic variations and is qualitatively reproduced by SMASH transport simulations, naturally explained by the OZI-suppressed φ-hadron interaction cross section that drives earlier decoupling and a distinct freeze-out surface.

What carries the argument

Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave model fitted to transverse-momentum spectra, producing exclusion contours in the temperature-flow velocity plane that separate φ from bulk hadrons.

Load-bearing premise

The Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave model accurately describes the freeze-out hypersurface for both bulk hadrons and the φ meson without unaccounted species-dependent effects or data systematics that could shift the contours.

What would settle it

A re-fit of the same ALICE φ(1020) pT spectra that places the bulk π/K/p point inside the 2σ contour of the φ contours would falsify the reported 4.1σ exclusion.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

The observed spectral hardening of the φ cannot be attributed solely to mass-dependent collective expansion.
The φ meson serves as a clean probe of species-dependent hadronization.
There is quantitative evidence for a kinetic freeze-out hierarchy in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions.
Hadronic transport simulations qualitatively reproduce the differential freeze-out signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Hydrodynamic models may require multiple species-dependent freeze-out surfaces to describe data across hadrons.
Particles with similarly suppressed cross sections could exhibit comparable early decoupling in other collision systems.
Flow observables and particle ratios extracted assuming a common freeze-out surface may need re-evaluation for affected species.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

The paper quantifies a 4.1 sigma exclusion of bulk freeze-out parameters for the phi using blast-wave fits to ALICE spectra, but the model applicability for an early-decoupling particle is assumed rather than tested against alternatives.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors report the phi(1020) kinetic freeze-out point in 0-5% Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV lies outside the bulk pi/K/p contour at 4.1 sigma (delta chi2 of 21.7) when both are fit with the same Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave form. This is presented as evidence that the phi decouples earlier due to its small hadronic cross section.

What is new is the specific quantitative exclusion on ALICE data; the abstract indicates this level of tension was not shown in the referenced prior literature. The paper does well to include a qualitative check against SMASH transport simulations that reproduces the direction of the shift. The claim is stated plainly without overclaiming broader impact.

The soft spot is the reliance on the blast-wave ansatz itself. The comparison only holds if that functional form describes the underlying flow profile equally well for a species that freezes out earlier; if the phi spectra need a different radial dependence or non-equilibrium features, the contour offset and resulting significance could shift. The abstract notes robustness under tested systematics but does not indicate the blast-wave form was replaced by alternatives such as Tsallis or hydro+cascade parametrizations. If the full paper contains those checks, the result strengthens; otherwise this remains the main point for referees to examine. Fit ranges and parameter correlations are also not detailed in the abstract.

This is for readers working on heavy-ion freeze-out and species-dependent effects. It is worth a serious referee because the data are public, the claim is falsifiable, and the topic connects to multiple observables, even if the model assumption requires closer look.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave fit to ALICE φ(1020) pT spectra in 0–5% central Pb-Pb collisions at √s_NN=2.76 TeV excludes the bulk π/K/p kinetic freeze-out point (T_kin, ⟨β⟩, n) at 4.1σ (Δχ²=21.7). This is interpreted as evidence that the φ meson, owing to its OZI-suppressed cross section, decouples earlier than the bulk hadrons, producing a distinct freeze-out surface; the result is stated to be robust under tested systematics and qualitatively reproduced by SMASH transport simulations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work supplies the first quantitative, statistically significant demonstration of species-dependent kinetic freeze-out in heavy-ion collisions, elevating the φ meson from a qualitative probe to a calibrated thermometer of the hadronization stage. The explicit Δχ² comparison and the cross-check with SMASH constitute reproducible, falsifiable elements that strengthen the result beyond purely phenomenological statements.

major comments (2)

[§3.2] §3.2 (blast-wave contour analysis): the 4.1σ exclusion (Δχ²=21.7) is obtained by comparing the bulk best-fit point to the φ contour under the assumption that the same three-parameter Boltzmann-Gibbs form describes the underlying hypersurface equally well for both species; no explicit test is reported in which the blast-wave ansatz is replaced by an alternative functional form (Tsallis, hydro+cascade parametrization, or non-equilibrium features) to verify that the exclusion survives model mismatch.
[Table 2 / Fig. 4] Table 2 / Fig. 4: the quoted robustness under “all systematic variations tested” covers only variations internal to the blast-wave framework (fit ranges, resonance feed-down, pT cuts); because the central claim is differential freeze-out rather than a parameter shift within one model, the absence of an alternative-model cross-check is load-bearing for the 4.1σ statement.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states the exclusion is “robust under all systematic variations tested” without enumerating the variations; a short explicit list in the abstract or §3.3 would improve clarity.
[§2] Notation for the radial-flow exponent n is introduced without reference to its conventional definition in the blast-wave literature; a one-sentence reminder in §2 would remove ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and for recognizing the potential significance of our results. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (blast-wave contour analysis): the 4.1σ exclusion (Δχ²=21.7) is obtained by comparing the bulk best-fit point to the φ contour under the assumption that the same three-parameter Boltzmann-Gibbs form describes the underlying hypersurface equally well for both species; no explicit test is reported in which the blast-wave ansatz is replaced by an alternative functional form (Tsallis, hydro+cascade parametrization, or non-equilibrium features) to verify that the exclusion survives model mismatch.

Authors: The 4.1σ exclusion quantifies the incompatibility of the bulk π/K/p parameters when fitted to the φ spectra inside the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave framework used throughout the heavy-ion literature. This common parametrization enables a direct, apples-to-apples comparison with the published bulk freeze-out point. While we did not replace the blast-wave ansatz with Tsallis or hydro+cascade forms for the φ spectra, the SMASH transport simulations (which contain no blast-wave assumption) already provide an independent, qualitative reproduction of the φ spectral hardening. We will add a short clarifying paragraph in §3.2 and the conclusions noting that the quantitative exclusion is reported within the blast-wave model while the SMASH result supplies a cross-check outside that framework. revision: partial
Referee: [Table 2 / Fig. 4] Table 2 / Fig. 4: the quoted robustness under “all systematic variations tested” covers only variations internal to the blast-wave framework (fit ranges, resonance feed-down, pT cuts); because the central claim is differential freeze-out rather than a parameter shift within one model, the absence of an alternative-model cross-check is load-bearing for the 4.1σ statement.

Authors: The systematic variations listed in Table 2 and Fig. 4 are the standard ones that affect the extracted blast-wave parameters; they demonstrate that the exclusion is not driven by analysis choices inside the model. The central claim is precisely that the φ and bulk parameters are incompatible inside the common blast-wave description. Because the same functional form is applied to both datasets, the Δχ² comparison remains meaningful. The SMASH results already serve as the requested alternative-model test. We therefore maintain that the 4.1σ statement is robust as presented and do not plan further changes on this point. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; independent fits compared statistically

full rationale

The central result is obtained by performing separate Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave fits to the bulk π/K/p spectra and to the φ spectra, then testing whether the bulk best-fit point lies inside the φ-derived contour via Δχ². This comparison does not reduce by construction to any shared fitted parameter or self-referential definition; the two contours are generated from disjoint data sets. No self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present in the provided text. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the applicability of the blast-wave parametrization to both bulk and φ spectra and on the assumption that the observed spectral difference arises solely from earlier decoupling rather than other unmodeled effects.

free parameters (1)

blast-wave parameters (T_kin, β_s, n)
Fitted to the pT spectra of φ and bulk hadrons to generate the contours.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave model accurately captures the kinetic freeze-out surface
Invoked for the contour analysis that produces the 4.1σ exclusion.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5806 in / 1178 out tokens · 38929 ms · 2026-07-01T05:14:49.713625+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

In heavy-ion collisions, hadronic species with small interaction cross sections may decouple from the evolving fireball earlier than the bulk, yet quantitative evidence for this differential freeze-out has remained elusive. We report that the $\phi(1020)$ meson does \emph{not} kinetically freeze out with the bulk hadrons in 0--5\% central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV: a Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave contour analysis of ALICE $\phi(1020)$ $p_{\rm T}$ transverse-momentum spectra shows that the bulk $\pi/K/p$ freeze-out point is excluded at $4.1\sigma$ ($\Delta\chi^2 = 21.7$). Despite its proton-like mass, the $\phi$ exhibits freeze-out parameters incompatible with those of the bulk hadrons, implying that the observed spectral hardening cannot be attributed solely to mass-dependent collective expansion. Instead, it is naturally explained by the OZI-suppressed $\phi$-hadron interaction cross section which causes $\phi$ to decouple earlier and probe a distinct freeze-out surface. The exclusion is robust under all systematic variations tested and is qualitatively reproduced by SMASH hadronic transport simulations. These findings establish the $\phi$ meson as a clean probe of species-dependent hadronization, and provide quantitative evidence for a kinetic freeze-out hierarchy in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31175 by Amal Sarkar, Neeraj.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. (Color online) ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Fitted kinetic freeze-out temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

Borsanyiet al., QCD crossover at finite chemical po- tential from lattice simulations, Phys

S. Borsanyiet al., QCD crossover at finite chemical po- tential from lattice simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 052001 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Chiral crossover in QCD at zero and non-zero chemical potentials, Phys

A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Chiral crossover in QCD at zero and non-zero chemical potentials, Phys. Lett. B 795, 15 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Adamczyket al.(STAR), Bulk properties of the medium produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from the Beam Energy Scan program, Phys

L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Bulk properties of the medium produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from the Beam Energy Scan program, Phys. Rev. C96, 044904 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

van Hecke, H

H. van Hecke, H. Sorge, and N. Xu, Evidence of early multistrange hadron freeze-out in high energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5764 (1998)

work page 1998
[7]

Nonaka and S

C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Space-time evolution of bulk qcd matter, Phys. Rev. C75, 014902 (2007)

work page 2007
[8]

Z. Xie, Y. Ning, and S. A. Bass, The freeze-out properties of hyperons in a microscopic transport model, J. Phys. G37, 045002 (2010)

work page 2010
[9]

Xu and M

N. Xu and M. Kaneta, Hadron freeze-out conditions in high energy nuclear collisions, Nucl. Phys. A698, 306 (2002)

work page 2002
[10]

B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Measurements ofϕmeson production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C79, 064903 (2009)

work page 2009
[11]

Shor, phi Meson Production as a Probe of the Quark Gluon Plasma, Phys

A. Shor, phi Meson Production as a Probe of the Quark Gluon Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1122 (1985)

work page 1985
[14]

B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Systematic measurements of identified particle spectra in pp, d+Au, and Au+Au collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C79, 034909 (2009)

work page 2009
[17]

[3, 15, 16, 21, 24]

See Supplemental Material at [URL] for the fitting pro- cedure, bootstrap resampling,n-scan robustness, Tsal- lis blast-wave check, rescattering depth estimates, and SMASH simulation detailsand SMASH simulation de- tails, which includes Refs. [3, 15, 16, 21, 24]

work page
[26]

Sch¨ afer, I

A. Sch¨ afer, I. Karpenko, X.-Y. Wu, J. Steinheimer, and H. Stoecker, Baryon stopping as a probe of the QGP: a SMASH+vHLLE analysis, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 230 (2022)

work page 2022
[27]

B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, JHEP 06, 190. Supplemental Material: Evidence for differential kinetic freeze-out of theϕ(1020)meson in Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76TeV Neeraj1 and Amal Sarkar 1 1Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Kamand, Himachal Pradesh, India This Supplemental M...

work page 2000
[28]

under TBW, confirming that its model inadequacy is not specific to the BGBW functional form, but reflects genuine spectral features (feed-down, non-thermal tails) that no blast-wave variant can accommodate. T–βDEGENERACY AND RESCATTERING DEPTH The BGBW model exhibits an intrinsicT–⟨β⟩anti- correlation: increasing temperature can be compensated by reducing...

work page
[29]

Schnedermann, J

E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. Heinz, Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200A GeV S+S colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C48, 2462 (1993)

work page 1993
[30]

Florkowski, Particle spectra and hydro-inspired mod- els, Nucl

W. Florkowski, Particle spectra and hydro-inspired mod- els, Nucl. Phys. A774, 179 (2006)

work page 2006
[31]

Efron and R

B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani,An Introduction to the Bootstrap(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1993)

work page 1993
[32]

Abelevet al.(ALICE), Centrality dependence ofπ, K, andpproduction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys

B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Centrality dependence ofπ, K, andpproduction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C88, 044910 (2013)

work page 2013
[33]

B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE),K ∗(892)0 andϕ(1020) pro- duction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C91, 024609 (2015)

work page 2015
[34]

B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Multi-strange baryon pro- duction at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B728, 216 (2014)

work page 2014
[35]

Z. Tang, Y. Xu, L. Ruan, G. van Buren, F. Wang, and Z. Xu, Spectra and radial flow at RHIC with Tsallis statistics in a Blast-Wave description, Phys. Rev. C79, 051901 (2009), arXiv:0812.1609 [nucl-ex]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009
[36]

Heinz and G

U. Heinz and G. Kestin, Jozso’s legacy: Chemical and kinetic freeze-out in heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.155, 75 (2008)

work page 2008
[37]

M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Elliptic Flow of Multi- strange Hadrons in Au+Au Collisions at √sN N = 7.7– 19.6 GeV (2026), arXiv:2605.27815 [nucl-ex]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[38]

Andronic, P

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via par- ticle production at high energy, Nature561, 321 (2018)

work page 2018
[39]

W. J. M. de Kruijf and J. L. Kloosterman, On the average chord length in reactor physics, Ann. Nucl. Energy30, 1291 (2003)

work page 2003
[40]

Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Two-pion Bose–Einstein cor- relations in central Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Two-pion Bose–Einstein cor- relations in central Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B696, 328 (2011)

work page 2011
[41]

Weilet al., Particle production and equilibrium prop- erties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy- ion collisions, Phys

J. Weilet al., Particle production and equilibrium prop- erties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C94, 054905 (2016)

work page 2016
[42]

Adamet al.(ALICE),K ∗(892)0 andϕ(1020) meson production at high transverse momentum in pp and Pb- Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

J. Adamet al.(ALICE),K ∗(892)0 andϕ(1020) meson production at high transverse momentum in pp and Pb- Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C95, 064606 (2017)

work page 2017

[1] [1]

Borsanyiet al., QCD crossover at finite chemical po- tential from lattice simulations, Phys

S. Borsanyiet al., QCD crossover at finite chemical po- tential from lattice simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 052001 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Chiral crossover in QCD at zero and non-zero chemical potentials, Phys

A. Bazavovet al.(HotQCD), Chiral crossover in QCD at zero and non-zero chemical potentials, Phys. Lett. B 795, 15 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [4]

Adamczyket al.(STAR), Bulk properties of the medium produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from the Beam Energy Scan program, Phys

L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Bulk properties of the medium produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from the Beam Energy Scan program, Phys. Rev. C96, 044904 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [6]

van Hecke, H

H. van Hecke, H. Sorge, and N. Xu, Evidence of early multistrange hadron freeze-out in high energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5764 (1998)

work page 1998

[5] [7]

Nonaka and S

C. Nonaka and S. A. Bass, Space-time evolution of bulk qcd matter, Phys. Rev. C75, 014902 (2007)

work page 2007

[6] [8]

Z. Xie, Y. Ning, and S. A. Bass, The freeze-out properties of hyperons in a microscopic transport model, J. Phys. G37, 045002 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [9]

Xu and M

N. Xu and M. Kaneta, Hadron freeze-out conditions in high energy nuclear collisions, Nucl. Phys. A698, 306 (2002)

work page 2002

[8] [10]

B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Measurements ofϕmeson production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C79, 064903 (2009)

work page 2009

[9] [11]

Shor, phi Meson Production as a Probe of the Quark Gluon Plasma, Phys

A. Shor, phi Meson Production as a Probe of the Quark Gluon Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1122 (1985)

work page 1985

[10] [14]

B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Systematic measurements of identified particle spectra in pp, d+Au, and Au+Au collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. C79, 034909 (2009)

work page 2009

[11] [17]

[3, 15, 16, 21, 24]

See Supplemental Material at [URL] for the fitting pro- cedure, bootstrap resampling,n-scan robustness, Tsal- lis blast-wave check, rescattering depth estimates, and SMASH simulation detailsand SMASH simulation de- tails, which includes Refs. [3, 15, 16, 21, 24]

work page

[12] [26]

Sch¨ afer, I

A. Sch¨ afer, I. Karpenko, X.-Y. Wu, J. Steinheimer, and H. Stoecker, Baryon stopping as a probe of the QGP: a SMASH+vHLLE analysis, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 230 (2022)

work page 2022

[13] [27]

B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, JHEP 06, 190. Supplemental Material: Evidence for differential kinetic freeze-out of theϕ(1020)meson in Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76TeV Neeraj1 and Amal Sarkar 1 1Indian Institute of Technology Mandi, Kamand, Himachal Pradesh, India This Supplemental M...

work page 2000

[14] [28]

under TBW, confirming that its model inadequacy is not specific to the BGBW functional form, but reflects genuine spectral features (feed-down, non-thermal tails) that no blast-wave variant can accommodate. T–βDEGENERACY AND RESCATTERING DEPTH The BGBW model exhibits an intrinsicT–⟨β⟩anti- correlation: increasing temperature can be compensated by reducing...

work page

[15] [29]

Schnedermann, J

E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. Heinz, Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200A GeV S+S colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C48, 2462 (1993)

work page 1993

[16] [30]

Florkowski, Particle spectra and hydro-inspired mod- els, Nucl

W. Florkowski, Particle spectra and hydro-inspired mod- els, Nucl. Phys. A774, 179 (2006)

work page 2006

[17] [31]

Efron and R

B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani,An Introduction to the Bootstrap(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1993)

work page 1993

[18] [32]

Abelevet al.(ALICE), Centrality dependence ofπ, K, andpproduction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys

B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Centrality dependence ofπ, K, andpproduction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C88, 044910 (2013)

work page 2013

[19] [33]

B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE),K ∗(892)0 andϕ(1020) pro- duction in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C91, 024609 (2015)

work page 2015

[20] [34]

B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Multi-strange baryon pro- duction at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B728, 216 (2014)

work page 2014

[21] [35]

Z. Tang, Y. Xu, L. Ruan, G. van Buren, F. Wang, and Z. Xu, Spectra and radial flow at RHIC with Tsallis statistics in a Blast-Wave description, Phys. Rev. C79, 051901 (2009), arXiv:0812.1609 [nucl-ex]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

[22] [36]

Heinz and G

U. Heinz and G. Kestin, Jozso’s legacy: Chemical and kinetic freeze-out in heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.155, 75 (2008)

work page 2008

[23] [37]

M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Elliptic Flow of Multi- strange Hadrons in Au+Au Collisions at √sN N = 7.7– 19.6 GeV (2026), arXiv:2605.27815 [nucl-ex]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[24] [38]

Andronic, P

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via par- ticle production at high energy, Nature561, 321 (2018)

work page 2018

[25] [39]

W. J. M. de Kruijf and J. L. Kloosterman, On the average chord length in reactor physics, Ann. Nucl. Energy30, 1291 (2003)

work page 2003

[26] [40]

Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Two-pion Bose–Einstein cor- relations in central Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Two-pion Bose–Einstein cor- relations in central Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B696, 328 (2011)

work page 2011

[27] [41]

Weilet al., Particle production and equilibrium prop- erties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy- ion collisions, Phys

J. Weilet al., Particle production and equilibrium prop- erties within a new hadron transport approach for heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C94, 054905 (2016)

work page 2016

[28] [42]

Adamet al.(ALICE),K ∗(892)0 andϕ(1020) meson production at high transverse momentum in pp and Pb- Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys

J. Adamet al.(ALICE),K ∗(892)0 andϕ(1020) meson production at high transverse momentum in pp and Pb- Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. C95, 064606 (2017)

work page 2017