Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

The measured J/ψ spin alignment at forward rapidity is reproduced by a pT-dependent mixture of coalescence and primordial production, with low-pT charmonia inheriting vorticity-induced charm-quark polarization.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 07:04 UTC pith:RYJLQMQT

load-bearing objection The forward-rapidity curve is interpolated between two fitted endpoints; the mid-rapidity prediction is the real content and deserves a test. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11028 v2 pith:RYJLQMQT submitted 2026-07-13 nucl-th

Investigating J/psi spin alignment in heavy-ion collisions within a two-component transport model

Yida Yang , Anping Huang , Baoyi Chen This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords J/ψ spin alignmentheavy-ion collisionsthermal vorticitycharm quark polarizationcoalescencespin density matrixtransport modelquark-gluon plasma
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.

The paper sets out to explain the measured transverse-momentum dependence of J/ψ spin alignment (the ρ00 density-matrix element) in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. Its central claim is that the forward-rapidity data are reproduced by a pT-dependent mixture of two production channels: at low pT, J/ψ formed by the coalescence of charm and anticharm quarks inherit the spin polarization induced by the thermal vorticity of the quark-gluon plasma, pushing ρ00 below the unpolarized value 1/3; at high pT, primordially produced charmonia take over and pull ρ00 back to a fixed baseline. The same mechanism predicts a suppressed vorticity effect at mid-rapidity, which can be checked against upcoming ALICE data.

Core claim

Using the relativistic spin Boltzmann equation for vector mesons, the authors derive a non-relativistic expression for ρ00 of heavy quarkonia and then construct the observed ρ00 as the pT-weighted sum ρ_obs^00(pT) = r_coal(pT) ρ_coal^00(pT) + r_init(pT) ρ_init^00. In the coalescence channel, the deviation of ρ00 from 1/3 is driven by the squared thermal-vorticity component ⟨ω_y^2⟩; in the primordial channel, ρ_init^00 is fixed to 0.36 by the highest-pT ALICE point. With the two fractions taken from a transport model, the forward-rapidity data are reproduced, and the calculation yields a distinctive mid-rapidity prediction: the Lorentz transformation between the J/ψ rest frame and the lab fra

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-component superposition formula (Eq. 32), ρ_obs^00(pT) = r_coal(pT) ρ_coal^00(pT) + r_init(pT) ρ_init^00. The coalescence piece ρ_coal^00 is computed from the non-relativistic limit of the vector-meson spin density matrix derived from the spin Boltzmann equation (Eq. 29), where the only production-relevant terms are the squared thermal-vorticity component ⟨ω_y^2⟩ and the vector-field fluctuation parameters f_T^2, f_z^2; the functions F and G encode the Lorentz boost that produces the rapidity dependence. The primordial baseline ρ_init^00=0.36 represents the effective spin state of high-pT charmonium and is not predicted from first principles.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the two-component decomposition: the measured inclusive J/ψ sample is assumed to be dominated by exactly two prompt channels—coalescence and primordial production—with their pT-dependent fractions given by a transport model and the primordial baseline fixed empirically to 0.36 by the highest-pT data point.

What would settle it

Measure the inclusive J/ψ ρ00(pT) at mid-rapidity (|Y| < 0.9) in 30–50% Pb-Pb at 5.02 TeV. The model predicts that the vorticity contribution is kinematically suppressed there, so ρ00−1/3 should be near zero at low pT in the vorticity-only case; a clearly positive low-pT deviation larger than the vector-field sensitivity would falsify the kinematic suppression and, with it, the two-component explanation of the forward-rapidity data. A forward-rapidity high-pT point that does not approach ρ00 = 0.36 would likewise falsify the assumed primordial baseline.

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

If this is right

  • If the two-component mechanism is correct, the non-monotonic forward-rapidity ρ00(pT) curve is understood as a transition from vorticity-polarized coalescence at low pT to primordial production at high pT, with no exotic spin physics needed.
  • The same thermal vorticity produces a much weaker spin-alignment signal at mid-rapidity, so J/ψ spin alignment should be rapidity-dependent in a specific, kinematically predictable way.
  • The high-pT plateau of ρ00 directly measures the primordial J/ψ spin state; its value can be compared across collision systems and energies as a probe of initial-production spin alignment.
  • A positive low-pT deviation at mid-rapidity would signal an additional polarization source beyond thermal vorticity, such as the effective vector-field fluctuations introduced here.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The calibration scheme (⟨ω_y^2⟩ from the lowest-pT forward point, ρ_init=0.36 from the highest-pT point) means the forward-rapidity agreement is partly a reproduction; the genuinely testable prediction is the mid-rapidity shape and the sign of (ρ00−1/3) at low pT.
  • If non-prompt J/ψ from B-hadron decays contribute non-negligibly in the measured inclusive sample, their different spin-alignment pattern would dilute the two-component interpretation; separate prompt and non-prompt measurements would settle this.
  • The framework could be applied to other quarkonium states or to φ mesons: the rapidity-dependent suppression of vorticity-induced alignment is a generic kinematic effect, not specific to J/ψ, so the same signature should appear in other vector mesons.
  • A stronger test would use a hydrodynamic model to compute ⟨ω_y^2(pT, Y)⟩ event-by-event instead of calibrating it to one data point; the resulting ρ00(pT) could then be compared with the data at both rapidities simultaneously.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper derives a non-relativistic approximation to the J/ψ spin density matrix element ρ00 from the relativistic spin Boltzmann equation, retaining thermal-vorticity and effective vector-field fluctuation contributions to the charm-quark polarization. The observed ρ00 is then written as a pT-weighted sum of a coalescence and an initial-production component (Eq. (32)), with the production fractions r_coal and r_init taken from a transport model. ⟨ω_y²⟩ is calibrated to the lowest-pT ALICE forward-rapidity point, and ρ_init^00 = 0.36 is fixed from the highest-pT point. With these inputs the model gives a non-monotonic forward-rapidity curve that follows the ALICE inclusive J/ψ data. The same framework is used to predict a strongly suppressed mid-rapidity effect and to illustrate the effect of vector-field fluctuations.

Significance. The theoretical construction is a useful extension of the MVSD/spin-Boltzmann formalism to heavy quarkonia, and the two-component production picture is physically motivated: coalescence-dominated low pT and primordial-dominated high pT naturally produce a non-monotonic ρ00 if the coalescence component inherits a spin-dependent polarization. The mid-rapidity prediction is a clear, falsifiable consequence. The paper is also transparent that ⟨ω_y²⟩ and ρ_init^00 are calibrated and that the vector-field parameters are illustrative. However, because both endpoints of the forward-rapidity curve are fixed by the same ALICE points that the paper claims to reproduce, and because the inclusive sample is modeled without non-prompt feed-down, the current comparison is significantly weaker than the abstract suggests. If these issues are addressed, the framework would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (34) and the following paragraph] The forward-rapidity comparison is not a parameter-free reproduction. ⟨ω_y²⟩ is calibrated with the lowest-pT ALICE point, and ρ_init^00 is fixed to 0.36 from the highest-pT ALICE point. The observed curve is therefore an interpolation between two fitted endpoints; only the intermediate shape is a nontrivial consequence of Eq. (32) and r_coal/r_init. The abstract and Sec. I should be reworded from "well reproduced" to a statement that the model can accommodate the data, or the authors should provide a fit statistic and demonstrate that the shape is robust.
  2. [Abstract vs. Sec. IV and Fig. 2] There is a direct contradiction about the high-pT limit. The abstract states that primordial production causes ρ00 to approach 1/3, while Sec. IV and Fig. 2 show that the curve approaches the fitted input ρ_init^00 = 0.36. The value 0.36 is read off the data, not derived. The abstract must be corrected; otherwise the result misrepresents the paper's central claim.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (32)] The ALICE sample is inclusive, but Eq. (32) contains only the two prompt components "assumed to provide the dominant prompt contribution." Non-prompt J/ψ from B-hadron decays are not included. At forward rapidity and pT ≳ 5 GeV, the non-prompt fraction is non-negligible. If non-prompt J/ψ have ρ00 ≈ 1/3, their admixture changes the high-pT inclusive ρ00 and the extracted ρ_init^00 (and indirectly ⟨ω_y²⟩). The authors should either quantify the feed-down fraction and extend Eq. (32), use a prompt-selected data set, or argue quantitatively that the effect is below the ~0.01 scale visible in Fig. 2.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 1] The pT-dependent fractions r_coal and r_init are taken from the transport model of Ref. [48], and the intermediate non-monotonic shape is generated largely by these fractions. Only the nuclear-shadowing uncertainty is propagated; no uncertainty in the transport model itself, or in its applicability to ALICE 30–50% Pb-Pb at 5.02 TeV, is shown. This is load-bearing because the claimed agreement depends on these fractions. A sensitivity study or at least a discussion of the model's range of validity should be added.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV] "data poin" is a typo for "data point."
  2. [Eq. (10)] The notation E_q^{p_T} is undefined; it should be E_q^p or explicitly defined as the on-shell energy.
  3. [Fig. 2, lower panel] The vertical axis label "(ρ00 − 1/3) × 10" should be clarified; the reader has to infer that the plotted quantity is dimensionless and amplified.
  4. [Eq. (29)] The large brackets in the f_T² and f_z² terms are hard to parse; please re-check the parentheses and define all symbols (F, G, Y) immediately before use.
  5. [Sec. III.B] The symbol g_V is reused for two different couplings (quark–meson and quark–effective-vector-field). Please use distinct notation to avoid confusion.
  6. [Sec. IV, Fig. 1] Ref. [48] is treated as a black box for r_coal/r_init. Provide enough detail or a short validation so that a reader can assess whether the fractions are appropriate for the ALICE centrality and rapidity window.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Forward-rapidity 'reproduction' is anchored at both ends to the ALICE data it claims to explain: ⟨ω_y²⟩ is calibrated to the lowest-pT point and ρ_init^00 = 0.36 is fixed from the highest-pT point; the mid-rapidity curve is the only unanchored output.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eq. (32)-(34) and paragraph after Eq. (34)]
    "Since the averaged squared thermal vorticity is not determined independently in the present framework, we calibrate it using the lowest-pT forward-rapidity ALICE data poin."

    In Eq. (32) the forward-rapidity observable is ρobs00(pT) = r_coal(pT) ρcoal00(pT) + r_init(pT) ρinit00 with r_coal ≈ 1 at low pT. The coalescence term is computed from Eq. (34) as ρcoal00 ≈ 1/3 − (1/9)⟨ω_y²⟩[F²+½G²+2FG v2(pT)]. Calibrating the single free parameter ⟨ω_y²⟩ to the lowest-pT ALICE point forces the model's low-pT value to equal that data point by construction; the claimed reproduction of the low-pT dip is therefore not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, paragraph defining ρ_init^00 before Eq. (32) application; Abstract]
    "we fix ρinit 00 = 0.36, motivated by the highest-pT ALICE data point, where the initial-production fraction is expected to dominate. This value should be regarded as an effective phenomenological input rather than a first-principles prediction of the primordial J/ψ spin alignment."

    Since r_init(pT) → 1 at high pT, Eq. (32) makes ρobs00 → ρinit00 = 0.36, a value chosen from the highest-pT ALICE point; the high-pT plateau is an input, not a prediction. The Abstract's claim that ρ00 'approach[es] 1/3' at high pT is moreover not what the calculation does: Sec. IV states 'all curves approach the same limiting value ρinit00 = 0.36.' Only the intermediate non-monotonic shape and the mid-rapidity curve are unconstrained outputs.

full rationale

The spin-Boltzmann derivation (Secs. II-III) is an independent framework taken from external references [41, 29, 44], none of which are authored by the present authors, so no self-citation load-bearing circularity is present; the coalescence/initial fractions come from the external transport model [48]. The mid-rapidity result is a genuine prediction: the same calibrated ⟨ω_y²⟩ and external fractions are fed through the Lorentz-transformed Eq. (29), and the rapidity-dependent suppression is not anchored to mid-rapidity data. The vector-field parameter f is scanned for sensitivity, not fitted, so it does not add circularity. The circularity is confined to the forward-rapidity claim: Eq. (32) plus the two calibrations (⟨ω_y²⟩ tied to the lowest-pT ALICE point; ρ_init^00 = 0.36 tied to the highest-pT ALICE point) mean the endpoint behavior of the 'reproduced' curve is imposed by the same data set. The intermediate shape retains independent content from the transport-model fractions, and the paper is transparent that these are inputs, which keeps the score at partial (6) rather than full. The omission of non-prompt B-hadron feed-down in modeling the inclusive sample is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and is not scored here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The forward-rapidity reproduction is anchored by two data-calibrated inputs (⟨ω_y²⟩ from the lowest-p_T point; ρ_init^00 = 0.36 from the highest-p_T point); the core ρ₀₀ formulas are imported from Ref. [41]; the mid-rapidity prediction is the main parameter-free output. The only invented entity is the effective Abelian vector field whose strength is absorbed into f_T, f_z.

free parameters (3)
  • ⟨ω_y²⟩ (spacetime-averaged squared thermal vorticity along OAM) = upper boundary 0.00466 used in Fig. 3; central calibrated value not quoted
    Calibrated to the lowest-p_T forward-rapidity ALICE data point (Sec. IV); sets the amplitude of the vorticity-induced ρ₀₀ deviation; uncertainty from the shadowing factor only.
  • ρ_init^00 (primordial-production baseline) = 0.36
    Fixed from the highest-p_T ALICE data point (Sec. IV); explicitly 'an effective phenomenological input rather than a first-principles prediction'; controls the high-p_T asymptote.
  • f_T, f_z (vector-field fluctuation strengths) = varied: f=0.01–0.05 (forward), f=0.03–0.30 (mid-rapidity)
    Effective Abelian color-field fluctuation strength in Eq. (29); varied by hand to show sensitivity, with different values in the two rapidity windows; the paper says it 'should not be interpreted as a fitted parameter.'
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Vector-meson spin Boltzmann equation (Eq. 2) with coalescence/dissociation rates of Ref. [41] and formal solution f ≈ R_coal Δt (Eq. 8)
    The entire derivation imports the Kadanoff-Baym/CTP framework of Ref. [41]; Eqs. (17)–(21) correspond to Eqs. (C4)–(C12) of that paper's Appendix C.
  • domain assumption Quark polarization four-vector form, Eq. (10): P^μ ∝ (ω̃^μν ± …) p_ν [1−f]
    Taken from Refs. [14, 19, 24, 25, 29]; if the true charm-quark polarization has additional sources or different momentum structure, the derived ρ₀₀ changes.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic limit: m_q = m_qbar, m_V ≈ 2m_q, p^μ ≈ (m_V, 0) (Eq. 14)
    Reasonable for charm quarks, but it forces internal quark momenta p′ ≈ 0 in the rest frame, which is how the electric-vorticity terms drop out of Eq. (25).
  • domain assumption Neglect of the electric part of thermal vorticity ε and of transverse vorticity components ω_x, ω_z (Sec. III, after Eq. 29)
    Relying on hydrodynamic simulations [19, 44, 46, 47]; for an observable whose deviation is ~0.02–0.05, the neglect must hold at that precision, which is not demonstrated here.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-component superposition, Eq. (32): ρ_obs^00 = r_coal ρ_coal^00 + r_init ρ_init^00, r_coal + r_init = 1
    Phenomenological ansatz of this paper; the transport-model fractions come from Ref. [48] with no error estimate, and ρ_init^00 is anchored to a data point.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective Abelian color-singlet vector field for gluon-field fluctuations (Sec. III.B, Sec. IV)
    Stated as 'a phenomenological ansatz'; its strength is absorbed into f_T, f_z, which are unconstrained and varied by hand.
  • domain assumption Only the y-component (global OAM direction) of quark polarization is retained (Sec. V)
    Acknowledged in the discussion as a restriction; other components 'may provide additional contributions' to J/ψ spin alignment.
  • standard math Small-polarization expansion of Eq. (19) to Eq. (20): 1/(3+P·P̄) ≈ (1/3)(1 − P·P̄/3)
    Valid for |P| ≪ 1, consistent with the small ρ₀₀ deviations claimed.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective Abelian-like vector field representing gluon-field fluctuations no independent evidence
    purpose: Phenomenological second source of spin alignment that can lift ρ₀₀ above 1/3, especially at mid-rapidity where the vorticity contribution is kinematically suppressed.
    Strength is absorbed into free parameters f_T, f_z with no external constraint and no independent predicted signature; the paper calls it a phenomenological ansatz.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11893 in / 27778 out tokens · 234174 ms · 2026-08-02T07:04:07.998000+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the spin alignment of $J/\psi$ mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions within a two-component Boltzmann transport model. Starting from the relativistic spin Boltzmann equation, we derive the spin density matrix element $\rho_{00}$ under a non-relativistic approximation for heavy quarks. To interpret the recent ALICE measurements in Pb+Pb collisions, the observed $\rho_{00}$ is described as a $p_T$-dependent mixture of contributions from primordial production and the coalescence process. At forward rapidity, the $p_T$ dependence of charmonium $\rho_{00}$ is well reproduced by this two-component mechanism: at low $p_T$, charmonium production is dominated by the coalescence of partially polarized charm quarks induced by thermal vorticity; with increasing $p_T$, primordially produced charmonia become dominant, causing $\rho_{00}$ to approach $1/3$. To further test this spin alignment mechanism, we provide predictions for the $J/\psi$ $\rho_{00}$ in the mid-rapidity region, which exhibits a distinct $p_T$ trend due to the kinematic suppression of the thermal vorticity contribution. This study elucidates the underlying mechanism of $J/\psi$ spin alignment and advances our understanding of heavy quarkonium spin dynamics in strongly interacting matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11028 by Anping Huang, Baoyi Chen, Yida Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Model-calculated relative fractions of the coalescence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

49 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C93, 064907 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Wei, W.-T

    D.-X. Wei, W.-T. Deng, and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014905 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Huang et al., in Strongly Interacting Matter under Rotation (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021) pp

    X.-G. Huang et al., in Strongly Interacting Matter under Rotation (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021) pp. 281–308

    2021

  4. [4]

    Becattini et al., Eur

    F. Becattini et al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 406 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C85, 044907 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    V. V. Skokov, A. Yu. Illarionov, and V. D. Toneev, Int. J. Modern Phys. A24, 5925 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Tuchin, Adv

    K. Tuchin, Adv. High Energy Phys.2013, 1 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Voronyuk et al., Phys

    V. Voronyuk et al., Phys. Rev. C83, 054911 (2011)

    2011

  9. [9]

    Buzzegoli, Nucl

    M. Buzzegoli, Nucl. Phys. A1036, 122674 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    Becattini, V

    F. Becattini, V. Chandra, L. Del Zanna, et al., Ann. Physics338, 32 (2013)

    2013

  11. [11]

    Becattini, I

    F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. A. Lisa, et al., Phys. Rev. C95, 054902 (2017)

    2017

  12. [12]

    Becattini and M

    F. Becattini and M. A. Lisa, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 395 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    B. Betz, M. Gyulassy, and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C: Nucl. Phys.76, 44901 (2007), arXiv:0708.0035 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  14. [14]

    Fang, L.-g

    R.-h. Fang, L.-g. Pang, Q. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. C94, 024904 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  16. [16]

    The STAR Collaboration, Nature548, 62 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    Adam et al., Phys

    J. Adam et al., Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Adam et al., Phys

    J. Adam et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 162301 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101, 096005 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005)

    2005

  21. [21]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B629, 20 (2005)

    2005

  22. [22]

    Lv, Z.-h

    J.-p. Lv, Z.-h. Yu, Z.-t. Liang, et al., Phys. Rev. D109, 114003 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Xu and M

    K. Xu and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D110, 094034 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Sheng, Q

    X.-L. Sheng, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 056013 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Yang, R.-h

    Y.-g. Yang, R.-h. Fang, Q. Wang, et al., Phys. Rev. C 97, 034917 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Chen, W.-j

    H.-L. Chen, W.-j. Fu, X.-G. Huang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 032302 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    STAR Collaboration et al., Nature614, 244 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    B. I. Abelev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 112301 (2007)

    2007

  29. [29]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 042304 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    P. H. De Moura, K. J. Gon¸ calves, and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. D108, 34032 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    J. Zhao, K. Zhou, S. Chen, et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 114, 103801 (2020)

    2020

  32. [32]

    H. Satz, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.32, R25 (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    Rothkopf, Phys

    A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rep.858, 1 (2020)

    2020

  34. [34]

    ALICE Collaboration et al., Eur. Phys. J. C78, 562 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Andronic et al., Eur

    A. Andronic et al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 107 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D102, 092009 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Acharya et al., Phys

    S. Acharya et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 042303 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    High Energy Phys

    The ALICE collaboration et al., J. High Energy Phys. 2025(10), 94

    2025

  39. [39]

    Chou, Z.-b

    K.-c. Chou, Z.-b. Su, B.-l. Hao, et al., Phys. Rep.118, 1 (1985)

    1985

  40. [40]

    Cassing, Eur

    W. Cassing, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.168, 3 (2009)

    2009

  41. [41]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 036004 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Sheng, N

    X.-L. Sheng, N. Weickgenannt, E. Speranza, et al., Phys. Rev. D104, 016029 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Xu et al., Eur

    Y.-Z. Xu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C81, 895 (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Sheng, S

    X.-L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C108, 054902 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    High Energy Phys

    The ALICE collaboration et al., J. High Energy Phys. 2020(10), 141

    2020

  46. [46]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064918 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C86, 024911 (2012)

    2012

  48. [48]

    K. Zhou, N. Xu, Z. Xu, et al., Phys. Rev. C89, 54911 (2014)

    2014

  49. [49]

    Eskola, H

    K.J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C.A. Salgado, J. High Energy Phys.2009(4), 65

    2009