Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Laboratory-frame $T$-matrix and heavy quark drag in the quark-gluon plasma

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Solving the in-medium T-matrix in the medium rest frame raises charm quark drag coefficients by 25-40 percent at low momenta.

desk verdict A useful framework for lab-frame in-medium T-matrices, but the headline 25-40% drag correction needs an explicit CM-energy mapping before I would trust the number. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06731 v1 pith:VXBVZPYM submitted 2026-08-07 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Anurag Tiwari , Min He This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex
keywords in-mediumT-matrixlaboratoryframeazimuthaldecompositionheavyquarkdragquark-gluonplasmacharmcenter-of-masstransportcoefficients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that conventional in-medium T-matrix calculations, which solve the scattering equation in the two-particle center-of-mass frame, miss an intrinsic dependence on the total pair momentum that the medium rest frame requires. It develops a practical way to solve the T-matrix directly in the laboratory frame by exploiting the residual azimuthal symmetry around the pair-momentum axis. Applied to charm-light quark scattering in the quark-gluon plasma, this treatment yields drag coefficients that are 25-30 percent larger at T=190 MeV and 30-40 percent larger at T=258 MeV at low momenta, while leaving the temperature dependence essentially unchanged. If correct, existing T-matrix-based extractions of QGP transport properties from heavy-quark data carry a previously unquantified systematic underestimate of tens of percent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an azimuthal decomposition of the laboratory-frame T-matrix about the pair-momentum axis. Because a finite total momentum $\vec{P}$ breaks the spherical $SO(3)$ symmetry of the scattering state down to $SO(2)$ rotations around $\vec{P}$, the T-matrix is expanded in azimuthal harmonics $e^{im(\phi_{\mathbf{q}'}-\phi_{\mathbf{q}})}$. The two-particle propagator is independent of the intermediate azimuthal angle, so the orthogonality of these harmonics decouples the integral equation into independent, uncoupled equations for each component $T_m$. This decomposition makes a five-dimensional, fully $\vec{P}$-dependent calculation numerically tractable, and it reduces correctly to the ordinary CM-frame T-matrix equation in the $\vec{P}=0$ limit.

What would settle it

Compute the same charm drag coefficient with a fully self-consistent iterative solution in which the spectral functions are updated together with the T-matrix, and check whether the lab-frame result remains 25-40 percent above the CM-frame result at $p_Q \le 1$ GeV; alternatively, repeat the on-shell lab-versus-CM amplitude comparison at fixed total momentum with a purely Coulomb potential, since the authors attribute the $\vec{P}$-dependence to the non-Born part of the kernel.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the in-medium two-body T-matrix, solved directly in the medium rest frame with full dependence on the total pair momentum $\vec{P}$ and the complete scattering geometry, differs materially from the conventional CM-frame amplitude, and this difference survives relativistic normalization and thermal phase-space averaging. For charm-light quark scattering, the laboratory-frame drag coefficient exceeds the CM-frame result by 25-40 percent at low heavy-quark momentum, while the temperature dependence of the drag is nearly the same in both frames. The discrepancies trace to the $\vec{P}$-dependent structure of the two-particle propagator: in the near-forward region the CM approximation stays within about 10 percent of the lab-frame squared amplitude, but in non-forward kinematics the CM-frame result overshoots by roughly 40-150 percent at $P=1$-$1.5$ GeV. After applying the relativistic normalization factor, the forward region also develops large differences of order 100 percent, indicating that the CM-frame shortcut distorts the angular profile of the scattering intensity that feeds transport coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on approximating the quark self-energies by a constant width $\Gamma=100$-$200$ MeV in the spectral functions rather than solving for them self-consistently, so if the real spectral functions depend strongly on momentum, the reported size of the lab-frame correction could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing T-matrix-based heavy-quark transport coefficients for the QGP should be revised upward at low momenta by roughly 25-40 percent, with implications for Langevin-type simulations of charm hadron observables.
  • The same azimuthal-decomposition method can be applied directly to heavy quark-gluon scattering, which is currently missing from the lab-frame calculation and is needed for a complete description of heavy-quark thermalization.
  • Because the temperature dependence of the drag coefficient is similar in both frames, conclusions about how transport coefficients scale with temperature are preserved, even though the absolute normalization changes.
  • The pronounced distortion of the forward-scattering profile in the CM-frame projection means that angle-resolved collision kernels entering Boltzmann or Langevin codes should be evaluated with the full pair-momentum dependence rather than a CM-frame amplitude.
  • The formalism transfers to other many-body systems with a preferred rest frame, such as finite-density nuclear matter, where the laboratory-frame T-matrix likewise dictates the physical observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The magnitude of the lab-CM correction is likely model-dependent: the authors trace the effect to the suppression of the $\vec{P}$-independent Born term relative to the non-perturbative integral term, so a weaker potential or a different screening scale could make the 25-40 percent number larger or smaller.
  • If the same frame mismatch appears in Sommerfeld-enhanced dark-matter annihilation in the early Universe, where the thermal bath also selects a rest frame, those annihilation rates could carry a similar correction that the CM-frame treatment has not quantified.
  • A natural testable extension is to compute the lab-frame drag coefficient with momentum-dependent spectral functions obtained from an iterative self-consistent scheme; if the constant-width approximation is the main source of the enhancement, the correction would shrink, whereas if it persists, the pair-momentum dependence itself is robust.
  • The unphysical displacement of the forward peak in the CM-frame projection suggests that previous T-matrix calculations may have systematically underestimated the contribution of relatively hard, non-forward scatterings to charm quark energy loss, which could matter for azimuthal anisotropy observables.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a laboratory-frame in-medium two-body T-matrix formalism. Since the medium rest frame picks a preferred direction, and a finite total pair momentum P breaks SO(3) down to SO(2), the authors decompose the Lippmann-Schwinger equation in azimuthal harmonics about the P-axis, obtaining uncoupled equations for the components T_m (Eq. 9). They apply the framework to charm-heavy-light antiquark scattering in the quark-gluon plasma at T=190 and 258 MeV, using a screened Cornell potential and constant quark widths Gamma=100-200 MeV, and compare the resulting amplitudes and drag coefficients with conventional CM-frame calculations. The central numerical claim is that the laboratory-frame drag coefficient exceeds the CM-frame baseline by 25-40% at low momenta (Fig. 2), while the temperature dependence remains similar.

Significance. If the central comparison is correct, this is an important and overdue assessment of a systematic uncertainty in heavy-quark transport: essentially all previous in-medium T-matrix applications were solved in the CM frame, and the frame mismatch has not previously been quantified. The formal decomposition is clean, and the P=0 limit correctly recovers the CM result, providing a nontrivial consistency check. The drag comparison is self-contained rather than a fit: both amplitudes use the same potential, masses, and widths, so the claimed enhancement is an output of the calculation. However, because the energy argument used in the CM baseline is not specified (Section III) and the numerical implementation is not described, the quantitative claim is not yet reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (6) and (12), Fig. 1] The CM-frame T-matrix of Eq. (6) has an energy argument E_CM, but the text never states at which energy it is evaluated when comparing to T_Lab(E,P). The momenta are Lorentz-transformed using beta=P/E and gamma, but the total energy in the pair rest frame is a separate quantity; under the relativistic kinematics of Eq. (12) it is E_CM = sqrt(E^2-P^2). With E=3.05 GeV and P up to 2 GeV, E_CM decreases to about 2.3 GeV at the largest P. If the CM amplitude was evaluated at E rather than E_CM, the baseline entering Eq. (14) describes scattering at too high an invariant mass as P grows, and the reported 25-40% enhancement of the drag coefficient could be partly or wholly an energy-shift artifact rather than a frame effect. The authors must state the energy argument, correct the CM calculation if needed, and recompute the drag comparison.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (9) and (10), Figs. 1 and 2] The numerical solution of Eq. (9) is not described. No information is given on the discretization of (q, x''), the momentum cutoff, the number of azimuthal components m retained in Eq. (10), or convergence tests against these parameters. The P=0 check is reassuring but does not establish convergence at P>0, where the m>0 components are essential. Since the central quantitative claim is a 25-40% correction, the authors should provide the numerical scheme and convergence checks.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (14), Fig. 2] The reduction of Eq. (14) to an integral over laboratory-frame variables is described only in words. The text does not specify how the 4-momentum delta functions are used, how the on-shell amplitude is evaluated off the specific configurations shown in Fig. 1, or how the width parameters Gamma_Q and Gamma_q enter the spectral functions used in the drag kernel. Without this mapping the central drag result cannot be reproduced or checked. Please present the reduced phase-space integrals and any interpolations used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 1 caption] The text states p_Q=p_q=1 GeV, but the caption of Fig. 1 quotes E=3.05 GeV; with the stated masses Eq. (12) gives E approximately 2.72 GeV, so one of these numbers should be corrected.
  2. [Section III] The parameters alpha and sigma of the screened Cornell potential are never given numerically; please list them or state explicitly that they are identical to a specific prior work.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (10)] The relation V_m=V_{-m} should be spelled out with the phase convention of Eq. (7), since the expansion uses complex exponentials e^{imPhi} while the amplitudes are real.
  4. [Sections IV and V] There are typos in Section IV ('heayv-light') and Section V ('non-perturabtive'); please proofread the manuscript.
  5. [Section III, Fig. 1] The qualitative statement that the CM approximation is most reliable in the forward region is made on the basis of |T|^2, whereas Fig. 1(b) shows that |M|^2 behaves differently; please clarify which quantity supports each qualitative conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lab-frame versus CM-frame comparison is computed from the same input potential and spectral widths, with the drag enhancement an output rather than a fitted or self-referential quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The lab-frame T-matrix equation, Eq. (9), is an exact azimuthal decomposition of the same Lippmann-Schwinger equation, Eq. (1), that underlies the CM partial-wave equation, Eq. (6); no target observable enters the definition of the scattering amplitude. Both the lab-frame and CM-frame amplitudes are evaluated with the same screened Cornell potential, Eq. (11), and the same constant spectral width Gamma = 100-200 MeV, which is varied to bracket uncertainty rather than tuned to reproduce the drag coefficient. The drag coefficient itself is an independent thermal phase-space integral, Eq. (14), over |M|^2, so the reported 25-40% lab-vs-CM enhancement is a computed output, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [15], [19], and [61]) supply standard T-matrix machinery, the input potential, or the earlier CM-frame work; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as an assumption that already contains the lab-CM difference. The skeptic's concern about the unspecified CM energy argument (whether T_CM is evaluated at the lab-frame E or at the invariant sqrt(E^2-P^2)) is a possible kinematic-consistency and correctness issue, not a circularity, because it does not make the comparison equal to its inputs by construction. No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard T-matrix formalism plus a specific potential model and an approximate constant-width spectral function. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the potential parameters (from prior lattice-inspired fits) and the quark width, which is varied to bracket uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • Coulomb coupling alpha = not stated in text; from screened Cornell potential of refs [14, 62]
    Strength of the attractive Coulomb part of the heavy-light potential. Taken from prior lattice-based fits, not re-fit here.
  • String tension sigma = not stated; from refs [14, 62]
    Confining term of the Cornell potential as used in prior T-matrix studies.
  • Screening mass mu = 0.25 GeV at T=190 MeV; values at other T not listed
    Inverse screening length in the Debye-screened Cornell potential; controls the range of the interaction and thus the momentum-transfer dependence of amplitudes.
  • Thermal light quark mass m_q = 0.4 GeV
    Quasiparticle mass of the light antiquark in the QGP, used in the two-particle propagator and on-shell conditions.
  • Quark width Gamma = 100-200 MeV, varied
    Constant width in the Lorentzian spectral function for both heavy and light quarks; chosen by hand to bracket the missing self-consistent self-energy calculation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The in-medium two-body T-matrix is governed by the non-relativistic Lippmann-Schwinger equation with an instantaneous potential (Eq. 1).
    Standard many-body T-matrix formalism for QGP transport, adopted without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The single-particle spectral function is a Lorentzian with width Gamma and vanishing real part of the self-energy beyond a mean-field mass shift (Section III).
    Explicitly an approximation; the authors state the self-consistent calculation is beyond the present scope.
  • domain assumption The medium is homogeneous and isotropic, so spectral functions and distribution functions depend only on |p|, not on the direction of p.
    Required for the azimuthal decoupling of the T_m components.
  • domain assumption The local, central screened Cornell potential of Eq. (11) is the correct heavy-light interaction in the QGP.
    Taken from the established T-matrix program in heavy-ion phenomenology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laboratory-frame $T$-matrix and heavy quark drag in the quark-gluon plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXBVZPYM

@misc{pith2026260806731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laboratory-frame $T$-matrix and heavy quark drag in the quark-gluon plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXBVZPYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06731}
}
abstract

Non-perturbative scattering $T$-matrix is a core input for the evaluation of transport phenomena in a strongly-coupled medium. Existing in-medium $T$-matrix calculations are typically formulated in the two-particle center-of-mass frame, where the scattering equation can be reduced to a lower-dimensional problem. However, a medium explicitly breaks Lorentz invariance and defines a preferred reference frame, entailing that physical observables be constructed from scattering amplitudes evaluated in the medium rest (laboratory) frame. In this work, by exploiting the rotational symmetry about the scattering-pair-momentum axis, we develop a practical framework for solving the in-medium two-body $T$-matrix directly in the laboratory frame while retaining the full dependence on the total pair-momentum and scattering geometry. We demonstrate that the resulting amplitudes differ significantly from conventional center-of-mass-frame results and, when applied to heavy-light quark scattering in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP), lead to 25-40% corrections to heavy-quark drag coefficients at low momenta, thereby removing a significant source of theoretical uncertainty in extracting the QGP transport properties with heavy-quark probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Left two) The laboratory- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Charm quark drag coefficients computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [61]

    Tiwari and M

    A. Tiwari and M. He, Phys. Rev. C113, no.4, 044908 (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    Rapp and H

    R. Rapp and H. van Hees, [arXiv:0903.1096 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    R. Rapp, P. B. Gossiaux, A. Andronic, R. Averbeck, S. Masciocchi, A. Beraudo, E. Bratkovskaya, P. Braun- Munzinger, S. Cao and A. Dainese,et al.Nucl. Phys. A 979, 21-86 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Dong and V

    X. Dong and V. Greco, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.104, 97- 141 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    M. He, H. van Hees and R. Rapp, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 130, 104020 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Ter Haar and R

    B. Ter Haar and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rept.149, 207-286 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [6]

    W. H. Dickhoff and C. Barbieri, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 52, 377-496 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    Colonna, Prog

    M. Colonna, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.113, 103775 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri and O. Saito, Phys. Rev. D71, 063528 (2005)

    2005

  2. [9]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D79, 015014 (2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    Kim and M

    S. Kim and M. Laine, JCAP01, 013 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Qerimi, TU Munich, PhD thesis (2025)

    G. Qerimi, TU Munich, PhD thesis (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    W. H. Dickhoff, C. C. Gearhart, E. P. Roth, A. Polls and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. C60, 064319 (1999)

    1999

  6. [13]

    Mannarelli and R

    M. Mannarelli and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C72, 064905 (2005)

    2005

  7. [14]

    Riek and R

    F. Riek and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C82, 035201 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    S. Y. F. Liu and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C97, no.3, 034918 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    M. I. Haftel and F. Tabakin, Nucl. Phys. A158, 1-42 (1970)

    1970

  10. [17]

    W. H. Dickhoff, Phys. Rev. C58, 2807-2820 (1998)

    1998

  11. [18]

    van Hees, M

    H. van Hees, M. Mannarelli, V. Greco and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 192301 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    S. Y. F. Liu, M. He and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C99, no.5, 055201 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    Z. Tang, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky and R. Rapp, Eur. Phys. J. A60, no.4, 92 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Schiller, H

    E. Schiller, H. Muther and P. Czerski, Phys. Rev. C59, 2934-2936 (1999)

    1999

  15. [22]

    Frick and H

    T. Frick and H. Muther, Phys. Rev. C68, 034310 (2003)

    2003

  16. [23]

    Soma and P

    V. Soma and P. Bozek, Phys. Rev. C74, 045809 (2006)

    2006

  17. [24]

    Svetitsky, Phys

    B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D37, 2484-2491 (1988)

    1988

  18. [25]

    G. D. Moore and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C71, 064904 (2005)

    2005

  19. [26]

    M. L. Sambataro, V. Greco, G. Parisi and S. Plumari, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.9, 881 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Altenkortet al.[HotQCD], Phys

    L. Altenkortet al.[HotQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 6 no.23, 231902 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Bollweget al.[HotQCD], JHEP09, 180 (2025)

    D. Bollweget al.[HotQCD], JHEP09, 180 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Y. Xu, J. E. Bernhard, S. A. Bass, M. Nahrgang and S. Cao, Phys. Rev. C97, no.1, 014907 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    X. Dong, Y. J. Lee and R. Rapp, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 417-445 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    He and R

    M. He and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, no.4, 042301 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    Beraudo, A

    A. Beraudo, A. De Pace, M. Monteno, M. Nardi and F. Prino, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.7, 607 (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    F. L. Liu, W. J. Xing, X. Y. Wu, G. Y. Qin, S. Cao and X. N. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.4, 350 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    J. Zhao, J. Aichelin, P. B. Gossiaux, A. Beraudo, S. Cao, W. Fan, M. He, V. Minissale, T. Song and I. Vitev,et al. Phys. Rev. C109, no.5, 054912 (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Pandey, S

    H. Pandey, S. Schlichting and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.22, 222301 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Krishna, R

    T. Krishna, R. Rapp, Y. Fu, S. A. Bass and W. Ke, Phys. Lett. B871, 139999 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    M. L. Sambataro, S. Plumari, S. K. Das and V. Greco, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, no.21, 212302 (2026)

    2026

  31. [38]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Nature561, no.7723, 321-330 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Brambilla, V

    N. Brambilla, V. Leino, P. Petreczky and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D102, no.7, 074503 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], JHEP01, 174 (2022)

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], JHEP01, 174 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Ali Hassan Abdallahet al.[ALICE], [arXiv:2603.18966 [nucl-ex]]

    D. Ali Hassan Abdallahet al.[ALICE], [arXiv:2603.18966 [nucl-ex]]

  35. [42]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.20, 202301 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.21, 212301 (2017)

    2017

  37. [44]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.24, 242301 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], JHEP10, 141 (2020)

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], JHEP10, 141 (2020)

    2020

  39. [46]

    M. He, B. Wu and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.16, 162301 (2022)

    2022

  40. [47]

    Altenkort, A

    L. Altenkort, A. M. Eller, O. Kaczmarek, L. Mazur, G. D. Moore and H. T. Shu, Phys. Rev. D103, no.1, 014511 (2021)

    2021

  41. [48]

    Banerjee, S

    D. Banerjee, S. Datta, R. V. Gavai and P. Majumdar, Nucl. Phys. A1038, 122721 (2023)

    2023

  42. [49]

    Altenkortet al.[HotQCD], Phys

    L. Altenkortet al.[HotQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.5, 051902 (2024)

    2024

  43. [50]

    Caron-Huot and G

    S. Caron-Huot and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 052301 (2008)

    2008

  44. [51]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.8, 813 (2024)

    2024

  45. [52]

    [ALICE], [arXiv:2211.02491 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  46. [53]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rept.1115, 116-218 (2025)

    2025

  47. [54]

    L. P. Kadanoff and G. Baym,Quantum Statistical Me- chanics(Benjamin, New York, 1962)

    1962

  48. [55]

    Danielewicz, Annals Phys.152, 239-304 (1984)

    P. Danielewicz, Annals Phys.152, 239-304 (1984)

    1984

  49. [56]

    Botermans and R

    W. Botermans and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rept.198, 115-194 (1990)

    1990

  50. [57]

    Holz and W

    J. Holz and W. Gloeckle, Phys. Rev. C37, 1386-1402 (1988)

    1988

  51. [58]

    Elster, J

    C. Elster, J. H. Thomas and W. Gloeckle, Few Body Syst.24, 55-79 (1998)

    1998

  52. [59]

    G. Caia, V. Pascalutsa and L. E. Wright, Phys. Rev. C 69, 034003 (2004)

    2004

  53. [60]

    Cheon and E

    T. Cheon and E. F. Redish, Phys. Rev. C39, 331-335 (1989)

    1989

  54. [62]

    Karsch, M

    F. Karsch, M. T. Mehr and H. Satz, Z. Phys. C37, 617 (1988)

    1988

Pith tools

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