Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 49 references

Fractals, non-extensive statistics and QCD

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Tsallis index of QCD is not a free parameter: fractal self-similarity of Yang-Mills vertices fixes 1/(q-1) = (11/3)c1 - (4/3)c2 = 7, so q = 1.14, matching experiment.

desk verdict The q=1.14 prediction rests on an unshown beta-function identity; the fractal-to-Tsallis part is mostly prior work, but the paper deserves refereeing to force the derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08799 v1 pith:A4YCCE63 submitted 2019-08-21 hep-th hep-phnucl-th

Airton Deppman , Eugenio Megias , Debora P. Menezes This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-phnucl-th MSC 81T1381T1782B30 PACS 12.38.-t05.45.Df
keywords Tsallisstatisticsnon-extensivequantumchromodynamicsYang-Millstheoryfractalsself-similarityrenormalizationgroupparticlemultiplicity
topics Yang-Mills Mass Gap
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 tries to prove that the fractal-like self-similarity of Yang-Mills interactions under scale changes is the physical origin of Tsallis non-extensive statistics in high-energy collisions. Starting from the ordinary phase space of an ideal gas of N partons and imposing that the same distribution repeats at every level of a self-similar hierarchy, it derives the q-exponential distribution $P(\varepsilon/\lambda) = [1+(q-1)\varepsilon/\lambda]^{-1/(q-1)}$. The paper then identifies the Tsallis index with the coefficient of the one-loop $\beta$ function, so for QCD with three colors and three flavors $1/(q-1) = 7$, i.e. $q = 1.14$, consistent with the measured value $q = 1.14 \pm 0.01$. If this is right, the widely used Tsallis parameter is not a phenomenological fit constant but a prediction of QCD's color and flavor content, with further observable consequences for fractal dimension and multiplicity growth.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the self-similarity condition $(4N-5) + \alpha\nu = \alpha$, which says a parton's energy distribution, written in the scale-free variable $\chi = \varepsilon/\Lambda$, is the same function at every level of the fractal structure. Combined with the approximation $(1-\varepsilon/M)^{4N-5} \approx (1+\varepsilon/M)^{-(4N-5)}$, this converts the ideal-gas power law into the q-exponential form with $1/(q-1) = \alpha$. The final step compares the resulting $\beta$ function $\beta = -\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\frac{1}{q-1}g^{\tilde N+1}$, with $\tilde N = 2$, to the one-loop QCD $\beta$ function $\beta_{\rm QCD} = -\frac{g^3}{16\pi^2}\left(\frac{11}{3}c_1 - \frac{4}{3}c_2\right)$, giving $1/(q-1) = 7$.

What would settle it

Measure the Tsallis index from transverse-momentum spectra in a process where the one-loop $\beta$-function coefficient differs from 7, such as a QCD process at very high scale with an effectively different number of flavors or a quenched calculation with $N_f = 0$; if the fitted $q$ remains $1.14$ rather than following $1 + 1/[(11/3)N_c - (2/3)N_f]$, the central identification is wrong. Alternatively, compute truncated $n$-point functions at successive scales on the lattice and test whether $(4N-5) + \alpha\nu = \alpha$ holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that renormalizable Yang-Mills field theory generates a fractal-like hierarchy of self-similar vertices, and that this hierarchy is exactly what Tsallis statistics describes. Concretely, the paper obtains $1/(q-1) = (11/3)c_1 - (4/3)c_2$, which for QCD is $7$, so $q = 1 + 1/7 = 1.14$, consistent with $q = 1.14 \pm 0.01$ from experiment. The same derivation yields a fractal (Hausdorff) dimension $D \approx 0.69$, matching intermittency measurements, and a multiplicity law $M \propto E^{1-D} = E^{0.31}$, matching the power-law exponent roughly $0.302$ extracted from proton-proton collisions. In the authors' framing, the q-exponential is not an ad hoc fit function but the effective coupling of the fractal gauge theory.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the same scale-free function governs a parton's energy distribution at every level of the fractal hierarchy, together with the approximation that turns $(1-\varepsilon/M)^{4N-5}$ into $(1+\varepsilon/M)^{-(4N-5)}$; if that exponent-matching condition is not exact, the q-exponential form and the $\beta$-function identification do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Tsallis index $q$ in high-energy fits becomes a derived quantity: for QCD, $q = 1.14$, so long-tail transverse-momentum spectra need no independent non-extensivity parameter.
  • The q-exponential acts as an effective coupling in the vertex recursion, suppressing parton energies far above the scale $\lambda$ and favoring configurations with $\varepsilon_5 \approx \varepsilon_6 \approx \lambda/2$.
  • The fractal dimension of the Yang-Mills hierarchy is fixed, $D \approx 0.69$, matching the value obtained from intermittency analyses of high-energy distributions.
  • Particle multiplicity grows with energy as $M \propto E^{1-D} \approx E^{0.31}$, consistent with the power-law behavior observed in proton-proton collisions.
  • For any Yang-Mills theory, the same reasoning determines $q$ from its color and flavor content through the one-loop beta-function coefficient.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper does not report: fitting Tsallis distributions in processes with a different effective number of flavors should shift $q$ according to $1 + 1/[(11/3)N_c - (2/3)N_f]$; for quenched QCD this would give roughly $q \approx 1.09$, not $1.14$.
  • Since the one-loop beta function is used, the derivation suggests $q$ may run with resolution scale as the effective degrees of freedom change, an energy-dependent $q$ not worked out in the paper.
  • The self-similarity condition $(4N-5) + \alpha\nu = \alpha$ could be checked in a non-perturbative numerical calculation by comparing truncated $n$-point functions at successive scales; if the exponent relation is not scale-independent, the link between $q$ and the beta function would break.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper claims that the scaling properties of Yang-Mills theory produce a self-similar fractal hierarchy of truncated n-point functions, which at high perturbative order can be described by Tsallis non-extensive statistics. The authors derive a q-exponential energy distribution for effective partons, introduce an effective coupling, and compute its beta function. Matching this beta function to the one-loop QCD result gives q=1.14, in agreement with the experimental value 1.14±0.01. The same formalism is then used to obtain a fractal dimension D=0.69 and a multiplicity growth M∼E^0.31, which are compared with intermittency and multiplicity data.

Significance. If the derivation were valid, this would be an important result: it would turn the Tsallis parameter q from a phenomenological fit parameter into a prediction determined by the number of colors and flavors, and it would provide a field-theoretic rationale for power-law tails and intermittency in high-energy collisions. The paper has real strengths: the phase-space density calculation in the appendix leading to Eq. (82) is explicit and correct, and the predicted value q=1.14 is a sharp, falsifiable number. However, the central step connecting the fractal model to the QCD beta function is not derived, and several of the applications rely on algebraic inconsistencies; as it stands the significance is conditional on a major revision of the derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (48)-(49)] Eq. (49), which fixes the numerical value of q through the matching with Eq. (50), is asserted rather than derived. Eq. (48) has a right-hand side linear in g and contains no 16π² normalization; if ε5=ε6=λ/2 as used in Fig. 3, the q-exponential factors in Eq. (48) are constants, so the g^{N~+1} term in Eq. (49) cannot be obtained from the preceding formulas. The sentence 'The beta function can be easily calculated' is the only transition between these equations. Since this is the sole point where q=1.14 is obtained, the central claim of the paper is unsupported unless a complete derivation of Eq. (49) is supplied.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (30)] The self-similarity condition (4N−5)+αν=α is imposed by hand; it is not derived from the renormalization-group equations. This condition is load-bearing because it converts the ideal-gas power law into the q-exponential form and identifies α with 1/(q−1). The parameters N, ν, and α are never connected to QCD parameters, and the final q is fixed only by the later beta-function matching in Sec. 4; thus the claimed first-principles determination of q from field-theory parameters is not established.
  3. [Sec. 6, Eqs. (55)-(62)] The average energy quoted in Eq. (55) does not follow from the distribution in Eq. (34). For a q-exponential with exponent −1/(q−1), the normalized mean is λ/(3−2q) (for q<3/2), not λ/(2q−1). In addition, the derivation of R=(q−1)/(2q−1) from Eqs. (55)-(57) sets E=λr/(q−1) together with λ/E=r, which are mutually inconsistent except for special values; with the corrected mean, the resulting fractal dimension is not 0.69. The fractal-dimension and multiplicity claims are therefore not supported by the model as presented.
  4. [Sec. 3, Eq. (24)] The approximation (1−ε²/M²)^{4N−5}≈1 in Eq. (24) is only valid for ε/M≪1, but the resulting power-law distribution is used for all ε up to M and is integrated in Sec. 6. No error estimate is given, and this approximation is one of the steps that turns a polynomial factor into a q-exponential; it needs a controlled justification.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors (e.g., 'cathegory', 'Satandard Model', 'autovectors', 'chech'), and Ref. [11] is left incomplete as 'Phys. Reports 14 (1974) incomplete!!!'. The manuscript needs a careful proofread.
  2. [Sec. 6] The sentence 'Using the value q−1 = 1.14' should be 'q = 1.14' (or 'q−1 = 0.14'); as written it is inconsistent with the q=1.14 obtained in Sec. 4.
  3. [Fig. 3] The comparison in Fig. 3 uses G=3.67 and G=752 with no justification for these values; since G and ε0 are free parameters, the agreement shown in the plots is not a predictive test.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The value q=1.14 is fixed by equating the asserted beta function (49) with the known QCD beta function (50); Eq. (49) is not derived from the fractal formalism, so the central 'prediction' is the input coefficient renamed as q.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eqs. (48)-(53)]
    "The beta function can be easily calculated and we get β¯g =− 1/(16π^2) 1/(q−1)g^{N~+1}, and we emphasize that N~ = 2. (49) ... The beta-function for QCD is [31,32] βQCD =− g^3/(16π^2)[11/3 c1 − 4/3 c2]. (50) ... Using Nc = Nf/2 = 3 we get 11/3 c1 − 4/3 c2 = 7, (53) which leads to q = 1.14."

    The only numerical value of q comes from equating the coefficient in Eq. (49) with the known 1-loop QCD beta function (50), which gives 1/(q−1)=7. Eq. (49) is asserted ('The beta function can be easily calculated'), not derived: for fixed ε_j, Eq. (48) is linear in g and has no 16π^2 or g^2, so it cannot produce −g^3/[16π^2(q−1)]; if ε_j=λ/2 as in Fig. 3, the q-exponential factors are constants. The self-similarity equations (27)-(34) fix only the functional form [1+(q−1)x]^{-1/(q−1)} and leave α=1/(q−1) as an undetermined function of N and ν. Hence q=1.14 is not a prediction from the fractal parameters; the known QCD beta-function coefficient 7 is re-expressed as 1/(q−1). The agreement with experiment is then a restatement of that chosen coefficient.

full rationale

The central numerical claim q=1.14 reduces to matching the asserted beta function in Eq. (49) to the known QCD beta function in Eq. (50). Eq. (49) is introduced with no computation, and the preceding Eq. (48) does not transparently imply it: the right-hand side of Eq. (48) is linear in g and contains no 16π^2 or g^2, while Eq. (49) has g^{N~+1}=g^3 and 1/(q−1). The earlier self-similarity and recurrence argument (Eqs. (27)-(34)) produces the q-exponential shape but leaves α=1/(q−1) dependent on N and ν, which are never numerically fixed. Therefore the number 1.14 is not obtained from the fractal or field-theory parameters internal to the derivation; it is the known 1-loop QCD beta-function coefficient written as 1/(q−1). This is a load-bearing fitted-input-called-prediction issue rather than a harmless self-citation: the paper's abstract and conclusions advertise q as deduced from field-theory parameters, but the deduction is actually an equation-identification step. I do not count the self-citations to the authors' thermofractal papers [17,18] as circular, since the paper re-derives the q-exponential form from its own self-similarity condition; nor do I count the self-cited experimental q values [33-35] as circular, since they are used only for comparison. The downstream results for the fractal dimension D=0.69 and multiplicity exponent 1−D=0.31 inherit the q value and therefore inherit the same identification problem, but they do not add independent circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unproven modeling choices: equal-probability statistics, exact self-similarity of energy distributions across scales, and an asserted beta function for the q-exponential effective coupling. The numerical q = 1.14 is obtained only by matching this beta function to the known QCD one-loop beta function; the fractal parameters (N, ν, α) are not numerically determined in the paper.

free parameters (4)
  • ν
    Fraction of total degrees of freedom involved in each interaction; introduced in Sec. 3, appears in α = (4N-5)/(1-ν), never numerically determined and not used in the final q.
  • G = G = 3.67 and G = 752 for the plots
    Prefactor of the effective coupling in Eq. (37); values chosen by hand for the figures in Sec. 5, not derived.
  • λ (scale per degree of freedom)
    Energy scale per degree of freedom, defined via Λ = αλ in Eq. (32); depends on observational resolution, not fixed by the theory.
  • ε0 (inferior energy cutoff)
    Minimum parton energy introduced in Sec. 5 to make g(μ) approach 0 and the beta function vanish at low scale; λc = (q-1)ε0 is an ad hoc cutoff.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption All configurations of partons with the same interaction count are equally probable (microcanonical assumption)
    Sec. 2.1, justified by analogy with LQCD, but no derivation from the quantum state.
  • domain assumption Self-similarity of parton energy distributions at all scales, P(ε/E) ∼ P(E/M) ∼ P(χ)
    Sec. 3, Eq. (27); this is the fractal hypothesis, also central to thermofractals.
  • domain assumption Exponent matching (4N-5) + αν = α
    Sec. 3, Eq. (30); imposes that the same power-law function governs each level, without derivation.
  • domain assumption Approximation (1-ε/M)^(4N-5)(1+ε/M)^(4N-5) ∼ 1
    Sec. 2.1, Eq. (24); used to turn the ideal-gas distribution into a q-exponential; requires (4N-5)(ε/M)^2 << 1, which is not proven.
  • standard math One-loop QCD beta function is the correct external benchmark
    Sec. 4, Eq. (50); standard perturbative QCD result, used to fix q by matching.
  • ad hoc to paper The beta function of the effective coupling in Eq. (49) is valid
    Sec. 4, Eq. (49); asserted without derivation, and the normalization 16π^2 is chosen to match QCD.
invented entities (1)
  • Fractal structure of effective partons (self-similar truncated n-point functions) independent evidence
    purpose: To extend the ideal-gas statistical result to interacting partons and justify the q-exponential distribution and recurrence relations.
    It yields falsifiable quantitative predictions (q = 1.14, D around 0.69, multiplicity exponent around 0.31) that can be compared with high-energy data, although q is fixed by matching to the QCD beta function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fractals, non-extensive statistics and QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4YCCE63

@misc{pith2026190808799,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fractals, non-extensive statistics and QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4YCCE63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08799}
}
abstract

In this work we analyse how scaling properties of Yang-Mills field theory manifest as self-similarity of truncated n-point functions by scale evolution. The presence of such structures, which actually behaves as fractals, allow for recurrent non-perturbative calculation of any vertex. Some general properties are indeed independent of the perturbative order, what simplifies the non-perturbative calculations. We show that for sufficiently high perturbative orders a statistical approach can be used, the non extensive statistics is obtained, and the Tsallis index, $q$, is deduced in terms of the field theory parameters. The results are applied to QCD in the one-loop approximation, where $q$ can be calculated, resulting in a good agreement with the value obtained experimentally. We discuss how this approach allows to understand some intriguing experimental findings in high energy collisions, as the behavior of multiplicity against collision energy, long-tail distributions and the fractal dimension observed in intermittency analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08799 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrams showing the scaling properties of Yang-Mills fields: a loop in higher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Vertex functions at scale (a) λo and (b)λ. This result shows that the distribution of parton energy created by a system governed by Yang-Mills fields depends only on the ratio between the parton energy, ε, and the energy scale per degree of freedom λ. Furthermore, it shows that the energy distribution follows the q-exponential function commonly found in Tsallis non extensive statistics. Similar results have been obt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Behavior of (a) the logarithmic derivative of the effective coupling with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dyson, Phys

    F.J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75 (1949) 1736

    work page 1949

  2. [2]

    Gell-Mann and F.E

    M. Gell-Mann and F.E. Low, Phys. Rev. 95 (1954) 1300

    work page 1954

  3. [3]

    Ward, Proc

    J.C. Ward, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) A64 (1951) 54

    work page 1951

  4. [4]

    The Fractal Geometry of Nature; WH Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1983

    Mandelbrot, B.B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature; WH Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1983

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    West, Scale, The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies, Penguin Books, 2018 - New York

    G. West, Scale, The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies, Penguin Books, 2018 - New York

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Falconer, Fractals, a short introduction , Oxford Univ

    K. Falconer, Fractals, a short introduction , Oxford Univ. Press, 2013 - Oxford

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Tsallis, J

    C. Tsallis, J. Stat. Phys. 52 (1988) 479

    1988

  8. [8]

    Gell-Mann, C

    M. Gell-Mann, C. Tsallis, Nonextensive Entropy: Interdisciplinary Applications , Oxfor University Press, USA, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    H. D. Politzer, Phys. Reports 14 (1974) 129

    1974

  2. [10]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 416

    1974

  3. [11]

    Gross and F

    D. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Reports 14 (1974) incomplete!!!

    1974

  4. [12]

    Gross and F

    D. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 980

    1974

  5. [13]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1541

    1970

  6. [14]

    Symanzik, Commun

    K. Symanzik, Commun. math. Phys. 18 (1970) 227

    1970

  7. [15]

    Symanzik, Commun

    K. Symanzik, Commun. math. Phys. 23 (1971) 49

    1971

  8. [16]

    Deppman and E

    A. Deppman and E. Megias, Physics 2019, 1, 103-110. 18

    2019

  9. [17]

    Deppman, Phys

    A. Deppman, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 054001

    2016

  10. [18]

    Deppman, T

    A. Deppman, T. Frederico, E. Meg´ ıas, D. P Menezes, Entropy 20 (2018) 633

    2018

  11. [19]

    Hagedorn, CERN - TH

    R. Hagedorn, CERN - TH. 520 65/166/5 (1965)

    1965

  12. [20]

    Hagedorn, Nuovo Cimento Suppl

    R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. 3 (1965) 147

    1965

  13. [21]

    Deppman, Physica A 391 (2012) 6380

    A. Deppman, Physica A 391 (2012) 6380

    2012

  14. [22]

    X. Feal, C. Pajares, C and R.A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 015205

    2019

  15. [23]

    P. H. G. Cardoso, T. Nunes da Silva, A. Deppman and D. P. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, no. 10, 191 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Meg´ ıas, D

    E. Meg´ ıas, D. P. Menezes, and A. Deppman, Physica A 421, 15 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    D. P. Menezes, A. Deppman, E. Meg´ ıas and L. B. Castro, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, no. 12, 155 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Deppman, Universe 3 (2017) 62

    A. Deppman, Universe 3 (2017) 62

    2017

  19. [27]

    Tokarev and I

    M. Tokarev and I. Zborovsky, EPJ Web Conf. 141 (2017) 02006

    2017

  20. [28]

    Zborovsk and M.V

    I. Zborovsk and M.V. Tokarev, Phys. Rev. D75, (2007) 094008

    2007

  21. [29]

    Wilk and Z

    G. Wilk and Z. W lodarczyk, Phys. Lett. B (2013) 163

    2013

  22. [30]

    Yalcin and C

    G. Yalcin and C. Beck, Sci. Rep. 8 (2018) 1764

    2018

  23. [31]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  24. [32]

    H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rept. 14, 129 (1974)

    1974

  25. [33]

    Sena and a

    I. Sena and a. Deppman, Eur. Phys. J. A 49 (2013) 17

    2013

  26. [34]

    Marques, E

    L. Marques, E. Andrade-II and A. Deppman, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 114022

    2013

  27. [35]

    Marques, J

    L. Marques, J. Cleymans and A. Deppman, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 054025

    2015

  28. [36]

    van Ritbergen, J

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 400, 379 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    Czakon, Nucl

    M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. B 710, 485 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Rybczynski, Z

    M. Rybczynski, Z. Wlodarczyk and G. Wilk, J. Phys. G 39, 095004 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Bialas and R

    A. Bialas and R. Peschanki, Nucl. Phys. B273 (1986) 703

    1986

  32. [40]

    Bialas and R

    A. Bialas and R. Peschanki, Nucl. Phys. B308 (1988) 857

    1988

  33. [41]

    R. C. Hwa, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 1456

    1990

  34. [42]

    Hwa and J

    R.C. Hwa and J. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 1476. 19

    1992

  35. [43]

    Hegyi, Phys

    S. Hegyi, Phys. Lett. B 318 (1993) 642

    1993

  36. [44]

    Dremin and R.C

    I.M. Dremin and R.C. Hwa, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 5805

    1994

  37. [45]

    Hegyi and T

    S. Hegyi and T. Cs¨ org¨ o, Phys. Lett. B 296 (1992) 256

    1992

  38. [46]

    Antoniou, N

    N.G. Antoniou, N. Davis and F.K. Diakonos, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 014908

    2016

  39. [47]

    De Wolf, I.M

    E.A. De Wolf, I.M. Dremin, W. Kittel, Phys. Rep. 270 (1996) 1-141

    1996

  40. [48]

    Kittel, E.A

    W. Kittel, E.A. De Wolf, Soft Multihadron Dynamics (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    Sarkisyan, Aditya Nath Mishra, Raghunath Sahoo and Alexander S

    Edward K.G. Sarkisyan, Aditya Nath Mishra, Raghunath Sahoo and Alexander S. Sakharov, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 054046. 20

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.