Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Exploring Dark Photon Production and Kinetic Mixing Constraints in Heavy-Ion Collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the measured dilepton spectra in heavy-ion collisions, combined with the PHSD transport model, can constrain the dark photon kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon^2$ down to about $3\times10^{-7}$ in the mass range…

desk verdict A useful sensitivity forecast for dark photons in heavy-ion dileptons, but the quoted epsilon^2 limits are set by a hand-chosen surplus parameter tuned to BaBar14, not by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02536 v1 pith:BIG2GWCV submitted 2024-12-03 hep-ph

Adrian William Romero Jorge , Elena Bratkovskaya , Taesoo Song , Laura Sagunski This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords darkphotonskineticmixingparameterU-bosonheavy-ioncollisionsPHSDtransportmodeldileptonspectraHADESSTAR
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 claims that dilepton spectra measured in heavy-ion collisions, from SIS to RHIC energies, can be used to place upper limits on the dark photon kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon^2(M_U)$. Using the PHSD transport model, which reproduces the Standard Model dilepton background, the authors extend the model to include dark photon production via Dalitz decays of pions, etas, omegas, $\Delta$ resonances, and direct decays of vector mesons and kaons. By requiring that the dark photon contribution not exceed a specified fraction $C_U$ of the Standard Model yield in each mass bin, they extract $\epsilon^2(M_U)$ from the existing HADES and STAR data; with $C_U = 0.3\%$ the result matches the global upper limit near $\epsilon^2 \sim 3 \times 10^{-7}$ for masses between 0.2 and 1.2 GeV. The authors note that for the highest RHIC energies the mass region above about 1 GeV is complicated by unmodeled quark-gluon plasma and charm contributions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dark ($U$) boson, a hypothetical massive vector particle that kinetically mixes with the Standard Model photon through the Lagrangian term $\mathcal{L} \sim \frac{\epsilon}{2} F_{\mu\nu} F'^{\mu\nu}$. The argument is carried by Eq. (15) above, which converts the assumed surplus fraction $C_U$ into a mass-dependent bound on $\epsilon^2$ by taking the ratio of the Standard Model dilepton rate to the $U$-boson rate at $\epsilon = 1$. The $U$-boson production rates are assembled from partial-width formulas for the Dalitz decays $\pi^0,\eta,\omega \to \gamma U$ and $\Delta \to N U$, the decays $V \to U$ for $V = \rho,\phi,\omega$, the Dalitz decay $\omega \to \pi^0 U$, and the kaon decay $K^+ \to \pi^+ U$. The mechanism that makes the procedure work is that the $U$-boson contribution scales linearly with $\epsilon^2$ while the Standard Model background is fixed by the PHSD description, so the ratio in Eq. (15) turns a measured or assumed excess fraction into an $\epsilon^2$ bound.

What would settle it

A high-statistics dilepton measurement in the invariant-mass window $0.2$–$1.2$ GeV with point-to-point systematic uncertainties below $0.3\%$ would either expose a narrow dark-photon peak at a specific $M_U$ or show that any dark-photon contribution is smaller than $0.3\%$ of the Standard Model yield, contradicting the paper's assumed $C_U$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a microscopic transport calculation, calibrated to reproduce Standard Model dilepton production in $p+p$, $p+A$, and $A+A$ collisions, can convert the measured absence of an unexplained dilepton excess into bounds on the kinetic mixing of a hypothetical $U$-boson with the photon. The bound is obtained from Eq. (15), $$\$epsilon^{2}$(M_U) = C_U \cdot \frac{dN_{\rm sum\;SM}/dM}{dN_{\rm sum\;U,\epsilon=1}/dM},$$ which equates the kinetic mixing parameter to the allowed surplus fraction $C_U$ times the ratio of the summed Standard Model dilepton yield to the summed $U$-boson dilepton yield computed at $\epsilon = 1$. The paper identifies which production channels dominate at different masses: pion Dalitz decay below $m_{\pi^0}$, and vector meson decays ($\rho,\omega,\phi$) and $\Delta$ resonances above about 1.2 GeV. The authors show that with $C_U = 10\%$ the extracted curve matches the BaBar09 exclusion, and with $C_U = 0.3\%$ it matches BaBar14 and the global compilation at $\epsilon^2 \sim 3\times10^{-7}$ in the mass window $0.2$–$1.2$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole bound rests on choosing the surplus $C_U$ — the share of the dilepton yield a dark photon may add — and setting it to $0.3\%$ because that value makes the result match BaBar14, rather than deriving it from the statistical and systematic uncertainties of the HADES and STAR data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing HADES and STAR dilepton measurements can already constrain dark photon kinetic mixing to the level of the current global limit near $\epsilon^2 \sim 3\times10^{-7}$ for masses $0.2$–$1.2$ GeV.
  • The inclusion of vector meson and kaon decay channels extends the reach of heavy-ion dilepton data to dark photon masses up to about 2 GeV.
  • The extracted bound is proportional to the allowed surplus $C_U$, so any improvement in the precision of dilepton spectrum measurements translates directly into proportionally tighter dark photon limits.
  • The consistency with BaBar09 and BaBar14 suggests that heavy-ion experiments can serve as a complementary cross-check of dark photon searches at beam-dump and collider facilities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $C_U = 0.3\%$ tuning reflects the true systematic precision of the data, a null search in these systems would push the allowed kinetic mixing below $3\times10^{-7}$ in the $0.2$–$1.2$ GeV window, a region where dedicated dark photon searches currently have comparable sensitivity; heavy-ion experiments could thereby serve as an independent confirmation route.
  • The same ratio method could be applied to $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs at higher invariant masses, or to future high-luminosity heavy-ion runs with better understood backgrounds, to extend the reach below $3\times10^{-7}$.
  • Because the paper omits Drell-Yan and Bremsstrahlung production of $U$-bosons, the constraints above 1 GeV are likely conservative; including those channels could strengthen the high-mass bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Parton-Hadron-String Dynamics (PHSD) transport model to include production of hypothetical U-bosons (dark photons) via Dalitz decays of pi0, eta, omega, and Delta resonances, direct decays of vector mesons (rho, omega, phi), and K+ decays, with subsequent U -> e+e- decay. For each invariant-mass bin, Eq. (15) converts an assumed fractional surplus C_U of the U-boson yield over the summed Standard Model dilepton yield into an upper limit on the kinetic mixing parameter epsilon^2(M_U). Using HADES data at SIS18 energies and STAR data at RHIC energies, the authors report that with C_U = 10% the extracted epsilon^2(M_U) is compatible with BaBar09 limits, and that with C_U = 0.3% the result matches the BaBar14 exclusion and the global compilation value epsilon^2 ~ 3 x 10^-7 for 0.2 < M_U < 1.2 GeV. The paper frames this as a procedure for constraining dark photon kinetic mixing with heavy-ion dilepton data.

Significance. If the derived limit were genuinely anchored to the precision of the heavy-ion dilepton measurements, the paper would offer an independent, energy-frontier probe of dark photon parameter space complementary to fixed-target and collider searches. The study's strengths are its use of the PHSD model, which reproduces the measured Standard Model dilepton spectra across several collision systems, the inclusion of multiple new U-boson production channels beyond earlier work, and the transparent scaling relation Eq. (15) that makes the sensitivity to C_U explicit. The paper is also honest about the missing QGP and charm sources at RHIC. However, the central quantitative claim---that heavy-ion data can exclude epsilon^2 down to ~3 x 10^-7---depends entirely on the ad hoc choice C_U = 0.3%, which is selected to match BaBar14 rather than determined from the experimental uncertainties of the HADES or STAR data. As a sensitivity forecast for future measurements, the study is useful; as a derived upper limit, the present form is not yet supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (15)] The central extraction of epsilon^2(M_U) is linearly proportional to the arbitrary surplus parameter C_U: Eq. (15) is epsilon^2 = C_U * (dN_sumSM/dM)/(dN_sumU@eps=1/dM). The value C_U = 0.3% is introduced in Sec. 4 (right panel of Fig. 3) specifically to make the resulting curve coincide with the BaBar14 bound, and a 10% surplus is used in the left panel. Since the paper does not determine C_U from the statistical and systematic uncertainties of the measured dilepton spectra, the claimed agreement with the world limit epsilon^2 ~ 3 x 10^-7 is imposed by input assumption rather than inferred from the heavy-ion data. The authors should either quote limits for a range of C_U values tied to the known experimental uncertainties, or perform a proper statistical comparison to the HADES/STAR data points (e.g., a chi-square or CLs procedure) with the uncertainties propagated onto epsilon^2.
  2. [Sec. 4, paragraph after Eq. (15)] The statement that a dark photon contribution 'must remain within the uncertainties of the experimental data' is not operationalized. The manuscript does not provide the statistical or systematic uncertainties of the HADES and STAR dilepton spectra used in the comparison, nor does it assign an uncertainty band to the extracted epsilon^2(M_U) curves. Published HADES and STAR dilepton measurements have point-to-point uncertainties of several percent or more, far larger than the C_U = 0.3% used to claim sensitivity to epsilon^2 ~ 3 x 10^-7. Without an explicit mapping from experimental precision to C_U, the quoted limit is a statement of model sensitivity, not a constraint derived from the data.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 3 (left panel), discussion of RHIC region] The paper acknowledges that for Au+Au collisions at 19 and 200 GeV the mass region above 1 GeV is dominated by QGP and charm contributions that are not included in the model, and that the extracted epsilon^2 deviates in this region. Since the paper extends the claimed constraints up to M_U ~ 2 GeV using exactly these RHIC systems, the high-mass portion of the derived limit is not a reliable exclusion. The claim of constraints in the 1-2 GeV range should either be restricted to the SIS18 systems where these contributions are negligible, or the missing QGP and charm dilepton sources should be incorporated before any limit is quoted for the RHIC data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 and text, Sec. 4] The axis label for the Ar+KCl panel reads '3.5 AGeV', while the text and caption state 1.76 A GeV. This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The branching ratio expression contains a term (1 + 2 m_mu^2/M_U) that is dimensionally inconsistent; it should be (1 + 2 m_mu^2/M_U^2), as in the standard two-body decay width.
  3. [Figs. 1-3] In the left panel of Fig. 3, both p+p at 3.5 AGeV and p+Nb at 3.5 AGeV are labeled with blue lines, which makes the legend difficult to read. Different colors or line styles would improve clarity.
  4. [Sec. 3 and Sec. 4] The text refers to 'dark matter (DM) sources' when the intended meaning is dark photon / U-boson contributions. This terminology is confusing because dark photons are mediators, not dark matter particles, and should be changed throughout.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed upper limit on epsilon^2 is set by the hand-chosen surplus C_U=0.3%, tuned to match BaBar14, not derived from the heavy-ion dilepton data or its uncertainties.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eq. (15) and surrounding text]
    "The parameter 𝐶𝑈 defines the maximum permissible increase in dilepton yield from dark photons compared to the Standard Model yield ... 𝜖2(𝑀𝑈)= 𝐶𝑈 ⋅ (𝑑𝑁/𝑑𝑀 𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑆𝑀)/(𝑑𝑁𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑈 𝜖=1/𝑑𝑀). (15). Eq. (15) offers a method to calculate 𝜖2 for each mass interval [𝑀𝑈, 𝑀𝑈 + 𝑑𝑀]."

    Equation (15) defines the extracted limit as C_U times a PHSD-computed yield ratio; it is not inferred from the HADES/STAR data or their uncertainties. The text elsewhere says a dark-photon surplus must remain within the experimental uncertainties, but C_U is never set from those uncertainties. Instead C_U is a free input, so the normalization of the quoted epsilon^2 curve is an input choice, and any upper limit obtained from Eq. (15) scales linearly with that choice.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Fig. 3 (right panel); Section 5]
    "By adjusting the dark photon surplus, we can refine our estimation to align with the experimental data, concluding that a dark photon surplus of 𝐶𝑈 = 0.3% is necessary for consistency with the BaBar 2014 experimental data for 𝑝+𝑁𝑏 at 3.5 AGeV and 𝐴𝑟+𝐾𝐶𝑙 at 1.76 AGeV, which correspond approximately in the current upper limit of a constant 𝜖2 = 3×10−7 (dotted red line) from 0.2 < 𝑀𝑈 < 1.2 GeV."

    C_U is not derived from heavy-ion measurement uncertainties; it is adjusted until the resulting epsilon^2 curve matches the BaBar14 exclusion. Because Eq. (15) is linear in C_U, choosing C_U=0.3% forces the extracted curve to sit near 3×10^-7 in that mass range. The agreement with BaBar14 and with the global limit is therefore built in by the fit, not discovered from the heavy-ion dilepton data. The mass-dependent shape is a genuine PHSD result, but the central quantitative bound is an input.

full rationale

The PHSD calculation of the SM dilepton spectra and the U-boson yield ratio is a real, self-contained transport-model computation, and the paper's reproduction of HADES and STAR spectra is evidence of that. However, the central quantitative claim—that heavy-ion dilepton data constrain epsilon^2 near 3×10^-7—reduces by construction to Eq. (15) with C_U=0.3%, a surplus chosen specifically to match the BaBar14 limit rather than fixed by the experimental uncertainties of the heavy-ion measurements. The text itself admits the surplus is adjustable ('By adjusting the dark photon surplus...'), and the paper also concedes that at RHIC the high-mass results are compromised by neglected QGP and charm production: 'For invariant mass regions exceeding M > 1 GeV, the results for Au+Au collisions at 19 and 200 GeV deviate from the expected values due to the influence of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) and charm production.' This limitation is real but secondary; even at low masses, the 0.3% surplus and the resulting ~3×10^-7 bound are not anchored to the HADES/STAR systematic uncertainties. The study is best read as a sensitivity forecast showing what an idealized 0.3%-level measurement could constrain, not as a derived upper limit from the heavy-ion data themselves. Partial circularity: the normalization of the headline constraint is a fitted input, while the spectral shape is independently calculated.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central output epsilon^2(M_U) is controlled by one new free parameter, C_U, which sets the overall scale of the limit; the mass-dependent shape comes from the PHSD yield ratio. The PHSD baseline itself is an inherited, calibrated model treated as an axiom. The paper uses established dark-photon formulas from Batell, Pospelov, Ritz, Pospelov, Gorbunov and Kalashnikov, and Liu, Weiner and Xue, and adds no new entities.

free parameters (2)
  • C_U (allowed dark photon surplus over SM yield) = 0.1 (10%) and 0.003 (0.3%)
    Chosen by hand in Section 4; the 0.3% value is selected to make the extracted epsilon^2 agree with BaBar14. It fixes the overall normalization of every epsilon^2(M_U) curve via Eq. (15).
  • PHSD transport-model parameters (hadronization threshold, DQPM quasi-particle properties, cross sections) = Inherited from prior PHSD calibrations
    The Standard Model baseline dN_SM/dM that enters Eq. (15) is produced by PHSD with parameters tuned in earlier papers; the present work does not re-fit or certify them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PHSD accurately reproduces the measured dilepton spectra in p+p, p+A, and A+A collisions at SIS18-RHIC energies.
    The entire constraint in Eq. (15) uses dN_SM/dM as the exact background; the paper cites prior validation in Section 2 but provides no independent uncertainty estimate.
  • domain assumption U-boson production can be obtained by scaling SM decay yields with ratios of partial widths (Eqs. 6-12), with the U boson treated as a narrow state and with no interference with SM amplitudes.
    Eq. (7) and the branching formulas assume the kinetic mixing picture of Batell, Pospelov and Ritz and neglect width effects and interference; this is stated in Section 3.
  • domain assumption The Br(U->e+e-) formula from Batell et al. (2009b), extended by Liu et al. (2015), remains valid for M_U up to 2 GeV.
    Eq. (13) is used for all masses in the paper; the text notes the original formula is only valid below 0.6 GeV and adopts an extension without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption For low-energy systems, QGP and charm contributions to the dilepton spectrum are negligible, and for RHIC the omitted U-production from QGP and charm does not invalidate the quoted mass ranges.
    Section 2.1 restricts the study to hadronic sources; Section 4 admits QGP and charm dominate at RHIC for M>1 GeV, so the RHIC constraints are only valid where these contributions are small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Dark Photon Production and Kinetic Mixing Constraints in Heavy-Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIG2GWCV

@misc{pith2026241202536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Dark Photon Production and Kinetic Mixing Constraints in Heavy-Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIG2GWCV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02536}
}
abstract

Vector $U$-bosons, often referred to as 'dark photons', are potential candidates for mediating dark matter interactions. In this study, we outline a procedure to derive theoretical constraints on the upper bound of the kinetic mixing parameter $\epsilon^2(M_U)$ using dilepton data from heavy-ion from SIS to RHIC energies. The analysis is based on the microscopic Parton-Hadron-String Dynamics (PHSD) transport model, which successfully reproduces the measured dilepton spectra in $p+p$, $p+A$, and $A+A$ collisions. Besides the dilepton channels resulting from interactions and decays of Standard Model particles (such as mesons and baryons), we extend the PHSD approach to include the decay of hypothetical $U$-bosons into dileptons, $U \to e^+ e^-$. The production of these $U$-bosons occurs via Dalitz decays of pions, $\eta$-mesons, $\omega$-mesons, Delta resonances, as well as from the decays of vector mesons and $K^+$ mesons. This analysis provides an upper limit on $\epsilon^2(M_U)$ and offers insights into the accuracy required for future experimental searches for dark photons through dilepton experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    APEX:2011dww APACrefauthors Abrahamyan, S. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2011 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 191804

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Adamczewski-Musch:2019byl APACrefauthors Adamczewski-Musch, J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2019 , Nature Phys. 15 10 1040--1045

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    STAR:2015tnn APACrefauthors Adamczyk, L. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2015 , Phys. Rev. C 92 2 024912

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Agakishiev:2011vf APACrefauthors Agakishiev, G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2011 , Phys. Rev. C 84 014902

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Agakishiev:2012vj APACrefauthors Agakishiev, G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2012 1 , Phys. Lett. B 715 304--309

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    HADES:2011ab APACrefauthors Agakishiev, G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2012 2 , Eur. Phys. J. A 48 64

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    HADES:2013nab APACrefauthors Agakishiev, G. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 , Phys. Lett. B 731 265--271

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Agrawal:2021dbo APACrefauthors Agrawal, P. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2021 2 ,

    work page 2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Alexander:2016aln APACrefauthors Alexander, J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2016 8 , Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Community Report Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Community Report

    2016

  2. [10]

    Aprile:2020tmw APACrefauthors Aprile, E. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2020 , Phys. Rev. D 102 7 072004

    2020

  3. [11]

    BaBar:2009lbr APACrefauthors Aubert, B. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 081803

    2009

  4. [12]

    KLOE-2:2014qxg APACrefauthors Babusci, D. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 , Phys. Lett. B 736 459--464

    2014

  5. [13]

    , Pospelov, M

    Batell:2009di APACrefauthors Batell, B. , Pospelov, M. \ Ritz, A. APACrefauthors \ 2009 1 , Phys. Rev. D 80 095024

    2009

  6. [14]

    , Pospelov, M

    Batell:2009yf APACrefauthors Batell, B. , Pospelov, M. \ Ritz, A. APACrefauthors \ 2009 2 , Phys. Rev. D 79 115008

    2009

  7. [15]

    Batley:2015lha APACrefauthors Batley, J R. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2015 , Phys. Lett. B 746 178--185

    2015

  8. [16]

    Battaglieri:2017aum APACrefauthors Battaglieri, M. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2017 7 , US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report . U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter . U.S. Cosmic ...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Beacham:2019nyx APACrefauthors Beacham, J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2020 , J. Phys. G 47 1 010501

    2020

  10. [18]

    \ Hooper, D

    Bertone:2016nfn APACrefauthors Bertone, G. \ Hooper, D. APACrefauthors \ 2018 , Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 4 045002 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.045002 APACrefDOI

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Billard:2021uyg APACrefauthors Billard, J. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2021 4 ,

    2021

  12. [20]

    \ Fayet, P

    Boehm:2003hm APACrefauthors Boehm, C. \ Fayet, P. APACrefauthors \ 2004 , Nucl. Phys. B 683 219--263

    2004

  13. [21]

    , Schmidt, I

    Bratkovskaya:2022cch APACrefauthors Bratkovskaya, E. , Schmidt, I. , Gumberidze, M. \ Holzmann, R. APACrefauthors \ 2023 , Astron. Nachr. 344 e220104

    2023

  14. [22]

    , Aichelin, J

    Bratkovskaya:2013vx APACrefauthors Bratkovskaya, E L. , Aichelin, J. , Thomere, M. , Vogel, S. \ Bleicher, M. APACrefauthors \ 2013 , Phys. Rev. C 87 064907

    2013

  15. [23]

    , Cassing, W

    Bratkovskaya:2011wp APACrefauthors Bratkovskaya, E L. , Cassing, W. , Konchakovski, V P. \ Linnyk, O. APACrefauthors \ 2011 , Nucl. Phys. A 856 162--182

    2011

  16. [24]

    , Cassing, W

    Bratkovskaya:2000mb APACrefauthors Bratkovskaya, E L. , Cassing, W. \ Mosel, U. APACrefauthors \ 2001 , Nucl. Phys. A 686 568--588

    2001

  17. [25]

    APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Eur

    Cassing:2008nn APACrefauthors Cassing, W. APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Eur. Phys. J. ST 168 3--87

    2009

  18. [26]

    \ Bratkovskaya, E L

    Cassing:2008sv APACrefauthors Cassing, W. \ Bratkovskaya, E L. APACrefauthors \ 2008 , Phys. Rev. C 78 034919

    2008

  19. [27]

    \ Bratkovskaya, E L

    Cassing:2009vt APACrefauthors Cassing, W. \ Bratkovskaya, E L. APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Nucl. Phys. A 831 215--242

    2009

  20. [28]

    , Gabrielli, E

    Fabbrichesi:2020wbt APACrefauthors Fabbrichesi, M. , Gabrielli, E. \ Lanfranchi, G. APACrefauthors \ 2020 5 ,

    2020

  21. [29]

    APACrefauthors \ 1980 , Phys

    Fayet:1980ad APACrefauthors Fayet, P. APACrefauthors \ 1980 , Phys. Lett. B 95 285--289

    1980

  22. [30]

    APACrefauthors \ 2004 , Phys

    Fayet:2004bw APACrefauthors Fayet, P. APACrefauthors \ 2004 , Phys. Rev. D 70 023514

    2004

  23. [31]

    \ Kalashnikov, D

    Gorbunov:2024nph APACrefauthors Gorbunov, D. \ Kalashnikov, D. APACrefauthors \ 2024 , Phys. Lett. B 852 138599

    2024

  24. [32]

    APACrefauthors \ 2024 , EPJ Web Conf

    Han:2024nzr APACrefauthors Han, Y. APACrefauthors \ 2024 , EPJ Web Conf. 296 07004

    2024

  25. [33]

    CMS:2023hwl APACrefauthors Hayrapetyan, A. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2023 , JHEP 12 070

    2023

  26. [34]

    APACrefauthors \ 1986 , Phys

    Holdom:1985ag APACrefauthors Holdom, B. APACrefauthors \ 1986 , Phys. Lett. B 166 196--198

    1986

  27. [35]

    , Bratkovskaya, E L

    Konchakovski:2011qa APACrefauthors Konchakovski, V P. , Bratkovskaya, E L. , Cassing, W. , Toneev, V D. \ Voronyuk, V. APACrefauthors \ 2012 , Phys. Rev. C 85 011902

    2012

  28. [36]

    BaBar:2014zli APACrefauthors Lees, J P. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 20 201801

    2014

  29. [37]

    , Bratkovskaya, E L

    Linnyk:2015rco APACrefauthors Linnyk, O. , Bratkovskaya, E L. \ Cassing, W. APACrefauthors \ 2016 , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87 50--115

    2016

  30. [38]

    , Weiner, N

    Liu:2014cma APACrefauthors Liu, J. , Weiner, N. \ Xue, W. APACrefauthors \ 2015 , JHEP 08 050

    2015

  31. [39]

    Merkel:2014avp APACrefauthors Merkel, H. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2014 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 22 221802

    2014

  32. [40]

    , Soloveva, O

    Moreau:2019vhw APACrefauthors Moreau, P. , Soloveva, O. , Oliva, L. , Song, T. , Cassing, W. \ Bratkovskaya, E. APACrefauthors \ 2019 , Phys. Rev. C 100 1 014911

    2019

  33. [41]

    APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Phys

    Pospelov:2008zw APACrefauthors Pospelov, M. APACrefauthors \ 2009 , Phys. Rev. D 80 095002

    2009

  34. [42]

    , Ritz, A

    Pospelov:2007mp APACrefauthors Pospelov, M. , Ritz, A. \ Voloshin, M B. APACrefauthors \ 2008 , Phys. Lett. B 662 53--61

    2008

  35. [43]

    APACrefauthors \ 2013 , Adv

    Rapp:2013nxa APACrefauthors Rapp, R. APACrefauthors \ 2013 , Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013 148253

    2013

  36. [44]

    , Bratkovskaya, E

    Schmidt:2021hhs APACrefauthors Schmidt, I. , Bratkovskaya, E. , Gumberidze, M. \ Holzmann, R. APACrefauthors \ 2021 , Phys. Rev. D 104 1 015008

    2021

  37. [45]

    , Cassing, W

    Song:2018xca APACrefauthors Song, T. , Cassing, W. , Moreau, P. \ Bratkovskaya, E. APACrefauthors \ 2018 , Phys. Rev. C 97 6 064907

    2018

  38. [46]

    \ Yu, H B

    Tulin:2017ara APACrefauthors Tulin, S. \ Yu, H B. APACrefauthors \ 2018 , Phys. Rept. 730 1--57

    2018

  39. [47]

    Weber:2011zze APACrefauthors Weber, M. \ . APACrefauthors \ 2011 , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 316 012007

    2011

  40. [48]

    Nilsson-Almqvist, Bo and Stenlund, Evert

    @article NilssonAlmqvist:1986rx, author = "Nilsson-Almqvist, Bo and Stenlund, Evert", title = " Interactions Between Hadrons and Nuclei: The Lund Monte Carlo, Fritiof Version 1.6 ", reportNumber = "LU TP-86-14, LUIP-8604", journal = "Comput. Phys. Commun.", volume = "43", page...

    1987 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Cassing, W. and Tolos, L. and Bratkovskaya, E. L. and Ramos, A

    @article Cassing:2003vz, author = "Cassing, W. and Tolos, L. and Bratkovskaya, E. L. and Ramos, A.", title = " Anti-kaon production in A+A collisions at SIS energies within an off-shell G matrix approach ", eprint = "nucl-th/0304006", archivePrefix = "arXiv", journal = "Nucl. ...

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot :...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.