Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Velocity dependence of the mass modifications of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons in 12 GeV $p+A$ reactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Rho and omega mesons produced in 12 GeV p+C and p+Cu collisions show a low-mass excess consistent with a roughly 10% in-medium mass drop at normal nuclear density.

desk verdict The low-mass excess is robust and the beta-gamma-resolved spectra are a real step forward, but the 10% mass shift rests on unvaried production-geometry and line-shape assumptions that need to be part of the systematic budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18900 v2 pith:DJ6QSG7Z submitted 2025-07-25 nucl-ex

Wataru Nakai , Kazuya Aoki , Junsei Chiba , Hideto En'yo , Yoshinori Fukao , Haruhiko Funahashi , Hideki Hamagaki , Masaharu Ieiri
show 21 more authors
Masaya Ishino Hiroki Kanda Koki Kanno Masaaki Kitaguchi Satoshi Mihara Koji Miwa Takuya Miyashita Tetsuya Murakami Ryotaro Muto Terunao Nakura Megumi Naruki Kyoichiro Ozawa Fuminori Sakuma Osamu Sasaki Michiko Sekimoto Tsuguchika Tabaru Kazuhiro Tanaka Manabu Togawa Satoru Yamada Satoshi Yokkaichi Yoshio Yoshimura
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords vectormesonmassmodificationin-mediumhadronpropertiesdielectroninvariantrhoomegachiralsymmetryrestorationnuclearmatterdensityproton-nucleuscollisions
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

By reanalyzing the full dielectron dataset of the E325 experiment, this paper tries to establish that rho and omega mesons produced in 12 GeV proton collisions with carbon and copper nuclei are lighter inside the nucleus. In all three meson-velocity bins and for both targets, the e+e- invariant-mass spectrum shows an excess on the low-mass side of the omega peak that known hadronic sources cannot reproduce; the excess is 8.5 to 13.4 standard deviations. A model in which the pole mass falls linearly with nuclear density, $M(\rho) = (1 - k_1 \rho/\rho_0) M(0)$, reproduces the spectra with $k_1$ between 0.10 and 0.12, i.e., a roughly 10% mass reduction at normal nuclear density. If right, this is direct evidence for density-dependent hadron masses in cold nuclear matter and supports the idea that hadron mass is tied to chiral symmetry breaking in the QCD vacuum. The paper also provides the first velocity ($\beta\gamma$) dependence of the modification, which stays nearly flat across the measured range.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the density-dependent pole mass and width inserted into a stepwise decay simulation: $M(\rho) = (1 - k_1 \rho/\rho_0) M(0)$ and $\Gamma(\rho) = (1 + k_2 \rho/\rho_0) \Gamma(0)$, with the Woods-Saxon density profile of the target. The key observable is the excess ratio, the number of counts in the 0.62-0.76 GeV/$c^2$ region beyond known sources relative to the omega yield, and the fitted parameter $k_1$ that converts that excess into a mass shift. The velocity dependence enters because lower-$\beta\gamma$ mesons decay a larger fraction inside the nucleus (for the Cu target, rho in-medium decay fractions range from 76% at $\beta\gamma<2.1$ down to 48% at $\beta\gamma>2.7$), so the same density-dependent shift produces a stronger distortion in slow-meson spectra. The asymmetric line shape $\mathrm{nBW}/m^3$, previously used in gamma-nucleus analyses, is what allows the rho contribution to coexist with the mass-shifted omega.

What would settle it

Measure the same reaction on a deuterium or hydrogen target with the same detector: if the low-mass excess and the fitted $k_1$ vanish, the effect is genuinely nuclear; if they persist, the excess has a non-nuclear origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the low-mass excess survives a much more careful analysis than the original observation: with more than twice the omega statistics, optimized acceptance, updated Dalitz form factors, internal radiative corrections, and a re-tuned detector simulation, the excess appears in every $\beta\gamma$ bin for both C and Cu, with significances from 8.5$\sigma$ to 13.4$\sigma$. Fitting the excess with a density-dependent pole mass yields $k_1 = 0.12^{+0.03}_{-0.03}\,\mathrm{(stat.)}^{+0.01}_{-0.03}\,\mathrm{(sys.)}$ for $\beta\gamma<2.1$, $0.12^{+0.04}_{-0.06}\,\mathrm{(stat.)}^{+0.01}_{-0.09}\,\mathrm{(sys.)}$ for $2.1<\beta\gamma<2.7$, and $0.10^{+0.03}_{-0.05}\,\mathrm{(stat.)}^{+0.02}_{-0.02}\,\mathrm{(sys.)}$ for $\beta\gamma>2.7$, corresponding to a roughly 10% mass drop at normal nuclear density. A symmetric Breit-Wigner shape forces the fitted rho yield to zero, while an asymmetric $\mathrm{nBW}/m^3$ shape restores $\rho/\omega$ ratios consistent with proton-proton measurements; the paper therefore adopts the asymmetric shape and finds no significant width broadening ($k_2$ consistent with zero). The authors present this as updated evidence that the in-medium effect in cold nuclear matter is a mass shift rather than broadening.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed starting point of each meson: to convert the spectrum into a mass shift, the model places every rho and omega uniformly on the incident-side surface of the target nucleus where the density is half its central value, and the paper does not vary this assumption when assigning systematic errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, the rho and omega pole masses drop by about 10% at normal nuclear density in cold matter, moving from roughly 775 and 782 MeV/$c^2$ toward about 700 MeV/$c^2$.
  • Because $k_1$ stays nearly constant across the three $\beta\gamma$ bins, the mass shift in the sampled momentum range has little momentum dependence, which can be compared directly with QCD sum-rule calculations of the momentum dependence.
  • The data rule out a pure broadening interpretation: fits that allow only width growth cannot reproduce the excess, so any future model must include a downward density-dependent mass shift.
  • The necessity of the asymmetric $\mathrm{nBW}/m^3$ shape means the in-medium resonance is not a simple symmetric peak, a constraint that effective-model calculations of vector-meson spectral functions must satisfy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the geometric assumption would be a target-thickness scan: if the fitted $k_1$ changed systematically with target thickness, the assumed production-point distribution rather than the mass shift would be carrying the excess.
  • Extending the same fitting framework to the phi meson in the same three $\beta\gamma$ bins could map the mass shift as a function of strangeness content; the earlier phi result suggests a smaller shift, and a common analysis would put the rho/omega and phi modifications on the same footing.
  • A hydrogen or deuterium target run with identical acceptance would measure the vacuum line shape and $\rho/\omega$ ratio in the same detector, breaking the degeneracy between an unmodified broadened rho and a mass-shifted omega.
  • The flat $\beta\gamma$ dependence implies that at even higher meson momenta the observed excess should shrink as the in-medium decay fraction falls; future higher-energy experiments can verify this trend and turn the velocity dependence into a measurement of the meson's in-medium lifetime.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an updated analysis of the KEK-PS E325 data for 12 GeV p+C and p+Cu reactions, measuring e+e- invariant mass spectra in the rho/omega region and splitting them into three beta-gamma bins. The authors find a significant low-mass excess relative to known hadronic sources in all six target/beta-gamma combinations (Sec. 5.2, Table 13; 8.5-13.4 sigma). They interpret this excess with a Monte Carlo model in which the rho and omega pole masses scale as 1 - k1 rho/rho0 and the widths scale as 1 + k2 rho/rho0, with the mesons produced on the incident-side hemisphere at half nuclear density (Sec. 6.1). For the asymmetric nBW/m^3 line shape (case (ii)), they obtain k1 ~ 0.10-0.12, corresponding to about a 10% downward mass shift at normal nuclear density, with no significant width broadening. The paper emphasizes that this is the first beta-gamma-differential extraction from E325 and compares the result with the earlier E325 analysis, with CLAS and TAPS, and with QCD sum-rule predictions.

Significance. If the mass-shift interpretation is correct, this is an important cold-nuclear-matter measurement of vector-meson mass modification with a new velocity dependence, in a regime where previous experiments disagree. The measurement side is genuinely strong: the excess is large, reproduced across two targets and three beta-gamma bins, the analysis uses the full statistics, and the experimental systematics for the excess ratio are extensive (Sec. 5.3, Table 14). The paper also ships an unusually transparent account of detector calibration, simulation tuning, background construction, and model assumptions, which supports reproducibility of the analysis. The main significance is therefore the robust existence of a low-mass excess and its beta-gamma dependence; the conversion of that excess into a specific ~10% mass shift is model-dependent rather than parameter-free, and the paper itself acknowledges that one of its three model cases fails to reproduce the known pp rho/omega ratio. The result is a credible and important update, but the quantitative 'mass modification' claim should be treated as an interpretation under stated assumptions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.1 and Table 18] The extracted k1 depends directly on the assumed production-point distribution, stated in Sec. 6.1 as uniform production 'on the surface of the incident-side hemisphere at the half-density of the target nucleus' and inherited from Ref. [20]. This assumption is never varied in the systematic-error evaluation: Table 18 lists fit region, bin width, mass scale, mass resolution, event-mixing, and electron-ID efficiency, but not the production geometry. Since Table 15 shows in-medium decay fractions that differ strongly between C and Cu and between beta-gamma bins (e.g., 8.6% vs 14% for omega in the lowest bin), a volume-distributed or full-surface production would change the path-length distribution and therefore the fitted k1. The authors should either propagate this model uncertainty into the quoted errors or demonstrate that the extracted k1 is insensitive to it.
  2. [Sec. 6.2, case (i) and Table 17] The paper itself states that case (i) (symmetric nBW shape) yields rho/omega ratios of 0.02-0.25 for C and <0.14 for Cu, contradicting the pp value of 1.0 +/- 0.2 from Ref. [61], and concludes that 'the simulated model must be further refined to accurately reproduce the data.' This is a self-identified failure of one of the three model variants used to extract the central result. Because Table 16 shows that k1 changes from 0.12-0.16 in case (i) to 0.10-0.12 in cases (ii) and (iii), the quantitative mass shift is not robust across the modeling choices considered. The paper should either exclude the failing case from the central claim, quantify the resulting model spread, or explicitly present the final k1 values as conditional on the asymmetric-shape assumption.
  3. [Sec. 6.2.1 and Table 18] The systematic errors quoted for k1 (e.g., +0.01/-0.03 for beta-gamma <2.1) cover only the detector- and background-related variations listed in A-F. They do not include the uncertainty in the JAM momentum distributions, the choice among the in-medium spectral shapes (nBW, nBW/m^3, mdRBW2, or the previous-study shape shown in Fig. A1), or the two assumed branching-ratio prescriptions (constant branching ratio vs. constant partial width). Each of these can shift the extracted k1 by an amount comparable to or larger than the statistical errors in Table 16. The quoted 'mass decrease of about 10%' therefore understates the total model uncertainty, and the authors should widen the systematic budget or present the result with a clear model-uncertainty caveat.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical slips, including 'Backgound' in Sec. 4.8, 'Collaoration' in Ref. [2], and an incomplete decay label 'rho->e+e' in Sec. 2.1; these should be corrected in a final proofreading pass.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Table 13] The excess ratio is defined as N_excess/(N_omega + N_excess), but this definition is only stated in the text after Table 13 and would be clearer if repeated in the table caption, since the reader needs it to interpret Fig. 32.
  3. [Sec. 6.1, Eq. (11)-(12)] The parameter k1 is identified with the mass shift 'at normal nuclear density' in the conclusion, but Eq. (11) defines it via M(rho)/M(0) = 1 - k1 rho/rho0, so k1 is the density-slope parameter; the paper should consistently call k1 the fractional shift per unit density and reserve 'mass decrease at rho0' for the combination k1 rho(r)/rho0, which is only equal to k1 at rho = rho0.
  4. [Sec. 4.8.3] The iterative weighting method for the combinatorial background is described clearly, but the convergence criterion is not stated; adding a sentence on when the iterative loop is stopped would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quantitative k1 mass-shift value rests on a self-cited, unvaried production-point ansatz; the low-mass excess itself is independently measured.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. 6.1, production-point assumption, with Eq. (11) and Table 16/18]
    "To reflect the possible different production mechanisms to explain the different α parameter, it is assumed that the production points of the ρ and ω mesons are uniformly distributed on the surface of the incident-side hemisphere at the half-density of the target nucleus [20], and for φ, distributed in the entire volume of the target nucleus, proportionally to the density [21]."

    The quantitative mass-modification result (k1 ≈ 0.10–0.12 in Sec. 6.2.1) is obtained by fitting Eq. (11) to the e+e− spectra, but the fraction of mesons that decay inside nuclear matter, and therefore the amount of shifted signal needed to match the low-mass excess, is set by this production-point distribution. The distribution is not derived or independently benchmarked in this paper; it is imported, via citation [20], from the authors' own previous E325 analysis, and it is not varied in the systematic-error evaluation of Table 18. Changing the production-point geometry (e.g., volume vs. surface vs. full-surface) would directly change the fitted k1, so the numerical mass-shift claim inherits an unvalidated self-cited ansatz rather than being independently derived.

full rationale

The core spectroscopic result is not circular: the low-mass excess beyond known hadronic sources is established by comparing the measured e+e− invariant-mass spectra with simulated known sources and an event-mixing combinatorial background, and the detector simulation is benchmarked against Λ and K0s mass peaks. That excess is reproducible across C and Cu targets and three βγ bins at 8.5–13.4σ. The k1 and k2 parameters are admittedly free parameters determined by χ2 minimization, so the paper does not claim a parameter-free derivation or a first-principles prediction of the in-medium mass. The only clear circularity chain is the production-point ansatz: the fitted k1 value depends directly on the assumed spatial distribution of ρ and ω production points, and that assumption is taken from the authors' prior work [20] without independent support and without inclusion in the quoted systematic budget (Table 18). This makes the central quantitative mass-shift value partially self-citation-dependent, although the existence of the excess and the direction of the mass shift are robust to this assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement of the excess itself is nearly assumption-free, but every quantitative statement about mass modification passes through a model with free parameters and several uncontrolled assumptions. Most consequential are the production-surface distribution and the choice of mass shape; the paper's own case (i) shows that a symmetric shape breaks the consistency with the known pp rho/omega ratio. The systematic error table covers fitting variations but not these structural model choices.

free parameters (3)
  • k1 (pole-mass modification) = 0.12, 0.12, 0.10 for beta-gamma <2.1, 2.1-2.7, >2.7 (case ii)
    Defined in Eq. (11) as the linear density dependence of the meson pole mass; determined by chi-square fits to the measured dielectron spectra.
  • k2 (width-broadening parameter) = upper limits <0.7, <1.7, <3.5 (case ii, 99% CL)
    Defined in Eq. (12) as the linear density dependence of the total width; fitted simultaneously with k1 and consistent with zero.
  • rho and omega yields for C and Cu per beta-gamma bin = e.g., rho/omega 0.34-0.71 (case ii), see Table 17
    Nuisance normalization parameters in the model fits; the relative rho/omega ratio is compared with external pp data as a consistency check but is not constrained in the fit.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper rho and omega mesons are produced uniformly on the surface of the incident-side hemisphere at half nuclear density
    Sec. 6.1; adopted from Ref. [20] to match alpha parameters; not varied in systematics and directly affects in-medium decay fractions.
  • domain assumption Generated meson momentum distributions are correctly described by the JAM cascade code
    Sec. 6.1; JAM overproduces cross sections but reproduces the omega momentum distribution approximately; acceptance and decay-length weighting depend on this.
  • domain assumption Target nuclear density follows a Woods-Saxon profile with parameters from Ref. [60]
    Sec. 6.1, Eq. (13); standard nuclear density model used to compute local density at decay points.
  • ad hoc to paper The in-medium mass shape is one of nBW, nBW/m^3, or similar, with density-dependent pole and width
    Sec. 6.1 and Appendix A; case (i) fails the rho/omega consistency check, so the asymmetric shape is required to obtain a physical result, but its physical justification is not established.
  • domain assumption The e+e- branching ratio is either constant in the medium or the partial width is constant
    Sec. 6.1; two extreme cases adopted due to lack of experimental/theoretical guidance; affects the relative weight of in-medium decays.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Velocity dependence of the mass modifications of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons in 12 GeV $p+A$ reactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJ6QSG7Z

@misc{pith2026250718900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Velocity dependence of the mass modifications of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons in 12 GeV $p+A$ reactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJ6QSG7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18900}
}
abstract

This study measured the invariant mass spectra of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons in the $e^+e^-$ decay channel for 12 GeV (12.9 GeV/$c$) $p+\mathrm{C}$ and $p+\mathrm{Cu}$ reactions ($\sqrt{s}_{NN}=5.1$ GeV) at the KEK 12-GeV Proton Synchrotron. The measured spectra were divided into three $\beta\gamma$ regions to examine their velocity dependence. Across all regions, significant excesses were observed on the low-mass side of the $\omega$ meson peak, beyond the contributions of known hadronic sources, in the data of the C and Cu targets. Model calculations were subsequently performed to evaluate the magnitudes of the mass modifications of $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18900 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. The counting rate of the particles from the target as a function of the beam position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. It is noted that the FLG presented no TDC data owing to the limitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 40
Figure 40. As depicted, the ρ/ω ratios exhibit finite nonzero values, which largely agree with previous experimental results (ρ/ω = 1.0 ± 0.2), albeit slightly deviating by 2σ–3σ at the maximum. These results are also consistent with the previous findings [20]. In case (iii), where the asymmetric mass shape and the constant partial decay width were assumed, the results of the optimal k1 and k2 were almost the same as case (ii)… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 42
Figure 42. Figure 42: With respect to the χ 2 values, the results of case (ii) are slightly better than those of case (iii). The obtained values of the k1 and k2 parameters near the χ 2 minimum are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_42.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Naruki et al

    M. Naruki et al. (KEK-PS E325 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 092301 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.092301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.092301 2006

  2. [61]

    Blobel et al

    V. Blobel et al. , Phys. Lett. B48, 73 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(74)90462-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(74)90462-6 1974

  3. [1]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.122.345

    doi:10.1103/physrev.122.345 1961

  4. [2]

    Agakichiev et al., (CERES Collaoration), Eur

    G. Agakichiev et al., (CERES Collaoration), Eur. Phys. J. C 41, 475 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2005- 02272-3

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005- 2005

  5. [3]

    Damjanovic et al

    S. Damjanovic et al. (NA60 Collaboration), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35, 104036 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/35/10/104036

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/10/104036 2008

  6. [4]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93, no.1, 014904 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.014904

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.014904 2016

  7. [5]

    G. E. Brown and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2720 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2720

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.66.2720 1991

  8. [6]

    Hatsuda and S

    T. Hatsuda and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 46, R34 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.46.R34

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.46.r34 1992

Show all 63 references
  1. [7]

    Hatsuda, S

    T. Hatsuda, S. H. Lee, and H. Shiomi, Phys. Rev. C 52, 3364 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.52.3364

    1995 doi

  2. [8]

    S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 57 927-930 (1998), Phys. Rev. C 58 3771 (1998) (erratum). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.57.927, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.58.3771

    1998 doi

  3. [9]

    Gubler and D

    P. Gubler and D. Satow, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.005

    2019 doi

  4. [10]

    Klingl, N

    F. Klingl, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 624, 527 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(97)88960-9

    1997 doi

  5. [11]

    Klingl, T

    F. Klingl, T. Waas and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B 431, 254 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00491-2

    1998 doi

  6. [12]

    Post and U

    M. Post and U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A 699, 169 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01489-0

    2002 doi

  7. [13]

    Cabrera, E

    D. Cabrera, E. Oset, and M. J. Vicent Vacas, Nucl. Phys. A 705, 90 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(02)00612-7

    2002 doi

  8. [14]

    Ramos et al

    A. Ramos et al. Euro. Phys. J. A 49 , 148 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2013-13148-x

    2013 doi

  9. [15]

    Cabrera and R

    D. Cabrera and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 729 , 67 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.12.056

    2014 doi

  10. [16]

    Oset and A

    E. Oset and A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A 679, 616 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00363-8

    2001 doi

  11. [17]

    Gubler and W

    P. Gubler and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 125 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.04.018

    2016 doi

  12. [18]

    Sekimoto et al

    M. Sekimoto et al. (KEK-PS E325 Collaboration), Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 516, 390 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2003.08.168

    2004 doi

  13. [19]

    Tabaru et al

    T. Tabaru et al. (KEK-PS E325 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 74, 025201 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.74.025201

    2006 doi

  14. [21]

    Muto et al

    R. Muto et al. (KEK-PS E325 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 042501 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.042501

    2007 doi

  15. [22]

    Sakuma et al

    F. Sakuma et al. (KEK-PS E325 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett 98, 152302 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.152302

    2007 doi

  16. [23]

    Agakichiev et al

    G. Agakichiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 052302 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.052302

    2007 doi

  17. [24]

    Agakichiev et al

    G. Agakichiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B663, 43 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.03.062

    2008 doi

  18. [25]

    R. J. Porter et al. (DLS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1229 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1229

    1997 doi

  19. [26]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 690, 118-122 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.05.010

    2010 doi

  20. [27]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 84, 014902 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.84.014902 74

    2011 doi

  21. [28]

    Adamczeweski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczeweski-Musch et al. (HADES Collaboration), Nat. Phys 15, 1040-1045 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0583-8

    2019 doi

  22. [29]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. (HADES Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 715, 304-309 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.004

    2012 doi

  23. [30]

    M. A. Kagarlis et al. , Phys. Rev. C 60, 025203 (2002). G. M. Huber et al. (TAGX Collaboration) Phys. Rev. C, 68, 065202 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.065202

    2002 doi

  24. [31]

    Ishikawa et al

    T. Ishikawa et al. , Phys. Lett. B 608, 215 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2005.01.023

    2005 doi

  25. [32]

    McClellan et al

    G. McClellan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1593 (1971) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.1593

    1971 doi

  26. [33]

    Behrend et al

    H-J. Behrend et al. , Phys. Lett. B 56, 408 (1975) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(75)90331-7

    1975 doi

  27. [34]

    M. H. Wood et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 78, 015201 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.015201

    2008 doi

  28. [35]

    M. H. Wood et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 112301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.112301

    2010 doi

  29. [36]

    Nanova et al

    M. Nanova et al. (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 82, 035209 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.035209

    2010 doi

  30. [37]

    Thiel et al

    M. Thiel et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 132 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2013-13132-6

    2013 doi

  31. [38]

    Kotulla et al

    M. Kotulla et al. (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 192302 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.192302

    2008 doi

  32. [39]

    Friedrich et al

    S. Friedrich et al. (CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 297 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2016-16297-4

    2016 doi

  33. [40]

    Barberio, B

    E. Barberio, B. van Eijk, and Z. Was, Comput. Phys. Commun. 66, 115 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(91)90012-A

    1991 doi

  34. [41]

    S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 72, 014903 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.72.014903

    2005 doi

  35. [42]

    Nara et al

    JAM v1.011, Y. Nara et al. , Phys. Rev. C 61, 024901 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.61.024901

    2000 doi

  36. [43]

    Froehlich et al., Proceedings of XI International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research — PoS(ACAT) 076 (2007)

    I. Froehlich et al., Proceedings of XI International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research — PoS(ACAT) 076 (2007). https://doi.org/10.22323/1.050.0076

    2007 doi

  37. [44]

    Takasaki et al

    M. Takasaki et al. , KEK Internal 1 (1995)

    1995

  38. [45]

    Tanaka et al

    K.H. Tanaka et al. , Proceedings of the First Asian Particle Accelerator Conference (APAC98), March 23-27 (1998), KEK, Tsukuba, 576–578

    1998

  39. [46]

    Sugaya et al

    Y. Sugaya et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 368, 635 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(95)00844-6

    1996 doi

  40. [47]

    Katayama and T

    I. Katayama and T. Shibata, Butsuri 49, 200 (1994)

    1994

  41. [48]

    made by Vector Field Limited (UK)

  42. [49]

    Kawabata et al

    S. Kawabata et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 270, 11 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(88)90004-6

    1988 doi

  43. [50]

    T. K. Ohsuka et al. , KEK Rep 85-10(1985)

    1985

  44. [51]

    Yasu and Y

    Y. Yasu and Y. Tajima, KEK Internal 93-11 (1993)

    1993

  45. [52]

    High Performance Storage System

    “High Performance Storage System”, made by IBM

  46. [53]

    Agostinelli et al

    S. Agostinelli et al. , Nucl. Inst. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  47. [54]

    Veenhof, Conf

    R. Veenhof, Conf. Proc. C 9306149, 66 (1993). R. Veenhof, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 419, 726 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(98)00851-1

    1993 doi

  48. [55]

    Naruki, PhD thesis, Kyoto University (2006)

    M. Naruki, PhD thesis, Kyoto University (2006)

    2006

  49. [56]

    Muto, PhD thesis, Kyoto University (2007)

    R. Muto, PhD thesis, Kyoto University (2007)

    2007

  50. [57]

    Sakuma, PhD thesis, Kyoto University (2007)

    F. Sakuma, PhD thesis, Kyoto University (2007)

    2007

  51. [58]

    P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa104

    2020 doi

  52. [59]

    L. G. Landsberg, Phys. Rept. 128, 301 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(85)90129-2 75

    1985 doi

  53. [60]

    R. J. Glauber and G. Matthiae, Nucl. Phys. B 21, 135 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(70)90511-0

    1970 doi

  54. [62]

    Giacosa et al

    F. Giacosa et al. , Eur.Phys.J.A 57, 336 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00641-2

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    Z. Y. Fang et al. , Nuovo Cimento A, 100, 155 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02804915 76

    1988 doi

Pith tools

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