Hanbury Brown-Twiss correlation of $\phi\phi$ with in-medium mass modification

Peng Ru; Yong Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Hanbury Brown-Twiss correlation of $\phi\phi$ with in-medium mass modification

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a hydrodynamic source, an in-medium phi mass shift can turn the monotonic drop of phi-phi HBT radii with transverse pair momentum into a rise at high momentum, offering a surviving signature of the squeezing effect.

desk verdict A solid, honest incremental extension of the same group's HBT-squeezing analysis to a hydrodynamic source; the predicted non-flow rise in φφ HBT radii is robust within the assumed mass-shift scenario, though sensitive to δm and lacking error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18408 v1 pith:IMDUZF5C submitted 2025-04-25 hep-ph

Yong Zhang , Peng Ru This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph PACS 25.75.Gz21.65.jk

keywords HanburyBrown-Twisscorrelationphimesonin-mediummassmodificationsqueezingeffectheavy-ioncollisionshydrodynamicsourcenon-flowbehaviorHBTradii

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 measuring the Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) radii of $\phi\phi$ pairs, the femtoscopic sizes extracted from two-particle correlations, can reveal the squeezing effect produced when a boson's mass changes inside the collision medium. Using an ideal relativistic hydrodynamic source with transverse expansion and Bjorken longitudinal flow, the calculation shows that an in-medium $\phi$ mass reduction of $\delta m = 0.01$–$0.02$ GeV flips the usual behavior of the one-dimensional HBT radius: instead of falling monotonically with transverse pair momentum $K_T$, it rises at high $K_T$. This matters because the more familiar squeezed back-to-back correlation can be suppressed by a broad temporal source, whereas the non-flow behavior of the HBT radii is expected to survive, and the $\phi$ is neutral, so no Coulomb correction is needed in the fit. The rise appears in both Gaussian and Levy fits to the correlation function.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the squeezing effect written into the emission function through a Bogoliubov transformation. For a boson with vacuum mass $m$ moving in a medium where its mass is $m_*$, the thermal occupation acquires the form $f(r,k) = |c_{k'}|^2 n_{k'} + |s_{-k'}|^2(n_{-k'}+1)$, with $c_{k'} = \cosh r_{k'}$, $s_{-k'} = \sinh r_{k'}$, and $r_{k'} = \frac{1}{2}\log(\omega_{k'}/\Omega_{k'})$, where $\omega_{k'}$ is the local-frame energy and $\Omega_{k'} = \sqrt{\omega_{k'}^2 - m^2 + m_*^2}$. The second term, proportional to $|s_{-k'}|^2$, is the squeezing contribution that changes the source shape. This emission function is placed on a $2+1$-dimensional ideal hydrodynamic source with Gaussian transverse initial energy density and Bjorken boost-invariant longitudinal expansion, and the one-dimensional HBT radius is extracted from $C(q)=1+\lambda e^{-|qR|^\alpha}$. The action of the mechanism is the competition between the squeezing term's compensation of transverse-flow narrowing and its widening of the longitudinal distribution, which together invert the $K_T$ dependence of $R$.

What would settle it

Measure $\phi\phi$ HBT radii as a function of $K_T$ in high-multiplicity Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV or Pb+Pb collisions at $2.76$ TeV: a monotonic fall with no upturn at high $K_T$, within experimental uncertainties, would contradict the predicted non-flow behavior for the assumed mass shift, as would a hydrodynamic calculation with a temperature-dependent mass shift that returns to the vacuum mass at freeze-out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the squeezing effect generated by an in-medium $\phi$ mass shift $\delta m = m - m_*$ of $0.01$–$0.02$ GeV changes the $\phi$ emission source in two opposing ways: it weakens the narrowing of the transverse source distribution that transverse flow would otherwise produce, and it broadens the longitudinal source distribution, with both effects growing with transverse momentum. Consequently, the one-dimensional HBT radius $R$, obtained by fitting the $\phi\phi$ correlation function $C(q) = 1 + \lambda e^{-|qR|^\alpha}$, increases with transverse pair momentum $K_T$ rather than monotonically decreasing. The paper demonstrates this non-flow behavior across several hydrodynamic initial conditions matching Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV, and reports that Gaussian fits ($\alpha = 2$ fixed) and Levy fits ($\alpha$ free) both show the rising radius. It further argues that this signature remains observable even when the broad temporal distribution of the source suppresses the squeezed back-to-back correlation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the $\phi$ mass is lower by 0.01 to 0.02 GeV uniformly throughout the freeze-out region; if the real shift at the freeze-out temperature is smaller, position-dependent, or absent, the predicted rise of the HBT radii weakens or disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At collision energies near $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and $2.76$ TeV, $\phi\phi$ HBT radii should show a plateau or upturn at transverse pair momenta near 1 GeV if the $\phi$ mass drops by 10–20 MeV in the medium.
The non-flow signature offers a second experimental handle on in-medium mass modification that survives at ultra-high energies where the squeezed back-to-back correlation is expected to vanish.
Because the $\phi$ is electrically neutral, the predicted rise in the HBT radius can be checked without Coulomb corrections, making existing $\phi$ correlation data directly relevant.
The strength of the effect scales with $\delta m$, so the measured $K_T$ dependence of $R$ can constrain the magnitude of the $\phi$ mass shift at freeze-out.

Reading between the lines

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

A three-dimensional HBT decomposition would probably show the rise concentrated in the longitudinal radius, with the transverse radii still falling; that directional split is a sharper test than the one-dimensional radius used here.
The same squeezing mechanism should apply to other neutral bosons with sizable in-medium mass shifts, such as $\eta$ or $\eta'$, and extending the hydrodynamic calculation to them would show whether the non-flow signature is generic.
The Gaussian initial conditions neglect event-by-event fluctuations; if fluctuating initial conditions blur the source shape, the upturn may be smeared, so a fluctuation-included simulation would establish how robust the signal is in real events.
Since the Levy exponent $\alpha$ shows little sensitivity to the squeezing effect in the paper's results, future analyses should treat $\alpha$ mainly as a shape parameter and rely on $R(K_T)$ as the discriminating observable.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick read on Zhang & Ru (arXiv:2504.18408). The paper does what it says: it takes the squeezing effect on φφ HBT correlations, previously studied with a spatiotemporally independent source, and recomputes it with a 2+1D ideal hydrodynamic source. The new ingredients—hydro evolution and random pair directions—are real extensions, and the headline result survives: for an assumed in-medium mass reduction δm = 0.01–0.02 GeV, the 1D HBT radius stops falling with pair transverse momentum KT and rises. The trend is consistent across four initial conditions and both Gaussian and Lévy fits. That is a legitimate, clearly presented forward calculation.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The signal is governed by δm, which the authors take as a constant 10–20 MeV on every freeze-out cell, citing an old estimate [42] without recalculating m*(T = 0.14 GeV) for their own source. A smaller or spatially varying shift—which a real medium calculation could well produce—would weaken or erase the rise. There is no threshold scan in δm, no position-dependent m*, and no error bars on the fitted radii, so the magnitude is not pinned down. The authors do acknowledge the neglect of energy-momentum conservation and the limitation of 1D fits; those are honest caveats. No code or data are released, so independent verification of the figures is limited. The citation pattern is fine, including the self-citation to Ref. [15], since this is a direct extension of that work.

The paper is a scenario calculation, not a mechanism discovery. It is aimed at heavy-ion phenomenologists studying φ meson correlations or squeezing effects, and it gives them a concrete observable—the KT dependence of φφ HBT radii—that survives even when the squeezed back-to-back correlation is suppressed. Within that scope, it earns a careful read.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. A good referee will ask for a δm threshold scan, an estimate of m*(x) from a specific in-medium model, and some statement of fit uncertainties. Those requests are unlikely to overturn the qualitative claim but would make the prediction quantitative. This is a solid, honest, incremental paper, not a breakthrough.

Hope that helps.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the influence of the "squeezing" effect caused by in-medium mass modification on the HBT correlation of φφ pairs emitted from a 2+1-dimensional ideal hydrodynamic source with Bjorken boost-invariant longitudinal expansion. The emission function incorporates a Bogoliubov transformation between vacuum and in-medium quasiparticles, controlled by the constant mass shift δm = m − m*, with δm = 0, 0.01, and 0.02 GeV. The authors find that the squeezing effect reduces the transverse-flow narrowing of the source and broadens its longitudinal distribution, which changes the transverse-pair-momentum (K_T) dependence of the one-dimensional HBT radii from a monotonic decrease to an increase at higher K_T. This "non-flow behavior" is reported for both Gaussian and Lévy fits and across four hydrodynamic initial conditions.

Significance. If the predicted sign change in dR/dK_T survives a realistic treatment of the in-medium mass, it would provide an experimentally accessible signature of squeezing effects that is distinct from the often-suppressed squeezed back-to-back correlation. The φ channel is attractive because the meson is electrically neutral and Coulomb corrections are absent. The calculation is a forward model built on standard machinery (Cooper-Frye emission function with a hydrodynamic source), and the consistency across four initial conditions and two fitting functions is a genuine strength. However, the central prediction is conditional on an assumed, constant δm whose value at the freeze-out temperature is not derived, and the quantitative support is weakened by the absence of fit uncertainties and by the acknowledged neglect of energy-momentum conservation.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (8)] The entire non-flow effect is controlled by δm = m − m*, but this quantity is taken as a free input chosen from "anticipated" medium effects in Ref. [42] rather than computed for the T = 0.14 GeV freeze-out surface used in the hydrodynamic source. The manuscript evaluates δm at only two values, 0.01 and 0.02 GeV, and no threshold scan is shown; from Fig. 6 one can see that the δm = 0 baseline decreases monotonically with K_T, so the central claim depends entirely on the assumed magnitude of the mass shift. Please either compute m* from a specific in-medium calculation at the relevant temperature and density, or provide a systematic scan over δm (including values between 0 and 20 MeV) and state the minimum shift needed for the non-flow rise. In addition, Eq. (8) treats m* as a global constant; if the mass shift is sensitive to local temperature or baryon density on the freeze-out surface, a spatial profile m*(r) should be used or shown to be unimportant.
[Section IIIB, Fig. 6] The HBT radii are reported without error bars or fit uncertainties. Since the paper's qualitative signature is a change in the slope of R(K_T) as a function of K_T, the reader needs either statistical uncertainties from the Monte Carlo sampling or at least a statement of the number of simulated pairs, the q-bin width, and the fitting range used in both the Gaussian and Lévy fits. As written, the curves cannot be used to judge whether the rising part for δm = 0.02 GeV is statistically significant relative to the δm = 0 baseline.
[Section IIIB, discussion near Fig. 6] The treatment of energy-momentum conservation is acknowledged only in a qualitative way. The text states both that the effect is negligible for high-multiplicity collisions and that it "might interfere" with the squeezing effect; these statements are not quantified. Since the non-flow signature is claimed to be observable at high K_T, a quantitative estimate of the energy-momentum-conservation correction (for example, by including energy-momentum shifting or by a Monte Carlo with the constraint applied) is needed before the detectability claim can be supported.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase "consistent crease" appears to be a typo and should read "consistent decrease."
[Section III, notation] Notation for transverse momentum is inconsistent: k_T denotes single-particle transverse momentum in Figs. 2–4, while K_T denotes pair transverse momentum in Figs. 5–6; the definitions are not unified in the text and should be stated once and used consistently.
[Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains several stray backtick characters after the panel labels, which appear to be a formatting artifact; please correct them.
[Eq. (11)] The fit formula is written as C(q) = 1 + λ e^{−|qR|^α}, but the text plots q in MeV and R in fm without stating the unit convention; please specify that the product qR is evaluated with the appropriate conversion (e.g., ħc = 197 MeV fm) or use consistent units throughout.
[Section IV] The phrase "instead of following a consistent decrease" should be replaced by "instead of decreasing monotonically" for clarity and precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the HBT radii are computed from a forward hydrodynamical model with an external in-medium mass-shift input; the self-citations are terminological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The calculation is a forward model. The authors fix the hydrodynamic initial conditions (Gaussian energy density, Eq. 10), the freeze-out temperature T = 0.14 GeV, the vacuum mass m = 1.01946 GeV, and the in-medium mass shift δm = m − m* = 0, 0.01, 0.02 GeV. They then evaluate the emission function with the squeezing/Bogoliubov terms (Eqs. 4–9), compute the φφ correlation function through the standard HBT relation (Eq. 1), and extract one-dimensional HBT radii by fitting C(q) with Eq. 11. The output R(KT) is not used to determine any input parameter, and no quantity is fitted back to the headline prediction. The rising R(KT) for δm > 0 is a computed consequence of the assumed mass shift, not an equivalent restatement: for δm = 0 the same code produces the usual monotonic decrease, which shows the non-flow behavior is not hard-wired. The self-citation [15] is used for the term 'non-flow behavior' and for the previous simplified-source study, but the present hydrodynamic computation is a new calculation and does not reduce to that citation. The input δm range is taken from external work [42]; whether such a shift actually persists at freeze-out is a sensitivity/model-robustness question, not circularity. Likewise, the paper's caveats about energy-momentum conservation and the limited information content of one-dimensional HBT radii are acknowledged limitations, not circular steps.

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

The model is built from standard HBT and Cooper-Frye formulas plus a squeezed phase-space distribution. The only hand-tuned physics input that controls the headline signal is the in-medium phi mass shift delta_m. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

delta_m (m - m*) = 0.01 GeV and 0.02 GeV
In-medium phi mass shift at freeze-out; taken as two values from the anticipated range in [42]. The predicted non-flow HBT effect grows with delta_m.
T (freeze-out temperature) = 0.14 GeV
Phi freeze-out temperature taken from prior work [9,15]; affects the emission function and the size of squeezing corrections.
initial condition parameters (epsilon_0, R_x, R_y) = epsilon_0 = 20/40 GeV, R_x,R_y = 3/4/5 fm
Gaussian initial energy density chosen to approximate Au+Au at 200 GeV and Pb+Pb at 2.76 TeV (cited [51]); four sets are scanned and the qualitative conclusion is the same.

assumptions (5)

standard math The two-particle HBT correlation is C(k1,k2) = 1 + |integral d4r S(r,K) e^{iq.r}|^2 / (integral S(r1,k1) integral S(r2,k2)), Eq. (1).
Standard chaotic-source HBT formula from Refs. [1-6]; the squeezed-state extension is taken from [10,15] with the SBBC term omitted because it appears at q ~ 2K, outside the fitted q window.
domain assumption Emission function follows Cooper-Frye, Eq. (2), with an ideal 2+1D relativistic hydrodynamic source and Bjorken boost-invariant longitudinal expansion.
The paper explicitly adopts this source model (Section II and III) as a more realistic alternative to earlier spatiotemporally independent sources.
domain assumption Quasiparticle spectrum in the medium is described by the Bogoliubov-transformed distribution f(r,k) = |c|^2 n + |s|^2(n+1), Eqs. (4)-(9), with a constant in-medium mass m* on the freeze-out surface.
This is the standard squeezing formalism [7-15]; the paper assumes the mass modification is present at the emission point and that the vacuum mass m is used for the detected particles.
ad hoc to paper delta_m = 0.01-0.02 GeV, the phi mass decrease in medium, is taken from the anticipated range in [42] and treated as an input at freeze-out.
The paper uses two hand-chosen values; the size of the predicted non-flow behavior is proportional to this assumption, which is not measured at freeze-out conditions.
domain assumption Energy-momentum conservation is neglected in the two-particle correlation.
Acknowledged in Section III/IV; the authors argue it is negligible at high multiplicity and low q, but it could interfere at low KT. They assert the non-flow signal sits at high KT where this interference is small.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hanbury Brown-Twiss correlation of $\phi\phi$ with in-medium mass modification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMDUZF5C

@misc{pith2026250418408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hanbury Brown-Twiss correlation of $\phi\phi$ with in-medium mass modification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMDUZF5C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18408}
}

abstract

We study the impacts of the squeezing effect caused by in-medium mass modification on the Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) correlation of $\phi\phi$ using a hydrodynamical source. The squeezing effect reduces the influence of transverse flow on the transverse distribution of $\phi$ emitting source while expanding the longitudinal source distribution. This trend becomes more noticeable as the transverse momentum increases, resulting in an enlargement of the HBT radii for $\phi\phi$ . Notably, this enlargement is particularly evident with higher transverse pair momentum. As a result, the HBT radii of $\phi\phi$ increase as transverse pair momentum increases instead of showing a consistent crease, showcasing non-flow behavior of HBT radii in hydrodynamical sources. Both Gaussian fitting and Levy fitting support the conclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18408 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (Color online) Normalized distributions of proper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: (Color online) The root mean square radius ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) HBT radii of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) L´evy exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[42]

S. V. Afanasiev et al. , (NA49 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 491, 59 (2000)

2000
[15]

P. Z. Xu, W. N. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 011902(R) (2019)

2019
[1]

Gyulassy, S

M. Gyulassy, S. K. Kauﬀmann, and Lance W. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 20, 2267 (1979)

1979
[2]

C. Y. Wong, Introduction to High-Energy Heavy-Ion Col- lisions (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1994), Chap. 17

1994
[3]

It is worth mentioning that the in-medium mass mod- iﬁcation of bosons is considered in this paper, and the change of width in the medium is not considered. In this paper’s calculations, a Gaussian distribution is used as the initial energy density distribution in the transverse plane at τ0 = 0.6 fm/ c [11]: ǫ = ǫ0 exp[−x2/(2R2 x) − y2/(2R2 y)], (10) ǫ0 r...

work page
[4]

U. A. Wienemann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rep. 319, 145 (1999)

1999
[5]

R. M. Weiner, Phys. Rep. 327, 249 (2000)

2000
[6]

Cs¨ org˝ o, arXiv:hep-ph/0001233

T. Cs¨ org˝ o, arXiv:hep-ph/0001233

arXiv

Show all 57 references

[7]

M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 357 (2005)

2005
[8]

Asakawa and T

M. Asakawa and T. Cs¨ org˝ o, Heavy Ion Physics 4, 233 (1996); hep-ph/9612331

1996 arXiv
[9]

Asakawa, T

M. Asakawa, T. Cs¨ org˝ o, and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4013 (1999)

1999
[10]

S. S. Padula, G. Krein, T. Cs¨ org˝ o, Y. Hama, and P. K. Panda, Phys. Rev. C 73, 044906 (2006)

2006
[11]

D. M. Dudek and S. S. Padula, Phys. Rev. C 82, 034905 (2010)

2010
[12]

Zhang, J

Y. Zhang, J. Yang, and W. N. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024906 (2015)

2015
[13]

Zhang and W

Y. Zhang and W. N. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 419 (2016)

2016
[14]

A. G. Yang, Y. Zhang, L. Cheng, H. Sun, and W. N. Zhang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 35, 052501 (2018)

2018
[16]

Zhang and P

Y. Zhang and P. Ru, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024902 (2024)

2024
[17]

Bjorken, Phys

J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27, 140 (1983)

1983
[18]

D. H. Rischke, arXiv:nucl-th/9809044

arXiv
[19]

P. F. Kolb, U. Heinz, arXiv:nucl-th/0305084

arXiv
[20]

G. Baym, B. L. Friman, J. P. Blaizot, M. Soyeur, W. Czy˙ z, Nucl. Phys. A407, 397 (1983)

1983
[21]

Gyulassy, D

M. Gyulassy, D. H. Rischke, B. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. A 613, 397 (1997)

1997
[22]

D. H. Rischke, S. Bernard, J. A. Maruhn, Nucl. Phys. A 595, 346 (1995); D. H. Rischke, M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 608, 479 (1996)

1995
[23]

Cs¨ org˝ o, B

T. Cs¨ org˝ o, B. L¨ orstad, Phys. Rev. C54, 1390 (1996)

1996
[24]

Csan´ ad, T

M. Csan´ ad, T. Cs¨ org˝ o, B. L¨ orstad, A. Ster, J. Phys. G 30, S1079 (2004)

2004
[25]

P. F. Kolb, J. Sollfrank, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054909 (2000)

2000
[26]

P. F. Kolb and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 67, 044903 (2003)

2003
[27]

C. Shen, U. Heinz, P. Huovinen, H. C. Song, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054904 (2010)

2010
[28]

H. C. Song, Y. Zhou, K. Gajdoˇ sov´ a, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 99 (2017)

2017
[29]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 559 (2018)

2018
[30]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 062301 (2016)

2016
[31]

Adamczyk et al

L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93, 021903(R) (2016)

2016
[32]

Adare et al

A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 93, 024904 (2016)

2016
[33]

Abelev et al

B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 91, 024609 (2015)

2015
[34]

Adare et al

A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 83, 024909 (2011)

2011
[35]

B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 7 673, 183 (2009)

2009
[36]

B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 79, 064903 (2009)

2009
[37]

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

2007
[38]

Afanasiev et al

S. Afanasiev et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 052301 (2007)

2007
[39]

S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 72, 014903 (2005)

2005
[40]

Alessandro et al

B. Alessandro et al. (NA50 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 555, 147 (2003)

2003
[41]

Adler et al

C. Adler et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 65, 041901(R) (2002)

2002
[43]

B. V. Martemyanov, A. Faessler, C. Fuchs, M. I. Krivoruchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 052301 (2004)

2004
[44]

Kumar, A

R. Kumar, A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 102, 045206 (2020)

2020
[45]

H. Kim, P. Gubler, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135412 (2020)

2020
[46]

Cooper and G

F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D 10, 186 (1974)

1974
[47]

B. R. Schlei, U. Ornik, M. Plumer, and R. M. Weiner, Phys. Lett. B 293, 275 (1992)

1992
[48]

Chapman and U

S. Chapman and U. Heinz, Phys. Lett. B 340, 250 (1994)

1994
[49]

Plumberg, U

C. Plumberg, U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054905 (2015)

2015
[50]

Plumberg, U

C. Plumberg, U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 98, 034910 (2018)

2018
[51]

(Particle Data Group), Phys

S.Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[52]

Y. Hu, W. N. Zhang, Y. Y. Ren, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 42, 045105 (2015)

2015
[53]

Cs¨ org˝ o, S

T. Cs¨ org˝ o, S. Hegyi, W. A. Zajc, Eur. Phys. J. C 36, 67 (2004)

2004
[54]

Adare et al

A. Adare et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 97, 064911 (2018)

2018
[55]

Adhikary et al

H. Adhikary et al. (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 919 (2023)

2023
[56]

K´ orodi, D

B. K´ orodi, D. Kincses, M. Csan´ ad, Phys. Lett. B 847, 138295 (2023)

2023
[57]

Kincses, M

D. Kincses, M. Nagy, M. Csan´ ad, Commun. Phys. 8, 55 (2025)

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [42]

S. V. Afanasiev et al. , (NA49 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 491, 59 (2000)

2000

[2] [15]

P. Z. Xu, W. N. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 011902(R) (2019)

2019

[3] [1]

Gyulassy, S

M. Gyulassy, S. K. Kauﬀmann, and Lance W. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 20, 2267 (1979)

1979

[4] [2]

C. Y. Wong, Introduction to High-Energy Heavy-Ion Col- lisions (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1994), Chap. 17

1994

[5] [3]

It is worth mentioning that the in-medium mass mod- iﬁcation of bosons is considered in this paper, and the change of width in the medium is not considered. In this paper’s calculations, a Gaussian distribution is used as the initial energy density distribution in the transverse plane at τ0 = 0.6 fm/ c [11]: ǫ = ǫ0 exp[−x2/(2R2 x) − y2/(2R2 y)], (10) ǫ0 r...

work page

[6] [4]

U. A. Wienemann and U. Heinz, Phys. Rep. 319, 145 (1999)

1999

[7] [5]

R. M. Weiner, Phys. Rep. 327, 249 (2000)

2000

[8] [6]

Cs¨ org˝ o, arXiv:hep-ph/0001233

T. Cs¨ org˝ o, arXiv:hep-ph/0001233

arXiv