Simplifying Strangeness Fluctuations through Balance Functions in Proton-Proton Collisions

Christian Bierlich; Peter Christiansen

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Simplifying Strangeness Fluctuations through Balance Functions in Proton-Proton Collisions

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 The paper shows that two measured strangeness-fluctuation observables — the normalized net-$\Xi$ second-order cumulant and the net-$K$–net-$\Xi$ Pearson correlation coefficient — are re-expressions of balance-function integrals, so they…

desk verdict The central algebraic reduction is real and Eq. (15) is cleaner than the reader's concern suggests, but the missing acceptance link from k_ΞK to the measured balance function leaves the 'same physics' claim for ρ only partially supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18375 v1 pith:LIPOFPP3 submitted 2025-06-23 hep-ph hep-ex

Christian Bierlich , Peter Christiansen This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords balancefunctionsstrangenessfluctuationsnet-XicumulantPearsoncorrelationcoefficientlocalconservationhadronizationmodelsproton-protoncollisions

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 establish that two event-by-event fluctuation observables measured in proton-proton collisions — the normalized net-$\Xi$ second-order cumulant and the net-$K$–net-$\Xi$ Pearson correlation coefficient — are not independent probes but re-expressions of balance-function integrals. On the paper's account, both quantities are governed by how often strange quarks are produced as correlated $s\bar{s}$ pairs during hadronization, quantified by the balance numbers $k_\Xi$, $k_K$, and $k_{\Xi K}$. If correct, the fluctuation data add no microscopic information beyond already-measured balance functions, and the apparent disagreement between data and models becomes a statement about local strangeness conservation rather than about exotic fluctuation physics. The paper also reports that a thermal hadronization model can match the fluctuation magnitudes while failing the balance-function shapes, which it reads as evidence that the differential balance functions are the sharper model test.

What carries the argument

The balance function $B_{\Xi,X}(\Delta y)$, the per-trigger difference between the yields of opposite-sign and same-sign associated particles as a function of rapidity separation, is the central object. The paper condenses it into scalar balance numbers $k_\Xi$, $k_K$, and $k_{\Xi K}$ — the excess probability of finding an oppositely charged partner — and shows that the two fluctuation observables are algebraic functions of these numbers. A triangular acceptance fold, Eq. (10), converts a measured balance function into the $k_\Xi$ value that would be observed inside a finite detector acceptance, accurate to about one percent for approximately uniform rapidity coverage. The balance function carries the differential information that the scalar fluctuation observables integrate over.

What would settle it

Measure the same-sign piece of $\kappa_{11}(\Delta\Xi,\Delta K)$, for example the difference $\langle N_{\Xi^-}N_{K^+}\rangle - \langle N_{\Xi^-}N_{K^-}\rangle$ after removing charge-conjugate contributions; if it is not negligible relative to $2k_{\Xi K}\langle N_{\Xi^-}\rangle$, Eq. (15) fails. A simpler cross-check is to compute $k_\Xi$ directly from the measured cumulant and independently from the acceptance-folded balance function via Eq. (10); any disagreement beyond the quoted uncertainty falsifies the reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (9): for systems with equal matter and antimatter abundances, $\kappa_2(\Delta\Xi)/\kappa_1(\Sigma\Xi) \approx 1 - k_\Xi$, where $k_\Xi$ is the excess probability that a detected $\Xi$ baryon is accompanied by an oppositely charged $\Xi$ within the acceptance. The companion claim is Eq. (15): $\rho(\Delta\Xi,\Delta K) \approx -k_{\Xi K}\sqrt{\langle N_{\Xi^-}\rangle /((1-k_\Xi)(1-k_K)\langle N_{K^-}\rangle)}$, with $k_{\Xi K}$ the per-trigger excess of opposite-sign over same-sign $\Xi$–$K$ partners. The paper derives these from quark pair production, identifies $k_\Xi$ and $k_{\Xi K}$ with integrals of the measured balance functions $B_{\Xi,\Xi}$ and $B_{\Xi,K}$, and verifies the correspondence in two contrasting hadronization models and against the measured data.

Load-bearing premise

Equation (15) assumes that the $\Xi$–$K$ correlations are dominated by opposite-sign pairs sharing one $s\bar{s}$ pair, so same-sign $\Xi$–$K$ correlations can be dropped; if that dominance fails, the simplified Pearson formula does not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The two fluctuation observables become predictions of the integrated balance functions: any model that matches one set must match the other after the triangular acceptance fold is applied.
Balance functions replace the fluctuation observables as the more informative measurements, since they retain the rapidity structure of the same correlations.
A thermal model that reproduces fluctuation magnitudes while mis-shaping the balance functions is shown to lack dynamical momentum-space correlations, not just a different correlation volume.
Equation (15) lets future analyses decompose the Pearson coefficient into individual balance contributions, isolating whether a model fails on strangeness yields or on baryon–meson correlations.

Reading between the lines

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

If the identities hold at higher statistics, the two fluctuation measurements are redundant with balance functions; experiments could report the differential balance functions and save statistical power otherwise split across redundant observables.
The same rewriting may generalize to other conserved quantum numbers and particle pairs, such as baryon number and electric charge, turning a family of event-by-event fluctuation observables into integrals of the corresponding balance functions.
The opposite-sign dominance behind Eq. (15) is testable in existing data: publishing the same-sign $\Xi$–$K$ combinations would settle whether the simplification is safe.

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

Short version: the paper does something clean—it algebraically rewrites two ALICE fluctuation observables in terms of balance numbers, and the main reduction is real. The net-Ξ cumulant becomes 1−kΞ, and the net-K–net-Ξ Pearson coefficient becomes −kΞK sqrt(⟨NΞ−⟩/((1−kΞ)(1−kK)⟨NK−⟩)). The reader's worry about Eq. (14) needing opposite-sign dominance is too pessimistic: by charge-conjugation symmetry, κ11(ΔΞ,ΔK) = 2(⟨NΞ−NK−⟩−⟨NΞ−NK+⟩) = −2⟨NΞ−⟩kΞK, so Eq. (15) is exact at the level of expectation values when matter and antimatter yields are equal. That part holds up. The genuinely soft spot is the bridge from kΞK to the measured balance function BΞK. For kΞ they provide Eq. (10), a triangular acceptance fold, and they check it against the models. For kΞK there is no analogous formula; the text only says BΞK is 'related to' kΞK. The published balance function is corrected for acceptance essentially to full pair acceptance, while ρ(ΔΞ,ΔK) is evaluated under ALICE fiducial cuts. The paper never shows that a folded BΞK integral reproduces the finite-acceptance kΞK, and Eq. (15) is not tested numerically against the models. So the claim that ρ conveys no information beyond the balance function is not demonstrated to the same standard as the Ξ cumulant case. The side-by-side Fig. 2 shows a trend, not the claimed re-expression. Minor issues: the acceptance fold for kΞ is validated with the same models that are later compared to data, and it fails for Thermal-FIST with Vc=dV/dy—they note this, which is honest, but it means the correspondence is not universal. The shape comparisons are visual only; no quantitative goodness-of-fit. And the Thermal-FIST comparison relies on the correlated volume Vc=3dV/dy, which is a parameter from earlier fits. Who this is for: people working on small-system hadronization and ALICE fluctuation/balance function measurements. They get a useful conceptual simplification and a reason to prioritize balance functions. It deserves a serious referee: the core algebra is sound, the model comparisons are relevant, and the missing kΞK acceptance link is fixable. I'd accept for review, with the expectation that the authors either derive the kΞK folding or soften the redundancy claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that two event-by-event fluctuation observables measured by ALICE in pp collisions, the normalized net-Ξ second-order cumulant and the net-K–net-Ξ Pearson correlation coefficient, can be re-expressed in terms of balance-function integrals. The authors define balance numbers k_Ξ and k_ΞK from joint multiplicity moments, derive Eq. (9) for the cumulant ratio and Eq. (15) for the Pearson coefficient, and propose a triangular acceptance fold, Eq. (10), to connect k_Ξ to the ALICE-measured B_Ξ,Ξ balance function. They compare PYTHIA (Monash and Ropes) and Thermal-FIST (Vc = dV/dy and 3dV/dy) with ALICE data and conclude that the fluctuation observables carry little information beyond the corresponding balance functions, which are more differential probes of strangeness-conservation dynamics.

Significance. If the claimed equivalence were fully established, the paper would provide a useful dictionary between two classes of ALICE observables and would strengthen the case for balance functions as precision tools for hadronization models. The algebraic steps leading to Eq. (9) and Eq. (15) are transparent and, under equal matter/antimatter yields, exact at the level of moments. The paper is also candid about the approximate nature of Eq. (10) and about the poor shape description by Thermal-FIST. However, the central redundancy claim is not yet fully supported, because the connection between k_ΞK and the measured B_Ξ,K balance function is not derived or numerically validated.

major comments (3)

[§2.2, Eq. (15)] The paper never provides an acceptance-corrected relation between k_ΞK and the measured balance function B_Ξ,K. The text only states that B_Ξ,K is "related to" k_ΞK, whereas for k_Ξ the authors supply the explicit fold in Eq. (10). This distinction matters: ρ(ΔΞ, ΔK) is evaluated under ALICE fiducial cuts, while the published B_Ξ,K is corrected to essentially full pair acceptance. Without a formula analogous to Eq. (10) for the Ξ–K case, or a numerical closure test showing that an integrated or folded B_Ξ,K reproduces the finite-acceptance k_ΞK, Fig. 2 establishes only a trend, not the claimed re-expression. This gap is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion that the Pearson observable and the Ξ–K balance function probe the same physics.
[§2.2, Eq. (15) and §2.2.1] Eq. (15) is derived algebraically but is not validated against the same models used for the data comparison. For Eq. (9), the authors test the acceptance bridge and report a stated accuracy (within 1% for models with approximately uniform rapidity coverage). No analogous test is shown for Eq. (15): the right-hand side is never evaluated in PYTHIA or Thermal-FIST under the ALICE cuts and compared with the directly computed ρ(ΔΞ, ΔK). Such a closure test is necessary to support the claim that the Pearson observable is equivalent to an integral of the measured balance function.
[§2.1.1, Eq. (10) and Abstract] The abstract states that the fluctuation observables "can be re-expressed in terms of balance function integrals," but the paper's own validation of Eq. (10) is limited: it reproduces k_Ξ within 1% only for models with approximately uniform rapidity coverage and explicitly fails for Thermal-FIST with Vc = dV/dy. This is an acknowledged approximation, not an exact re-expression. The abstract and conclusion should be tempered to state that the relation holds approximately under specific acceptance conditions, otherwise the reader may infer a theorem where the manuscript provides a model-dependent empirical correspondence.

minor comments (4)

[§2.2, Eq. (14)] The approximate sign in Eq. (14) can be replaced by equality under charge-conjugation symmetry and equal matter/antimatter yields; the preceding heuristic argument about opposite-sign dominance is not actually needed for the algebra. Stating the symmetry condition explicitly would make the derivation cleaner and avoid the impression that Eq. (15) relies on dominance of Ξ−K+ correlations.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption says "comparison between the full expression and the approximation given by Eq. (5)" but Eq. (5) is the full expression; the approximation is Eq. (9). This appears to be a typographical error and should be corrected.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a stray accent "(´ right)" after "T = 196 MeV" and uses "FIST" instead of "Thermal-FIST"; please clean up the notation.
[§2.1, Eq. (7)] The notation dN_{ij}/dΔy is used without defining whether the trigger and associated particles are counted per event; a brief clarifying sentence would help readers not familiar with balance-function conventions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central identities are algebraic re-expressions of defined moments; model comparisons are independent tests.

full rationale

The paper's core claims, Eqs. (9) and (15), are algebraic identities, not circular predictions. The balance number kΞ is explicitly defined in Eq. (8) from Ξ-pair moments, and expanding κ2(ΔΞ)/κ1(ΣΞ) gives exactly 1−kΞ minus the ⟨ΔΞ⟩² term, with the final form holding under equal matter/antimatter yields. Similarly, kK and kΞK are defined from Kaon/Ξ-Kaon moments, and Eq. (15) follows from those definitions and charge-conjugation symmetry; no parameter is fitted to the target observables. The triangular acceptance fold in Eq. (10) is an approximation, and the paper explicitly tests it against the models, reporting that it works to 1% for PYTHIA and Thermal-FIST with Vc=3dV/dy but fails for Thermal-FIST with Vc=dV/dy. This is a stated numerical validation with a reported failure, not a circular import. The Thermal-FIST correlation volume Vc=3dV/dy is inherited from prior published work [17] and Ref. [15], but the fluctuation-vs-balance-function comparison is an independent out-of-sample test of that model choice rather than a fit to the quantities being compared. Self-citations to rope hadronization and PYTHIA are model descriptions, not load-bearing evidence for the moment identities. The weakest point—that no explicit equation connects kΞK to the measured BΞ,K integral, with the text only saying it is 'related to'—is an unsupported approximation rather than circularity; unsupported steps belong under correctness risk, not under the circularity rubric. Neither the acceptance fold nor the model comparisons reduce, by construction, to the very fluctuation observables they are meant to explain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; k_Xi, k_K, and k_XiK are derived combinations of moments. The free parameters belong to the comparison models rather than to the central derivation. The core identity is pure algebra; the acceptance folding in Eq. (10) is an ad hoc modeling choice.

free parameters (3)

Thermal-FIST correlation volume Vc = Vc = 3 dV/dy (also dV/dy)
The 3dV/dy setting is tuned to describe ALICE strangeness enhancement [17] and is used in Ref [15]; the dV/dy setting is the thermal expectation. The model-data agreement for the fluctuation magnitude depends on this choice.
Thermal-FIST freeze-out temperature T = 176 MeV nominal; 156 and 196 MeV in tests
Standard statistical model parameter fitted to particle yields; the paper varies it by ±20 MeV to test balance-function sensitivity.
Blast-Wave model parameters = Tuned to ALICE pp 13 TeV pT spectra
Thermal-FIST particles are boosted with a Blast-Wave tuned to match measured pT shapes; the rapidity width of the balance functions depends on these parameters.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Matter and antimatter for Xi and K are produced in equal amounts on average
Used to simplify Eq. (8) and to claim exactness in the limit for Eqs. (9) and (15); standard at LHC pp energies but not true event-by-event.
domain assumption Microscopic correlations between Xi and K arise only from shared s sbar pairs, predominantly between opposite-sign pairs
Underlies the numerator approximation in Eq. (14); if same-sign correlations or feed-down contributions are significant, Eq. (15) is inaccurate.
ad hoc to paper A triangular acceptance function in |Delta_eta| models the finite pair acceptance for k_Xi
Eq. (10) is introduced to mimic detector acceptance; the paper reports 1% accuracy only for models with approximately uniform rapidity coverage, and it is not derived from the detector response.
domain assumption Thermal-FIST canonical ensemble with correlation volume Vc generates realistic balance-function correlations
The model's balance function shape is controlled by the imposed local conservation length Vc; this is how the model is constructed, but it is not a dynamical evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simplifying Strangeness Fluctuations through Balance Functions in Proton-Proton Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIPOFPP3

@misc{pith2026250618375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simplifying Strangeness Fluctuations through Balance Functions in Proton-Proton Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIPOFPP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18375}
}

abstract

Recent measurements of event-by-event fluctuations of multistrange baryons and kaons in proton-proton collisions by ALICE have been proposed as sensitive probes to distinguish between thermal and string-based hadronization mechanisms. We demonstrate that two key observables -- the normalized net-$\Xi$ second-order cumulant and the net-$K$--net-$\Xi$ Pearson correlation coefficient -- can be re-expressed in terms of balance function integrals, thereby revealing their underlying microscopic content, and relating them to balance functions previously measured by ALICE. This allows us to show that both observables probe the same physics and primarily measure the impact of strangeness conservation on hadronization. We compare both sets of ALICE data with two contrasting models, PYTHIA and Thermal-FIST. Importantly, while Thermal-FIST can reproduce the magnitude of fluctuation observables, it fails to describe the shape of the measured balance functions. Our findings highlight the importance of balance functions as precision tools for testing hadronization models in small collision systems and propose a robust baseline for future studies exploring hadronization dynamics in QCD matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18375 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Model comparisons. Left: comparisons with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparisons with the balance function BΞK for Thermal-FIST (Vc = dV/dy) with T = 156 MeV (left) and T = 196 MeV (´right). these fluctuation observables are predominantly governed by local quantum number conservation effects arising from microscopic hadronization dynamics, particularly the sharing of ss¯ pairs. We have demonstrated that, as long as correlations originate from local production processes, global fluc… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Confronting the production mechanisms of nuclei with deuteron and proton-triggered balance functions
hep-ph 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

PYTHIA and Thermal FIST predict the same proton-deuteron balance scaling but differ sharply in its transverse-momentum dependence, so deuteron-triggered balance functions can in principle tell coalescence from statist...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD,

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 8, (2024) 813, arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2024
[2]

Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities,

P. Christiansen and P. Van Mechelen, “Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities,” arXiv:2412.02672 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[3]

Strangeness in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,

P. Koch, B. M¨ uller, and J. Rafelski, “Strangeness in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,” Phys. Rept. 142 (1986) 167–262

work page 1986
[4]

Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy,

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy,” Nature 561 no. 7723, (2018) 321–330, arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2018
[5]

Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state,

V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, “Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 244 (2019) 295–310, arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions,

K. Werner, “Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 152301, arXiv:0704.1270 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2007
[7]

Semiclassical Models for Gluon Jets and Leptoproduction Based on the Massless Relativistic String,

B. Andersson and G. Gustafson, “Semiclassical Models for Gluon Jets and Leptoproduction Based on the Massless Relativistic String,” Z. Phys. C 3 (1980) 223

work page 1980
[8]

A General Model for Jet Fragmentation,

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. S¨ oderberg, “A General Model for Jet Fragmentation,” Z. Phys. C 20 (1983) 317

work page 1983

Show all 18 references

[9]

Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics,

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sj¨ ostrand, “Parton Fragmentation and String Dynamics,” Phys. Rept. 97 (1983) 31–145

1983
[10]

String Interactions as a Source of Collective Behaviour,

C. Bierlich, “String Interactions as a Source of Collective Behaviour,” Universe 10 no. 1, (2024) 46, arXiv:2401.07585 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Effects of Overlapping Strings in pp Collisions,

C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. L¨ onnblad, and A. Tarasov, “Effects of Overlapping Strings in pp Collisions,” JHEP 03 (2015) 148, arXiv:1412.6259 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[12]

A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,

C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,” SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[13]

Baryon production from cluster hadronisation,

S. Gieseke, P. Kirchgaeßer, and S. Pl¨ atzer, “Baryon production from cluster hadronisation,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78 no. 2, (2018) 99, arXiv:1710.10906 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[14]

Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,

J. Bellm et al., “Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 4, (2016) 196, arXiv:1512.01178 [hep-ph] . 11

2016 arXiv
[15]

Probing Strangeness Hadronization with Event-by-Event Production of Multistrange Hadrons,

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Probing Strangeness Hadronization with Event-by-Event Production of Multistrange Hadrons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 no. 2, (2025) 022303, arXiv:2405.19890 [nucl-ex]

2025 arXiv
[16]

Studying strangeness and baryon production mechanisms through angular correlations between charged Ξ baryons and identified hadrons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Studying strangeness and baryon production mechanisms through angular correlations between charged Ξ baryons and identified hadrons in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” JHEP 09 (2024) 102, arXiv:2308.16706 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p , p -Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,

V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus, and H. Stoecker, “Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p , p -Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. C 100 no. 5, (2019) 054906, arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[18]

Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune,

P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74 no. 8, (2014) 3024, arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph] . 12

2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD,

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 8, (2024) 813, arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities,

P. Christiansen and P. Van Mechelen, “Soft QCD Physics at the LHC: highlights and opportunities,” arXiv:2412.02672 [hep-ex]

arXiv

[3] [3]

Strangeness in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,

P. Koch, B. M¨ uller, and J. Rafelski, “Strangeness in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions,” Phys. Rept. 142 (1986) 167–262

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy,

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy,” Nature 561 no. 7723, (2018) 321–330, arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state,

V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, “Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 244 (2019) 295–310, arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions,

K. Werner, “Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 152301, arXiv:0704.1270 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2007

[7] [7]

Semiclassical Models for Gluon Jets and Leptoproduction Based on the Massless Relativistic String,

B. Andersson and G. Gustafson, “Semiclassical Models for Gluon Jets and Leptoproduction Based on the Massless Relativistic String,” Z. Phys. C 3 (1980) 223

work page 1980

[8] [8]

A General Model for Jet Fragmentation,

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. S¨ oderberg, “A General Model for Jet Fragmentation,” Z. Phys. C 20 (1983) 317

work page 1983