Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Confronting the production mechanisms of nuclei with deuteron and proton-triggered balance functions

T0 review · 2 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 Proton- and deuteron-triggered balance functions in pp collisions can distinguish deuteron formation by coalescence from formation by statistical thermal hadronization.

desk verdict A testable new observable for light-nucleus production that is worth a referee, but the claimed discrimination between thermal and coalescence is weaker than the models actually support because Thermal FIST's flat pT dependence is built in. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03195 v2 pith:PJLSN2F4 submitted 2025-09-03 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Sushanta Tripathy , Peter Christiansen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords balancefunctionsdeuteronproductioncoalescencestatisticalhadronizationproton-protoncollisionslightnucleimechanismtransversemomentumdependence
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 proposes a measurement that could decide between the two main explanations for how light nuclei arise in high-energy collisions. It compares proton- and deuteron-triggered balance functions in pp collisions at 13 TeV from a string-fragmentation plus coalescence model and from a statistical thermal model. Both models produce the same simple scaling relation—the deuteron balance function is twice the proton one—and both predict a vanishing deuteron–pion balance. The models disagree sharply when the trigger transverse momentum is varied: the coalescence model shows a narrowing balance function with increasing $p_T$, while the thermal model shows no $p_T$ dependence at all. If confirmed by LHC Run 3 data, this $p_T$ dependence would discriminate the two production scenarios.

What carries the argument

The key object is the balance function $B(\Delta y) = Y_{\mathrm{opposite}}(\Delta y) - Y_{\mathrm{same}}(\Delta y)$, the difference between the associated yield of particles with opposite baryon number and those with the same baryon number, per trigger particle, as a function of rapidity separation. It isolates the quantum-number-balancing component of hadron correlations. The paper's comparison relies on the relation $B_{\mathrm{deuteron}}(\Delta y) \approx 2 B_{\mathrm{proton}}(\Delta y)$, which holds in both models, and on the different response of the width of $B(\Delta y)$ to trigger $p_T$: the coalescence model produces narrowing while the thermal model stays flat.

What would settle it

Measure the width of the proton- and deuteron-triggered balance functions in pp collisions at 13 TeV using LHC Run 3 data across several trigger $p_T$ intervals: if the width narrows with increasing $p_T$, the coalescence/string picture is supported, and if it stays flat, the statistical-thermal picture is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the transverse-momentum dependence of the balance function separates the two paradigms. In the coalescence-inspired picture, the balancing antibaryon is produced on the same color string as the trigger, so increasing the trigger $p_T$ selects shorter strings and the balance function narrows in rapidity. In the statistical thermal picture, particles are emitted from a common thermal source with baryon number conserved only globally, so the balance function does not depend on trigger $p_T$. This difference is the basis for a new observable that goes beyond nuclei yields, which both models describe equally well.

Load-bearing premise

The flat $p_T$ dependence of the thermal-model balance function is built into the model by construction, because it samples independent particles from an equilibrium source and then applies a tuned boost; if the physical thermal source has intrinsic momentum correlations between a trigger and its balancing partners, the predicted contrast with coalescence would shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of the $p_T$ dependence of proton- and deuteron-triggered balance functions in existing LHC Run 3 pp data can discriminate coalescence from statistical thermal production of light nuclei.
  • The scaling relation $B_d \approx 2 B_p$ holds in both scenarios, so it cannot serve as the discriminator; the $p_T$ dependence is the discriminative handle.
  • Both models predict a strictly zero deuteron–pion balance, a clean consequence of baryon-number and charge conservation with isospin symmetry that can be checked directly.
  • The multiplicity dependence seen in the coalescence model is tied to the color-reconnection mechanism; no such dependence appears in the thermal model.
  • This $p_T$-based discrimination applies to balance functions generally, not only to nuclei, because it probes whether balancing quantum numbers are produced in the same color-coherent process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this, but if the $p_T$ narrowing is confirmed, it would suggest that a genuinely thermalized momentum source would erase the narrowing, pushing hadronization pictures toward local color-string balancing rather than global equilibrium.
  • The deuteron–pion zero balance could serve as a built-in systematic control for detector acceptance and event-mixing corrections; a measured nonzero value would indicate experimental artifacts rather than a new production mechanism.
  • A testable extension beyond the paper would use heavier clusters such as tritons or helions as triggers, where coalescence predicts balance functions scaling with nucleon number and a correspondingly shifted $p_T$ narrowing, giving a ladder of predictions.
  • If the discriminating power holds, the observable could also constrain antinucleus production in cosmic-ray sources, since the balance-function shape encodes how antinuclei inherit correlations from their antibaryon parents.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new differential observable to distinguish between two production mechanisms of light nuclei in pp collisions: proton- and deuteron-triggered balance functions B(Δy), defined via Eq. (2) as the difference between opposite- and same-baryon-number associated yields. Using PYTHIA 8.3 with deuteron coalescence enabled as a representative of the coalescence picture, and Thermal FIST with a tuned blast-wave boost as a representative of statistical thermal hadronization, the authors compute balance functions for associated antiprotons, Λ baryons, and pions. They find that B_d ≈ 2 B_p in both models, that the deuteron-pion balance vanishes identically in both models, that the Thermal FIST balance function width is controlled by the correlation volume V_c, and, as the central result of Fig. 5, that PYTHIA exhibits a clear narrowing of the balance function with increasing trigger p_T while Thermal FIST shows no p_T dependence. The paper concludes that this observable is a promising discriminator between coalescence and statistical hadronization and motivates a measurement with ALICE Run 3 data.

Significance. If the predicted contrast is robust, the observable would be a valuable new probe of hadronization and nucleus production. The paper has clear strengths: it uses publicly available generators, tests parameter variations (V_c and T), identifies an exact symmetry result for deuteron-pion balance, and proposes an experimentally feasible measurement with existing ALICE capabilities. The principal weakness is that the Thermal FIST p_T independence is essentially built into the model's independent-particle sampling, so the stronger conclusion about discriminating the two production mechanisms needs qualification. The paper is a useful proof-of-concept, but its central interpretive claim goes beyond what the model comparison can establish.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 5 and Sec. II] The flat p_T dependence of the Thermal FIST balance functions is a consequence of the model construction, not an emergent prediction of statistical hadronization. The paper itself states in Sec. II that Thermal FIST lacks the momentum-space correlations observed in pp collisions because it samples from equilibrium distributions, and Sec. III attributes the flatness to particles being produced independently with quantum number conservation only imposed globally. With independent single-particle sampling, the associated yield factorizes with respect to the trigger momentum, so B(Δy) is p_T-independent by construction. The contrast in Fig. 5 therefore primarily tests whether the data contain the momentum correlations implemented in PYTHIA's string model, rather than whether nuclei form by coalescence or by thermal hadronization. A thermal or hydrodynamic model that includes local conservation and flow-induced position-momentum correlations could plausibly produce p_T-dependent balance functions. I recommend that the conclusion be reframed to refer to the specific model implementations, and that the claim of discriminating the two production mechanisms be softened unless an additional thermal model with momentum correlations is studied.
  2. [All figures, especially Fig. 5] No statistical uncertainties or event counts are reported for any of the generator predictions. The central claim is a qualitative comparison of the shapes and their p_T dependence; without statistical errors or at least the number of generated events, it is not possible to assess whether the PYTHIA narrowing and the Thermal FIST flatness are significant relative to Monte Carlo fluctuations. Adding error bars, or a quantitative measure such as the width or RMS of B(Δy) with uncertainties, would also make the predicted experimental discrimination more concrete and would strengthen the proposal for an ALICE measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 4] The sentence 'We have tested that the observed small difference agrees with that neutrons are slightly less likely to be balanced by antiprotons than protons' is grammatically unclear; it should read 'agrees with the statement that neutrons are slightly less likely...'.
  2. [Sec. III, deuteron-pion balance] The vanishing deuteron-pion balance is argued in one sentence. Since it is presented as an exact identity, a short formal isospin argument (the deuteron is an isoscalar, so the associated yields of π^+ and π^- are equal) would be more convincing and would clarify the role of baryon-number conservation.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] The trigger p_T intervals for deuterons are chosen as twice those for protons, but the comparison in Fig. 5 uses these intervals directly. Because coalescence implies p_T(d) ≈ 2 p_T(p), the apparent narrowing pattern for deuterons could be better interpreted if the deuteron intervals were divided by two, or if the choice were explicitly justified in the text.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor stylistic inconsistencies, including the hyphenation of Thermal-FIST versus Thermal FIST, and some figure legends omit the variable name in trigger p_T intervals (for example, '1.0 < ... < 8.0 GeV/c'). These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Thermal FIST's flat pT dependence is a built-in consequence of its independent-sampling construction, so the model-vs-model discriminator is partially circular; PYTHIA's narrowing is independent and the paper is transparent about the origin.

  1. other [Sec. III, discussion of Fig. 5 (paragraph beginning 'For the PYTHIA balance functions...'); see also Sec. II model description]
    "For the PYTHIA balance functions we observe the expected narrowing with p_trig_T while the Thermal FIST balance functions shows no dependence on p_trig_T. This reflects that particles are produced independently in Thermal FIST with quantum number conservation only imposed globally. This striking difference in p_trig_T dependence offers a promising handle to discriminate between the two production scenarios."

    The flat pT dependence is not an emergent prediction of thermal hadronization; it is an input of the Thermal FIST implementation. Sec. II states that Thermal FIST 'lacks the momentum-space correlations observed in pp collisions, particularly in azimuthal angle and pT, as it does not simulate particle production mechanisms but rather samples from equilibrium distributions.' With independent single-particle sampling and only global conservation, the trigger pT cannot correlate with the balancing partner's rapidity, so B(Δy) is pT-independent by statistical factorization. The paper explicitly invokes this mechanism to explain the flat result.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained: balance functions are computed directly from PYTHIA's string fragmentation plus coalescence and from Thermal FIST's equilibrium sampling with a tuned Blast-Wave boost, and no balance-function data are fitted. The analytic results (B_d ≈ 2B_p and the exactly vanishing deuteron–pion balance) follow from stated conservation laws and isospin symmetry, and are not circular. The self-citations, notably Ref. [32] by one of the present authors, are used for methodological support and as an observation of a similar broadness effect, but they are not load-bearing for the central claim; Ref. [42] is used explicitly as a caveat about unconstrained correlation-volume parameters. The one substantive circular element is Thermal FIST's flat pT dependence, which the paper itself traces to independent production with only global conservation; that is an input assumption of the implementation rather than an independent prediction of statistical hadronization. Because the proposed discriminator rests on the contrast with PYTHIA's pT narrowing, the central claim is partially circular and somewhat overstated. However, the PYTHIA prediction is independent, no parameter is fitted to the observable, and the paper discloses the origin of the flatness, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

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

The central p_T-dependence discriminator rests on the two models' contrasting treatments of momentum correlations. In Thermal FIST the absence of such correlations is an input, so its flat p_T dependence is partly a built-in consequence. PYTHIA's narrowing comes from its string picture. No entities are invented; the model parameters Vc, T, and Blast-Wave settings are free parameters carried from prior fits.

free parameters (3)
  • Thermal FIST correlation volume Vc = default 3 dV/dy; variations 1, 1.6, 4.8 dV/dy
    Free parameter controlling correlation length and thus balance-function width in the thermal model; not fixed from first principles.
  • Thermal FIST hadronization temperature T = 176 MeV default, 155 MeV variation
    Fit to ALICE hadron yields; varied to test robustness, with no visible effect on balance functions.
  • Blast-Wave boost parameters = tuned to ALICE pp 13 TeV pT spectra (values not stated)
    Used in Thermal FIST to reproduce measured pT spectra; affects kinematic distributions but not the reported rapidity balance shapes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PYTHIA Lund string fragmentation and its color-coherence correlations are a valid representation of coalescence-stage particle production.
    The paper attributes the narrowing of PYTHIA balance functions with p_T to string color coherence (Sec. III); the whole p_T discriminator depends on this model property.
  • domain assumption Thermal FIST samples hadrons from equilibrium without momentum-space correlations, and the Blast-Wave boost is a sufficient stand-in for real dynamics.
    Thermal FIST's flat p_T dependence follows from this; if real thermal systems have correlations, the prediction changes.
  • standard math Baryon number and electric charge conservation together with isospin symmetry apply to the pp final state at mid-rapidity.
    Used to derive the exact vanishing of the deuteron-pion balance function (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption The difference between opposite-sign and same-sign yields isolates the balancing-charge correlation.
    Standard operational definition of the balance function used in Refs. [30, 32]; the paper relies on it to identify the balancing part.
  • domain assumption PYTHIA's empirical coalescence model (Dal and Raklev) adequately represents the coalescence mechanism for deuterons.
    The deuteron trigger in PYTHIA depends on this sub-model; the central p_T comparison does not hinge on details, but the relation B_d=2B_p does.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confronting the production mechanisms of nuclei with deuteron and proton-triggered balance functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PJLSN2F4

@misc{pith2026250903195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confronting the production mechanisms of nuclei with deuteron and proton-triggered balance functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PJLSN2F4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03195}
}
read the original abstract

In ultra high-energy collisions, nuclei with very low binding energies are not expected to survive the dense and hot final state environment. The traditional view has therefore been that nuclei form via coalescence after the hot environment has dissipated. However, statistical thermal models, where hadrons are produced from a fireball at thermal equilibrium, can describe the relative abundances of light nuclei in pp and heavy-ion collisions at the LHC equally well. In this paper we investigate if balance functions triggered by protons and deuterons can be used to distinguish between the two production mechanisms. The coalescence model is investigated using PYTHIA, while the statistical thermal model is examined using the Thermal FIST package. We find that for both models the same simple relation between proton and deuteron triggered balance functions is applicable. However, there is a striking difference between the two models when the transverse momentum of trigger particles is varied. This dependence offers a promising observable to discriminate between the two production scenarios that goes beyond nuclei production. Furthermore, we find that deuteron-meson balance functions vanish identically for both models due to baryon number conservation and isospin symmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03195 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Depiction of analysis methodology to estimate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison of the balance function of triggered protons (left) and triggered deuterons (right) obtained from PYTHIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Comparison of the balance function of triggered protons and triggered deuterons divided by two obtained from PYTHIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Transverse momentum dependence of the balance function of triggered protons and triggered deuterons from PYTHIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Multiplicity dependence of the balance function of triggered protons and triggered deuterons from PYTHIA (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Multiplicity dependence of the balance function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Correlation volume dependence of the balance function of triggered protons and triggered deuterons from Thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Temperature dependence of the balance function of triggered protons and triggered deuterons from Thermal FIST. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

  1. $\Lambda$(1520) as a probe of resonance-driven deuteron formation at the LHC

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Simulations show a peak in the proxy mass M_(d/2)K only when deuterons form by coalescence of protons from Λ(1520) decays, not in thermal models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. C93, 024917 (2016), arXiv:1506.08951 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev.C97, 024615 (2018), arXiv:1709.08522 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett.B794, 50 (2019), arXiv:1902.09290 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B800, 135043 (2020), arXiv:1906.03136 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Production of (anti-)$^3$He and (anti-)$^3$H in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev.C101, 044906 (2020), arXiv:1910.14401 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 889 (2020), arXiv:2003.03184 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Production of light (anti)nuclei in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}~=~5.02$ TeV

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 289 (2022), arXiv:2112.00610 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP01, 106, arXiv:2109.13026 [nucl-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP01, 106, arXiv:2109.13026 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C92, 034906 (2015), arXiv:1306.0121 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Korsmeier, F

    M. Korsmeier, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, Phys.Rev.D 97, 103011 (2018), arXiv:1711.08465 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    K. Blum, K. C. Y. Ng, R. Sato, and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D96, 103021 (2017), arXiv:1704.05431 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kachelrieß, S

    M. Kachelrieß, S. Ostapchenko, and J. Tjemsland, JCAP 08, 048, arXiv:2002.10481 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  6. [14]

    von Doetinchemet al., JCAP08, 035, arXiv:2002.04163 [astro-ph.HE]

    P. von Doetinchemet al., JCAP08, 035, arXiv:2002.04163 [astro-ph.HE]

    2002 arXiv

  7. [15]

    ˇSerkˇ snyt˙ e, S

    L. ˇSerkˇ snyt˙ e, S. K¨ onigstorfer, P. von Doetinchem, L. Fabbietti, D. M. Gomez-Coral, J. Herms, A. Ibarra, T. P¨ oschl, A. Shukla, A. Strong, and I. Vorobyev, Phys. Rev. D105, 083021 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Sato and K

    H. Sato and K. Yazaki, Phys. Lett.B98, 153 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    J. L. Nagle, B. S. Kumar, D. Kusnezov, H. Sorge, and R. Mattiello, Phys. Rev.C53, 367 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    Scheibl and U

    R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev.C59, 1585 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809092 [nucl-th]

    1999 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Blum and M

    K. Blum and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev.C99, 044913 (2019), arXiv:1901.07088 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mr´ owczy´ nski and P

    S. Mr´ owczy´ nski and P. S lo´ n, Acta Phys. Polon. B51, 1739 (2020), arXiv:1904.08320 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bellini, K

    F. Bellini, K. Blum, A. P. Kalweit, and M. Puccio, Phys. Rev. C103, 014907 (2021), arXiv:2007.01750 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mahlein, L

    M. Mahlein, L. Barioglio, F. Bellini, L. Fabbietti, C. Pinto, B. Singh, and S. Tripathy, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 804 (2023), arXiv:2302.12696 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cleymans, S

    J. Cleymans, S. Kabana, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and N. Sharma, Phys. Rev.C84, 054916 (2011), arXiv:1105.3719 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Lett.B697, 203 (2011), arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Becattini, E

    F. Becattini, E. Grossi, M. Bleicher, J. Steinheimer, and R. Stock, Phys. Rev.C90, 054907 (2014), arXiv:1405.0710 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev.C95, 044904 (2017), arXiv:1606.06218 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sharma, J

    N. Sharma, J. Cleymans, B. Hippolyte, and M. Paradza, Phys. Rev.C99, 044914 (2019), arXiv:1811.00399 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. A. Bass, P. Danielewicz, and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9 85, 2689 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0005044

    2000 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP09, 102, arXiv:2308.16706 [hep-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP09, 102, arXiv:2308.16706 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pruneau, S

    C. Pruneau, S. Basu, V. Gonzalez, B. Hanley, A. Marin, A. F. Dobrin, and A. Manea, Phys. Rev. C109, 064913 (2024), arXiv:2403.13007 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bierlich and P

    C. Bierlich and P. Christiansen, (2025), arXiv:2506.18375 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjos- trand, Phys. Rept.97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  26. [34]

    L. A. Dal and A. R. Raklev, Phys. Rev. D91, 123536 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 069903 (2015), Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 089901 (2015)], arXiv:1504.07242 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 693 (2020), arXiv:2003.02394 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 022303 (2025), arXiv:2405.19890 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vovchenko, B

    V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. C100, 054906 (2019), arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 256 (2021), arXiv:2005.11120 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    In PYTHIA, a modest multi- plicity dependence is observed for the balance functions of both proton- and deuteron-triggered events

    For Thermal FIST, the balance functions are cal- culated for⟨dN ch/dη⟩values of 4.5, 10, and 20, corre- sponding to the (0–1)%, (10–20)%, and (40–50)% mul- tiplicity classes determined by the V0 detectors of the ALICE Collaboration [40]. In PYTHIA, a modest multi- plicity depe...

  33. [41]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 630 (2021), arXiv:2009.09434 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041901 (2023), arXiv:2204.10166 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vovchenko, Phys

    V. Vovchenko, Phys. Rev. C110, L061902 (2024), arXiv:2409.01397 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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