pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02414 · v1 · pith:W5CQMGSEnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · ✦ hep-ph · nucl-th

Probing Pair Correlations in QCD Matter with Photon Spectra

Xingjian Lu , Shuzhe Shi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 13:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph nucl-th
keywords photon productionpair correlationsQCD matterheavy-ion collisionsnon-equilibriumquark-antiquark annihilationCompton scatteringleading logarithmic
0
0 comments X

The pith

Pair correlations in the parton distribution generate sign-changing modifications to the photon spectrum that can equal the size of the factorized contribution.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines how two-particle correlations in the phase-space distribution of partons affect photon production in the dense, far-from-equilibrium matter formed in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The authors decompose the two-particle distribution as F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab and expand both the single-particle distributions and the correlation function g_ab in a spectral basis to evaluate the leading-logarithmic photon spectrum from quark-antiquark annihilation and Compton scattering. In a rotationally invariant medium the relative-angle modes of g_ab produce sign-changing corrections whose size can reach that of the factorized f_a f_b term. Photon spectra therefore carry information about momentum correlations in the emitting medium and can serve as a probe of the early stage before hydrodynamization. A sympathetic reader would care because single-particle observables like photons are shown to be sensitive to two-body structure in the initial conditions.

Core claim

We decompose the two-particle distribution as F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab, where g_ab is the pair correlation. Focusing on the 2-to-2 quark-antiquark annihilation and Compton channels, we compute the leading-logarithmic photon spectrum by expanding the single-particle distribution and pair correlation in a spectral basis. For a rotationally invariant medium, relative-angle modes of the pair correlation generate sign-changing modifications to the photon spectrum, with magnitudes that can be comparable to the factorized contribution. Thus photon spectra, although single-particle observables, can measure the momentum correlations of the emitting medium and therefore probe the early-time hydrodynamiza

What carries the argument

The decomposition F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab together with its expansion in a spectral basis, which isolates how relative-angle modes of the pair correlation modify the leading-logarithmic yield from the 2-to-2 photon channels.

If this is right

  • The photon spectrum receives sign-changing corrections from relative-angle modes of the pair correlation.
  • These corrections can reach magnitudes comparable to the factorized contribution from the product of single-particle distributions.
  • Photon production therefore functions as a probe of pair correlations in the non-equilibrium medium.
  • The approach applies to the quark-antiquark annihilation and Compton scattering channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The spectral-basis method could be applied to concrete initial-state models to predict the size of correlation effects in actual collision data.
  • Similar sensitivity to pair correlations may exist in other electromagnetic observables such as dilepton spectra.
  • If the effect is observed, it would link photon measurements directly to the onset of hydrodynamization through the decay of initial momentum correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The two-particle distribution admits the decomposition into the product of single-particle distributions plus a separate pair correlation term, and the leading-logarithmic approximation remains valid for the 2-to-2 photon production channels when the medium is far from equilibrium.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the photon spectrum in heavy-ion collisions lacks sign-changing modifications beyond the factorized prediction, or an explicit calculation in a specific far-from-equilibrium model in which the g_ab contributions remain much smaller than the f_a f_b term.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02414 by Shuzhe Shi, Xingjian Lu.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Annihilation process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Leading-logarithmic photon spectrum from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Total local photon spectra obtained by adding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Total 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Correlations in the phase-space distribution of partons play an important role in the initial stage of relativistic heavy-ion collisions, where the matter is dense and far from equilibrium. Photons produced in the hot medium, which predominantly originate from two-parton initial states, are sensitive to two-particle correlations in the phase-space distribution. In this work, we study how pair correlations in non-equilibrium QCD matter affect in-medium photon production. We decompose the two-particle distribution as $\mathcal F_{ab}=f_a f_b+g_{ab}$, where $g_{ab}$ is the pair correlation. Focusing on the $2\to2$ quark--antiquark annihilation and Compton channels, we compute the leading-logarithmic photon spectrum by expanding the single-particle distribution and pair correlation in a spectral basis, thereby accommodating a broad class of two-particle distributions. For a rotationally invariant medium, we find that relative-angle modes of the pair correlation generate sign-changing modifications to the photon spectrum, with magnitudes that can be comparable to the factorized contribution. Thus, photon spectra, although single-particle observables, can measure the momentum correlations of the emitting medium and therefore probe the early-time hydrodynamization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that by decomposing the two-particle distribution as F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab and computing the leading-logarithmic photon spectrum from qqbar annihilation and Compton scattering after expanding both f_a and g_ab in a spectral basis, the relative-angle modes of the pair correlation in a rotationally invariant non-equilibrium medium produce sign-changing modifications to the photon spectrum whose magnitudes can be comparable to the factorized contribution; thus photon spectra can probe early-time pair correlations and hydrodynamization.

Significance. If the result holds, the work offers a concrete route to access two-particle correlations via single-particle photon observables in the initial stage of heavy-ion collisions. The spectral-basis approach that accommodates a broad class of distributions is a methodological strength worth crediting, as is the explicit focus on non-equilibrium effects beyond thermal assumptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [leading-logarithmic photon spectrum computation] The leading-logarithmic approximation is invoked for the 2 o2 photon rates with arbitrary far-from-equilibrium f_a and g_ab (see the computation following the decomposition F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab). Standard LLA derivations of the collinear logarithm rely on thermal distributions to fix the infrared screening scale and phase-space weighting; when these are replaced by rotationally invariant but non-thermal distributions, the effective Debye mass and matrix-element factors can change, so it is not immediate that the relative-angle modes of g_ab produce modifications of comparable size to the factorized term. This assumption is load-bearing for the central magnitude claim.
  2. [spectral basis expansion of pair correlation] The spectral-basis expansion of g_ab is used to isolate the relative-angle modes that generate the sign-changing corrections. No explicit demonstration is given that the truncation or basis choice preserves the claimed magnitude comparison once the infrared structure is recomputed self-consistently for the non-equilibrium case.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states the central result but supplies no derivation outline, error estimates, or numerical checks, making it difficult for a reader to verify support for the claim without the full text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and for highlighting these important technical points regarding the leading-logarithmic approximation and the spectral expansion. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [leading-logarithmic photon spectrum computation] The leading-logarithmic approximation is invoked for the 2→2 photon rates with arbitrary far-from-equilibrium f_a and g_ab (see the computation following the decomposition F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab). Standard LLA derivations of the collinear logarithm rely on thermal distributions to fix the infrared screening scale and phase-space weighting; when these are replaced by rotationally invariant but non-thermal distributions, the effective Debye mass and matrix-element factors can change, so it is not immediate that the relative-angle modes of g_ab produce modifications of comparable size to the factorized term. This assumption is load-bearing for the central magnitude claim.

    Authors: We agree that the LLA extension to non-equilibrium distributions is not automatic and that the infrared structure must be handled carefully. In the manuscript the Debye mass is computed directly from the given rotationally invariant f_a, and the collinear logarithm is obtained from the same phase-space integration that appears in the thermal case; the g_ab term enters the rate at the same order through the identical matrix elements. Nevertheless, a fully self-consistent recomputation of screening for each distribution would strengthen the argument. We will add an appendix deriving the LLA cutoff for arbitrary rotationally invariant distributions and explicitly comparing the factorized and correlated contributions at leading log. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [spectral basis expansion of pair correlation] The spectral-basis expansion of g_ab is used to isolate the relative-angle modes that generate the sign-changing corrections. No explicit demonstration is given that the truncation or basis choice preserves the claimed magnitude comparison once the infrared structure is recomputed self-consistently for the non-equilibrium case.

    Authors: The basis is complete for rotationally invariant functions, so truncation is controlled by the decay of higher coefficients. The magnitude comparison is performed mode-by-mode at fixed leading-log order. We acknowledge that an explicit check with the infrared scale recomputed after each truncation would be desirable. We will include a short numerical test showing that the leading relative-angle modes dominate the correction and that the truncation error remains smaller than the reported effect for the distributions examined. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; direct forward computation from decomposed distribution

full rationale

The derivation starts from the explicit decomposition F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab, applies the leading-logarithmic approximation to the 2→2 channels, and expands both distributions in a spectral basis to obtain the photon spectrum. This is a self-contained forward calculation whose output is not forced by construction to equal any input parameter or prior self-citation. No load-bearing step reduces to a fit, a renamed known result, or an unverified self-citation chain. The result remains independent of the specific functional forms chosen for f and g_ab within the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard domain assumptions of perturbative QCD and heavy-ion physics; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Leading-logarithmic approximation applies to photon production in the 2-to-2 quark-antiquark annihilation and Compton channels inside a non-equilibrium medium.
    Invoked to obtain the photon spectrum from the decomposed two-particle distribution.
  • domain assumption Two-particle distribution admits the decomposition F_ab = f_a f_b + g_ab.
    Standard separation into uncorrelated and correlated parts used throughout the calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5731 in / 1333 out tokens · 24582 ms · 2026-06-28T13:39:17.141293+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Thus3 Kann = 4N2 c |Mann|2 = 4 N2 c −1 e2g2 s   X f=u,d,s Q2 f   u t + t u

    To obtain the kernel summed over the spin and color states of the incoming quark and antiquark, one multiplies the averaged result by (2Nc)(2Nc) = 4N2 c . Thus3 Kann = 4N2 c |Mann|2 = 4 N2 c −1 e2g2 s   X f=u,d,s Q2 f   u t + t u . (41) Eq. (40) can also be written in terms of the electromag- netic couplingα EM =e 2/(4π) and the strong coupling αs =g ...

  2. [2]

    E. L. Feinberg, Nuovo Cim. A34, 391 (1976)

    1976

  3. [3]

    E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B78, 150 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Kajantie and H

    K. Kajantie and H. I. Miettinen, Z. Phys. C9, 341 (1981)

    1981

  5. [5]

    L. D. McLerran and T. Toimela, Phys. Rev. D31, 545 (1985)

    1985

  6. [6]

    Kajantie, J

    K. Kajantie, J. I. Kapusta, L. D. McLerran, and A. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. D34, 2746 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    Tserruya, Landolt-Bornstein23, 176 (2010), arXiv:0903.0415 [nucl-ex]

    I. Tserruya, Landolt-Bornstein23, 176 (2010), arXiv:0903.0415 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Gale (2025) arXiv:2502.13938 [nucl-th]

    C. Gale (2025) arXiv:2502.13938 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Jackson, EPJ Web Conf.364, 01023 (2026), arXiv:2509.00262 [hep-ph]

    G. Jackson, EPJ Web Conf.364, 01023 (2026), arXiv:2509.00262 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Du, EPJ Web Conf.339, 01016 (2025), arXiv:2503.09045 [nucl-th]

    L. Du, EPJ Web Conf.339, 01016 (2025), arXiv:2503.09045 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    X.-Y. Wu, H. Gao, B. Forster, C. Gale, G. Jackson, and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 242301 (2025), arXiv:2412.15052 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Gao, X.-Y

    H. Gao, X.-Y. Wu, C. Gale, G. Jackson, and S. Jeon, (2026), arXiv:2605.30180 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 132301 (2010), arXiv:0804.4168 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 122302 (2012), arXiv:1105.4126 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Liu and S.-X

    F.-M. Liu and S.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. C89, 034906 (2014), arXiv:1212.6587 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Rapp and H

    R. Rapp and H. van Hees, Phys. Lett. B753, 586 (2016), arXiv:1411.4612 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B789, 308 (2019), arXiv:1805.04403 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Dasgupta, G.-L

    P. Dasgupta, G.-L. Ma, R. Chatterjee, L. Yan, S. Zhang, and Y.-G. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 134 (2021), arXiv:2007.09543 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Sun and L

    J.-A. Sun and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C109, 034917 (2024), arXiv:2311.03929 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B754, 235 (2016), arXiv:1509.07324 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    W. Hui, S. Ben-Hao, T. An, and S. Zu-Xun, Phys. Rev. C61, 064905 (2000)

    2000

  22. [22]

    Stankus, Ann

    P. Stankus, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55, 517 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Liu and K

    F.-M. Liu and K. Werner, J. Phys. G36, 035101 (2009), arXiv:0712.3619 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Vitev and B.-W

    I. Vitev and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B669, 337 (2008), arXiv:0804.3805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    David, Rept

    G. David, Rept. Prog. Phys.83, 046301 (2020), arXiv:1907.08893 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 465 (1987)

    1987

  27. [27]

    Churchill, L

    J. Churchill, L. Yan, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C103, 024904 (2021), arXiv:2008.02902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Garcia-Montero, A

    O. Garcia-Montero, A. Mazeliauskas, P. Plaschke, and S. Schlichting, JHEP03, 053 (2024), arXiv:2308.09747 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Garcia-Montero, P

    O. Garcia-Montero, P. Plaschke, and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. D111, 034036 (2025), arXiv:2403.04846 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Paquet, C

    J.-F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C93, 044906 (2016), arXiv:1509.06738 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Turbide, R

    S. Turbide, R. Rapp, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C69, 014903 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0308085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, and D. K. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 132301 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0208001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  33. [33]

    Turbide, C

    S. Turbide, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C72, 014906 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502248

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C80, 054909 (2009), arXiv:0906.3280 12 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    F.-M. Liu, T. Hirano, K. Werner, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C80, 034905 (2009), arXiv:0902.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    Dion, J.-F

    M. Dion, J.-F. Paquet, B. Schenke, C. Young, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C84, 064901 (2011), arXiv:1109.4405 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    C. Shen, U. W. Heinz, J.-F. Paquet, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C89, 044910 (2014), arXiv:1308.2440 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    C. Gale, Y. Hidaka, S. Jeon, S. Lin, J.-F. Paquet, R. D. Pisarski, D. Satow, V. V. Skokov, and G. Vujanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 072301 (2015), arXiv:1409.4778 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    van Hees, M

    H. van Hees, M. He, and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A933, 256 (2015), arXiv:1404.2846 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

    M. Jia, H. Li, and D. Hou, Phys. Lett. B846, 138239 (2023), arXiv:2211.16770 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    J. I. Kapusta, P. Lichard, and D. Seibert, Phys. Rev. D 44, 2774 (1991), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 47, 4171 (1993)]

    1991

  42. [42]

    Baier, H

    R. Baier, H. Nakkagawa, A. Niegawa, and K. Redlich, Z. Phys. C53, 433 (1992)

    1992

  43. [43]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP12, 009 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0111107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  44. [44]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP11, 057 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0109064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz.92, 535 (1953)

    1953

  46. [46]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz.92, 735 (1953)

    1953

  47. [47]

    A. B. Migdal, Phys. Rev.103, 1811 (1956)

    1956

  48. [48]

    Aurenche, F

    P. Aurenche, F. Gelis, and H. Zaraket, Phys. Rev. D62, 096012 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0003326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  49. [49]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP06, 030 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    Zhang, Z.-b

    H.-z. Zhang, Z.-b. Kang, B.-W. Zhang, and E. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C67, 445 (2010), arXiv:hep-ph/0609159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [51]

    Sun and L

    J.-A. Sun and L. Yan, Phys. Lett. B858, 139046 (2024), arXiv:2302.07696 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Hidaka, S

    Y. Hidaka, S. Lin, R. D. Pisarski, and D. Satow, JHEP 10, 005 (2015), arXiv:1504.01770 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    Lu and S

    X. Lu and S. Shi, (2026), arXiv:2604.27926 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C94, 064901 (2016), arXiv:1509.07758 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Monnai, Int

    A. Monnai, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A37, 2230006 (2022), arXiv:2203.13208 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B868, 139645 (2025), arXiv:2411.14366 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    G. L. Kasza, PTEP2026, 033D01 (2026), arXiv:2507.13240 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    H. S. Scheid, EPJ Web Conf.364, 01022 (2026), arXiv:2509.26456 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Ayala, S

    A. Ayala, S. Bernal-Langarica, J. J. Medina-Serna, and A. J. Mizher (2026) arXiv:2603.24964 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Averyanov, Phys

    D. Averyanov, Phys. Part. Nucl.57, 188 (2026)

    2026

  61. [61]

    Buzzegoli, S

    M. Buzzegoli, S. Busuioc, J. D. Kroth, N. Vijayakumar, and K. Tuchin, (2026), arXiv:2602.13044 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    J. D. Kroth and K. Tuchin, (2026), arXiv:2602.02746 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Liu, (2026), arXiv:2604.25165 [hep-ph]

    F.-M. Liu, (2026), arXiv:2604.25165 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    X. An, R. Brants, M. P. Heller, and Y. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2511.11555 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Monnai, J

    A. Monnai, J. Phys. G50, 095103 (2023), arXiv:2301.00588 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    C. V. P. de Brito, D. Wagner, G. S. Denicol, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D113, 096007 (2026), arXiv:2411.06267 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    X. Du, S. Schlichting, and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D113, 096009 (2026), arXiv:2512.08007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Lu and S

    X. Lu and S. Shi, (2025), arXiv:2509.23978 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Lu and S

    X. Lu and S. Shi, Phys. Rev. C113, 034917 (2026), arXiv:2507.14243 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026