Parton Ladder Splitting and the Rapidity Dependence of Transverse Momentum Spectra in Deuteron-Gold Collisions at RHIC

China); France); Fu-Ming Liu (Central China Normal University; Germany); Institute of Particle Physics; Institut f. Kernphysik; Karlsruhe; Klaus Werner (SUBATECH; Nantes; Tanguy Pierog (Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe

REVIEW

Parton Ladder Splitting and the Rapidity Dependence of Transverse Momentum Spectra in Deuteron-Gold Collisions at RHIC

Klaus Werner (SUBATECH, Univ. de Nantes -- IN2P3/CNRS-- EMN, Nantes, France), Fu-Ming Liu (Central China Normal University, Institute of Particle Physics, Wuhan, China)

show 4 more authors

Tanguy Pierog (Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut f. Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Germany)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 23 Jun 2005 · 38 references

Pith's verdict: A technically substantial model paper whose central claim — that ladder splitting is the key to dAu — is supported by an ablation in which the effect was fitted in rather than predicted.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 5 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0506232 (version 1)

Pith IDJRHYW7EM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationChina), France), Fu-Ming Liu (Central China Normal University, Germany), Institute of Particle Physics, Institut f. Kernphysik, Karlsruhe, Klaus Werner (SUBATECH, Nantes, Tanguy Pierog (Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Univ. de Nantes -- IN2P3/CNRS-- EMN, Wuhan. "Parton Ladder Splitting and the Rapidity Dependence of Transverse Momentum Spectra in Deuteron-Gold Collisions at RHIC." arXiv:hep-ph/0506232 (2005). https://pith.science/paper/JRHYW7EM

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The thing to know up front: inelastic ladder splitting is a real mechanism and the paper is candid that it is treated effectively, but the evidence for 'splitting is the key issue' (abstract:s1) is weaker than the framing. Eqs. 7–10 make the string-break parameters, including pt-bar, rise linearly with Z, and Z is a monotonic centrality proxy — their own fig. 13 says so. Rcp is central over peripheral, i.e. a ratio of two Z values. So the rising Rcp in fig. 19 is largely a fitted knob, and the no-splitting curves in figs. 19 and 21 show the knob is on, not that the dynamics is ladder bifurcation. Any centrality-dependent fragmentation change would give the same ablation signature. The stress-test note has this right. The same Z also drives screening (Eqs. 4–5) and pt transport (Eq. 6), so the three effects are not separately identifiable from what is shown here. And 'in perfect agreement with the data, if the latter ones are interpreted correctly' (abstract:s3) is doing real work: the agreement leans on arguing the STAR pp reference is 10–20% too low. That is a legitimate argument, but it should not be folded into the agreement claim. What is good: the multiple-scattering machinery in the appendices is genuine work — energy-conserving Gribov treatment, closed ladders, the Markov chain sampler — and it is laid out in enough detail to reimplement. The pp section is the most useful part for me. The discussion of what STAR's NSD actually means, and the case that the pp reference may be too low, is a substantive point about experimental systematics that people should take seriously. Agreement at the 10–20% level across four experiments and six orders of magnitude in pt is not trivial even for a fitted model. Soft spots, in proportion: the parameter count (11 in Table 1, plus fragmentation, remnant and pQCD parameters) against in-sample data, with no error budget and no code or tables shipped. The §4 equivalence — that explicit splitting is equivalent to modified parameters in Z — is asserted, not shown, and everything downstream rests on it. Who should read it: heavy-ion people working on dAu baselines, and anyone using EPOS. It deserves referees; the mechanism is specific and falsifiable in principle, and the formalism is worth checking. Recommendation: send it out. Ask for the §4 effective-treatment assumption to be justified or at least stress-tested, and for the normalization argument to be kept separate from the agreement claim.

Referee report

Significance

If the mechanism holds, the centrality and rapidity dependence of nuclear modification in dAu is a ladder-splitting phenomenon rather than a saturation or plasma signature, which would be a substantive reinterpretation of the RHIC dAu program. The paper's strengths are real and should be named: it is a genuine global effort that confronts a single framework with pp and dAu data from all four RHIC experiments, it ships a complete and documented parameter set (Table 1) plus the full multiple-scattering and Markov-chain machinery in the appendices, and it makes a falsifiable statement about the rapidity dependence of RdAu that figs. 21-24 test against BRAHMS and PHOBOS. The comparison of the NSD BBC versus NSD PYT normalization in §5 and fig. 10 is a useful, concrete contribution independent of the splitting hypothesis.

Major objections (5)

[§4, Eqs. (7)-(10), Table 1, fig. 13] The headline observable is under direct parametric control, and the ablation in figs. 19 and 21 does not distinguish the proposed dynamics from a generic centrality-dependent fragmentation change. Eq. (10) sets the string-break transverse momentum to pt-bar (1 + aP Z), and Eqs. (7)-(9) shift pB, pD, and pS linearly in Z; fig. 13 states that Z is essentially a centrality measure increasing linearly with the number of collisions. Rcp in Eq. (13) is central (0-20%) over peripheral (40-100%), i.e. a ratio of two values of Z, so the model contains a fitted monotonic knob on precisely the quantity that Rcp measures, with aP, aB, aD, aS among the constants of Table 1 fitted to the same pp and dAu data used for validation. Turning splitting off sets those coefficients to zero, so the contrast between full EPOS and no-splitting EPOS demonstrates that the knob is on, not that ladder bifurcation is responsible. A concrete test is needed: show that an alternative centrality-dependent fragmentation modification with a comparable number of parameters fails to describe the same data, or exhibit a quantity not used in the fit (for example a species-dependent or forward-rapidity observable) that the splitting picture predicts and the alternative does not.
[§4, opening paragraph] The load-bearing premise is stated but not demonstrated: 'We suppose that all the effects of the parton ladder splitting can be treated effectively, meaning that the correct explicit treatment of splittings is equivalent to the simplified treatment without splittings, but with certain parameters modified, expressed in terms of Z.' The authors are candid that this is a pragmatic choice ('we prefer to have simple parameterizations rather than a very complicated but uncertain dynamical treatment'), which is fair, but the equivalence is what licenses reading the fit as evidence for splitting rather than for the flexibility of an eleven-parameter effective description. At minimum, a toy explicit calculation of a single bifurcated ladder in a simplified kinematics, showing that the induced changes in the fragmentation parameters follow the linear-in-Z form of Eqs. (7)-(10), would convert the assertion into a check. Absent that, the paper should state plainly that the effective parameterization is a phenomenological encoding and that the data constrain the combination, not the microscopic mechanism.
[§5 and figs. 22-23] The reinterpretation of the pp reference carries a large share of the agreement claim and needs more support than it receives. The argument that STAR's RdAu is 10-20% too high because the pp reference is 10-20% too low rests on the NSD BBC versus NSD PYT discussion and fig. 10, which is a claim about another collaboration's normalization procedure. The internal tension is visible in fig. 23: the 'mixed' RdAu built from the BRAHMS dAu spectrum and the EPOS pp reference exceeds the simulation curve, which is noted in passing but not resolved. The paper should either quantify the residual normalization uncertainty in the STAR and BRAHMS references with an explicit error budget, or present the comparison in a form that does not depend on the disputed normalization (for example a double ratio of dAu spectra at two rapidities, which cancels the pp reference entirely).
[abstract:s3, §7] The phrase 'in perfect agreement with the data, if the latter ones are interpreted correctly' places the burden of agreement on the interpretation of the experiments without quantifying what 'correctly' means. The text quotes agreement at the 10-20% level (figs. 18, 11) but gives no systematic error budget for the model, no statement of which data points enter the fit and which are genuine predictions, and no goodness-of-fit measure for the eleven-parameter fit of Table 1. A table separating fitted from predicted observables, with residuals, would make the claim assessable. As written, the sentence reads as unfalsifiable: disagreement is attributed to the data rather than to the model.
[§4, Eqs. (4)-(6) versus Eqs. (7)-(10)] Three distinct mechanisms — elastic screening (Eqs. 4-5), pt transport (Eq. 6), and collective hadronization (Eqs. 7-10) — are all driven by the same Z and are not independently constrained. The paper does not show that the fit distinguishes them; in particular, the pt broadening attributed to collective hadronization in fig. 19 could be partly absorbed by the pt-transport term of Eq. (6), which the text itself says 'should affect equally backward and forward pseudorapidities.' A parameter-sensitivity or error-matrix study, showing which combinations of the Table 1 constants are actually determined by the data and which are degenerate, is needed before the attribution of the Rcp rise to inelastic splitting can be sustained.

Minor objections (9)

[Table 1] The symbol aS is used twice: once for the soft screening exponent (Eq. 4) and once for the strange break probability (Eq. 9). The same clash occurs for aB, which appears both as the break-parameter coefficient in Eq. (7) and as a generic label. Rename one of the two sets to avoid ambiguity.
[§3, Eq. (3) and following line] The parametrization is written as 'α (x+)β(x−)β' and then as 'α (x+)β(x−)β+ε', which is garbled: it is unclear whether β is an exponent on both factors, whether the second β is a distinct quantity, and how ε enters. Please rewrite with explicit superscripts and define each symbol.
[§2] The sentence 'We use currently for pO 0.75 (dif) and 0.95 (nondif), and for αO 0.75 (dif) and 1.1 (nondif)' is missing a verb and reads as a typo. Please also state whether these remnant parameters were fitted or fixed by hand.
[fig. 18] Displacing four spectra by factors of ten in each panel makes the shape comparison difficult, which the authors acknowledge. Adding a ratio panel (each spectrum divided by the η = 0.25 curve) would make the claimed 10-20% agreement visually checkable.
[fig. 12 caption] 'poins' should read 'points'. The same caption also refers to 'the simulation curve at η = 0, multiplied by 0.1, 0.01, 0.001' without saying which curve is which in the figure.
[Appendix A] The ASCII-art diagram notation in Appendix A is difficult to follow in the typeset form, and the correspondence between the dashed-line classes and the labels m, K, and Ω(K) is not easy to trace. A cleaner schematic figure would help the reader who wants to reproduce the construction.
[References] Reference [22] (PHENIX, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 241803) is missing its year, and reference [25] is listed as 'submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.'; please update the latter to its published form if available.
[§5] The inelastic and NSD cross sections are quoted as 'σ ≈ 42 mb' and 'σ ≈ 35 mb' without references or uncertainties. Please cite the source of these values and state the associated error.
[§6, fig. 13] The statement that ZT increases linearly with the number of binary collisions follows from the definition, but the figure would be more informative if it also showed the spread of Z within a fixed Ncoll bin, since fig. 14 indicates a broad distribution.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A single phenomenological model, EPOS, argues that the splitting of parton ladders — elastic screening plus inelastic bifurcation followed by collective hadronization — is what shapes the transverse-momentum spectra of proton-proton anddeut

The reading

The authors want to know whether one model can account for the transverse-momentum spectra measured by all four RHIC experiments, in both proton-proton and deuteron-gold collisions, without invoking a quark-gluon plasma for the dAu case. Their answer is EPOS, an energy-conserving multiple-scattering approach built on parton ladders, off-shell remnants, and — the new ingredient — the splitting of those ladders when a projectile parton finds a second target parton nearby in impact parameter. Two kinds of splitting are distinguished: elastic splitting, which adds interfering closed ladders and acts like screening of small momentum fractions (a saturation-like effect), and inelastic splitting, which puts two ladders side by side so that they hadronize collectively rather than independently. The authors argue the inelastic channel is the one that matters: it broadens transverse momentum and thereby produces the rise of the central-to-peripheral ratio $R_{cp}$ between 1 and 2 GeV/$c$ and the upward slope of $R_{dAu}$ with $p_t$ seen at every pseudorapidity. They also argue that the rapidity dependence of nuclear effects is weak, and that apparent disagreements among the four experiments at $p_t$ around 2–4 GeV/$c$ come from differing proton-proton reference spectra and differing definitions of the non-single-diffractive trigger, not from the physics of the collision.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is $Z$, the number of target (or projectile) partons available for additional ladder legs, computed from impact-parameter-weighted sums over nucleon pairs and growing logarithmically with energy. Every splitting effect is then written as a modification of an existing parameter in terms of $Z$: screening exponents $varepsilon_S = a_S beta_S Z$ and $varepsilon_H = a_H beta_H Z$ for soft and hard ladders; a transverse-momentum kick $Delta p_t = a_T p_0 n_q Z$; and shifts in the string breaking probability, diquark break probability, strange break probability, and mean break transverse momentum, $p_B to p_B - a_B Z$, $p_D to p_D(1+a_D Z)$, $p_S to p_S(1+a_S Z)$, $bar{p}_t to bar{p}_t(1+a_P Z)$. The eleven constants in Table 1, together with the soft-Pomeron and pQCD parameters, are fitted mainly to RHIC pp and dAu data plus SPS-to-Tevatron cross sections and multiplicities. The machinery that makes the calculation tractable is an analytic fit of the elementary interaction kernel $G(x^+,x^-,s,b)$ as a sum of two powers, $sum_i alpha_i (x^+)^{beta_i+varepsilon_i(Z_P)}(x^-)^{beta_i+varepsilon_i(Z_T)}$, combined with a Metropolis-style Markov chain over interaction configurations.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that parton ladder splitting is the key issue for understanding RHIC transverse-momentum data. In asymmetric collisions such as deuteron-gold, a ladder parton that interacts with one target parton will often find a second target parton close by in impact parameter, and can scatter off it elastically or inelastically. The elastic case contributes interfering closed ladders, which suppress small light-cone momentum fractions — qualitatively the same effect saturation models describe — and can also transport transverse momentum. The inelastic case is presented as the more consequential: two ladders sharing a common upper end and close lower ends cannot hadronize independently, so the authors treat them as hadronizing collectively, which effectively delays string breaking and raises baryon, strangeness, and transverse-momentum production. Fed through a $Z$ counting of available partons, this produces $p_t$ broadening on the target side of dAu that is visible over the whole measured pseudorapidity range, and it is offered as the explanation for the observed $p_t$ dependence of $R_{cp}$ and $R_{dAu}$ and for the near-independence of these ratios from pseudorapidity.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes, without demonstrating it, that the full dynamics of ladder splitting can be replaced by taking the unsplit calculation and shifting a handful of parameters by amounts proportional to the number of available partons $Z$; if that equivalence fails, the agreement with data reflects the flexibility of an eleven-parameter fit rather than the splitting mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the mechanism is right, the $p_t$ dependence of $R_{dAu}$ and $R_{cp}$ in deuteron-gold is a target-side hadronization effect rather than evidence of a dense saturated gluon wall, and both pictures should be distinguishable by their different centrality and rapidity systematics.
The model predicts that the same collective hadronization should appear in proton-proton collisions once the energy is high enough that $Z$ becomes sizeable, so the effect is not intrinsically nuclear.
Because the screening exponent enters as $Z$ times the soft or hard power $beta$, the suppression of small-$x$ contributions should scale with the number of collisions in a specific, fitted way rather than as an arbitrary saturation scale.
The authors' reading implies that the spread among STAR, PHENIX, PHOBOS, and BRAHMS nuclear modification factors at mid-rapidity is largely a normalization bookkeeping problem, so a corrected common $pp$ reference should bring the four data sets onto a single curve.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's reinterpretation of the non-single-diffractive trigger is arguably as consequential as the splitting mechanism itself: if the STAR $pp$ reference is indeed 10–20% too low, several published $R_{dAu}$ values shift downward by that amount, which is comparable to the entire spread the paper is trying to explain.
The collective-hadronization idea has a natural geometric signature the paper does not exploit: the number of ladders that can hadronize together should grow with the local density of target partons, so the effect ought to scale more steeply with centrality in the most central events than a simple linear-in-$Z$ parameterization allows.
If the effect is real, it should also broaden the transverse momentum of identified baryons more than mesons, since the diquark break probability is the parameter being raised; a species-split measurement of $R_{cp}$ at 1–2 GeV/$c$ would be a sharper test than the charged-particle ratios shown here.
The distinction drawn between elastic and inelastic splitting suggests a cross-check in diffractive events, where closed ladders are already used to supply the transverse-momentum kick to the scattered proton; the same $p_t$ transport should be visible there with a strength tied to the same fitted coefficient $a_T$.

Original abstract

We present a phenomenological approach (EPOS), based on the parton model, but going much beyond, and try to understand proton-proton and deuteron-gold collisions, in particular the transverse momentum results from all the four RHIC experiments. It turns out that elastic and inelastic parton ladder splitting is the key issue. Elastic splitting is in fact related to screening and saturation, but much more important is the inelastic contribution, being crucial to understand the data. We investigate in detail the rapidity dependence of nuclear effects, which is actually relatively weak in the model, in perfect agreement with the data, if the latter ones are interpreted correctly.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,667 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.19 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.10 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.58 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We present a phenomenological approach (EPOS), based on the parton model, but going much beyond, and try to understand proton-proton and deuteron-gold collisions, in particular the transverse momentum results from all the four RHIC experiments. It turns out that elastic and inelastic parton ladder splitting is the key issue. Elastic splitting is in fact related to screening and saturation, but much more important is the inelastic contribution, being crucial to understand the data. We investigate in detail the rapidity dependence of nuclear effects, which is actually relatively weak in the model, in perfect agreement with the data, if the latter ones are interpreted correctly.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We present a phenomenological approach (EPOS), based on the parton model, but going much beyond, and try to understand proton-proton and deuteron-gold collisions, in particular the transverse momentum results from all the four RHIC experiments.	contribution 0.77	0.87	0.06	asserted 0.77
s1	It turns out that elastic and inelastic parton ladder splitting is the key issue.	result 0.76	0.82	0.66	asserted 1.00
s2	Elastic splitting is in fact related to screening and saturation, but much more important is the inelastic contribution, being crucial to understand the data.	interpretation 0.51	0.66	0.44	asserted 1.00
s3	We investigate in detail the rapidity dependence of nuclear effects, which is actually relatively weak in the model, in perfect agreement with the data, if the latter ones are interpreted correctly.	result 0.89	0.84	0.14	asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.59 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.76.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (38)

[1]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 91, 172302, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[2]

PHENIX collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034910 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[3]

PHENIX collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034909 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[4]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. C70, 0649 07, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[5]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072304, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[6]

PHENIX collaboration, S.S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett . 91, 072303, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[7]

BRAHMS collaboration, I. Arsene et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 242303, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[8]

PHOBOS collaboration, B.B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C70, 0 61901, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[9]

Dmitri Kharzeev, Eugene Levin, Larry McLerran, Nucl.Ph ys.A748: 627-640, 2005; D. Kharzeev, Y. V. Kovchegov and K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. D 68, 094013, 2003

View on Pith 2005
[10]

R. Baier, A. Kovner and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 68, 0 54009, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[11]

J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, A. Kovner, C. A. Salgado and U . A. Wiede- mann,Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 082001, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[12]

J. Jalilian-Marian, Y. Nara and R. Venugopalan, Phys. L ett. B 577, 54, 2003;A. Dumitru and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 022301, 2002

View on Pith 2003
[13]

Rudolph C. Hwa,C.B. Yang, Phys.Rev.C70: 037901, 2004; Rudolph C. Hwa,C.B. Yang, Phys.Rev.C70: 054902, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[14]

X.~N.~Wang, Phys. Lett. B 565, 116, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[15]

I.~Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 562, 36, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[16]

A. Accardi and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Lett. B 586, 244, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[17]

Z. W. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054904, 2003

View on Pith 2003
[18]

M. Bleicher, F. M. Liu, A. Keränen, J. Aichelin, S.A. Bas s, F. Becattini, K. Redlich, and K. Werner, Phys.Rev.Lett.88, 202501, 2002

View on Pith 2002
[19]

F.M. Liu, J.Aichelin, M.Bleicher, H.J. Drescher, S. Os tapchenko, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. D67, 034011 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[20]

UA5 collaboration, G.J. Alner et al., Z. Phys. C33, 1, 19 86

View on Pith
[21]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 , 172302, 2003. 38

View on Pith 2003
[22]

PHENIX collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 241803

View on Pith
[23]

PHOBOS collaboration , B.B. Back, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 0 82301, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[24]

BRAHMS collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032301, 200 5

View on Pith
[25]

PHOBOS collaboration, nucl-ex/0409021, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

H. J. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog and K. Werner, Phys. Rept. 350, 93, 2001

View on Pith 2001
[27]

G. Altarelli, Phys. Rep. 81, 1, 1982

View on Pith 1982
[28]

E. Reya, Phys. Rep. 69, 195, 1981

View on Pith 1981
[29]

L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20, 94, 1975

View on Pith 1975
[30]

V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 , 1972

View on Pith 1972
[31]

G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298, 1977

View on Pith 1977
[32]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641, 1977

View on Pith 1977
[33]

L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP 63, 904, 1986

View on Pith 1986
[34]

M. G. Ryskin and Y. M. Shabelski, Yad. Fiz., Rus. 55, 2149 , 1992

View on Pith 1992
[35]

A. Donnachie and P. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 332, 433, 19 94

View on Pith
[36]

D. Amati, A. Stanghellini, and S. Fubini, Nuovo Cim. 26, 896, 1962

View on Pith 1962
[37]

M. Baker and K. A. Ter-Martirosyan, Phys. Rep. 28, 1, 197 6

View on Pith
[38]

M. Hladik, H. J. Drescher, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, an d K. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3506, 2001 39

View on Pith 2001

Forward citations

Cited by 35 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 454 citations worldwide. Full citation record

Observation of single top-quark production in the $s$-channel in proton--proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-10 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

First single-experiment observation of s-channel single top-quark production at 5.1 sigma significance, with a cross-section consistent with the Standard Model.
Centrality dependence of charged-hadron pseudorapidity distributions in oxygen-oxygen collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.36 TeV
nucl-ex 2026-06 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

First measurement of dNch/dη in OO collisions at 5.36 TeV yields midrapidity densities of 41.8 overall and 135 in central events, consistent with PbPb per participant but showing deviations from simple scaling.
Search for emerging jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13.6$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

No evidence for emerging jets was found in 51.8 fb-1 of 13.6 TeV ATLAS data; new exclusion limits are set on s-channel Z' and t-channel scalar mediator models producing pairs of emerging jets.
Cross-section measurements of boosted Higgs boson production in final states with pairs of hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons with the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

ATLAS reports the first boosted H→ττ cross-section measurements for Higgs pT > 300 GeV, with an observed (expected) significance of 3.8 (3.3) standard deviations, consistent with the Standard Model.
Evidence for longitudinally polarised $Z$ bosons in electroweak $W^{\pm}Z$ production in association with two jets from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

First measurement of the fraction of longitudinally polarised Z bosons in electroweak WZ+two-jet production: f_X0 = 0.32 ± 0.09, a 4.0σ signal consistent with the Standard Model.

Show 30 more citing papers

Simultaneous efficiency measurements of $b$- and $c$-jets in $t\bar{t}$ events from $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV $pp$ collision data collected with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Simultaneous measurements of b-jet tagging and c-jet mistagging efficiency scale factors for the ATLAS GN2 tagger achieve precisions below 2% and 5% respectively using 56 fb⁻¹ of 13.6 TeV ttbar data.
$K^{*}(892)^0$ production and the time between freeze-outs in $^{40}$Ar+$^{45}$Sc collisions by NA61/SHINE at the CERN SPS
nucl-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

First K*(892)^0 yields in central 40Ar+45Sc at √sNN=8.8–16.8 GeV give freeze-out time intervals of a few fm/c (lower limits) at the higher energies, similar to Pb+Pb.
Search for massive, long-lived particles in events with displaced vertices and displaced muons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

No signal of displaced-vertex-plus-displaced-muon events is seen in 164 fb^-1 of 13.6 TeV pp data; ATLAS sets improved 95% CL limits on RPV SUSY higgsino and stop production.
Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2016-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

At 5.02 TeV, central PbPb collisions suppress charged-particle yields by a factor of 7 to 8 near 7 GeV, rising toward unity by 200 GeV, while pPb shows no such suppression and a mild enhancement above 20 GeV.
The Pierre Auger Observatory Upgrade - Preliminary Design Report
astro-ph.IM 2016-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A design report arguing that pairing a thin scintillator with each Auger water-Cherenkov detector yields shower-by-shower muon content, enabling mass-composition measurements up to the highest energies.
Parametrization of gamma-ray production cross-sections for pp interactions in a broad proton energy range from the kinematic threshold to PeV energies
astro-ph.HE 2014-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A single analytic expression, split into a peak amplitude and a shape function of one rescaled energy variable, reproduces the proton-proton gamma-ray production cross section to within 20 percent from threshold to Pe...
Study of the underlying event at forward rapidity in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 0.9, 2.76, and 7 TeV
hep-ex 2013-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The forward energy density ratio between jet events and inclusive events rises with jet pT at 7 TeV, drops below one at 0.9 TeV, and no Monte Carlo model reproduces the energy dependence in both event classes.
Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2012-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The inelastic proton-proton cross section at 7 TeV is measured to be 60.2 mb for fractional momentum loss above 5e-6 and 58.7 mb for events with more than one charged track, using two independent CMS methods.
Search for compressed electroweak SUSY production in final states with two $\tau$-leptons in $\sqrt{s} = 13$ and $13.6$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

ATLAS finds no significant new-physics signal in compressed supersymmetry searches with tau leptons, and sets limits on tau-slepton, chargino, and neutralino masses despite small local excesses.
Measurement of the Higgs boson decay to a low-mass dilepton system and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combined Run-2+Run-3 ATLAS measurement of H to ell ell gamma (m_ll < 30 GeV) gives mu = 1.03 (+0.35/-0.32) with 3.4 sigma observed (3.3 sigma expected) significance, consistent with the Standard Model.
Study of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$ production in the $H\to\tau\tau$ channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simultaneous measurement of ttH (mu=1.51) and tH (mu=-0.4) in fully hadronic H→tau tau final states at 13/13.6 TeV, consistent with the Standard Model.
Search for a resonance decaying into a scalar particle and a Higgs boson in the final state with two bottom quarks and two photons with 199 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at $\sqrt{s}$=13 and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Search for resonant X -> S(bb) H(gamma gamma) production finds no significant excess and sets 95% CL limits on sigma*BR ranging from 9 fb to 0.06 fb over mass ranges 170-1000 GeV for X and 15-500 GeV for S.
An MLE analysis on the relationship between the initial-state granularity and final-state flow factorization
nucl-th 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Flow factorization, but not differential flow, responds strongly to initial-state granularity in peripheral-tube hydrodynamic simulations, and MLE and cumulant estimators disagree on these correlators.
Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

The inelastic proton-proton cross section at 13 TeV is 68.6 millibarns for diffractive masses above 4.1 GeV on one side and 13 GeV on the other, below most hadronic interaction model predictions.
A new version of the event generator Sibyll
hep-ph 2015-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The retuned Sibyll 2.3 hadronic interaction model raises predicted air-shower muon numbers by about 20 to 30 percent and deepens the mean shower maximum by about 25 g/cm2 relative to Sibyll 2.1.
Depth of Maximum of Air-Shower Profiles at the Pierre Auger Observatory: Composition Implications
astro-ph.HE 2014-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Auger's shower-maximum distributions cannot be fit by any proton-plus-iron mixture under three current hadronic models, but are well fit once helium and nitrogen are allowed, with the proton fraction rising to about 6...
Testing the Newborn Pulsar Origin of Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays with EeV Neutrinos
astro-ph.HE 2013-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fast-spinning newborn pulsars that fit the Auger ultrahigh-energy cosmic-ray data should produce a diffuse 0.1-1 EeV neutrino flux near the reach of IceCube and ARA, so a non-detection within a decade would rule out t...
Study of the production of charged pions, kaons, and protons in pPb collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 5.02 TeV
hep-ex 2013-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Identified pion, kaon, and proton spectra in pPb collisions at 5.02 TeV show average transverse momentum rising with particle mass and with event multiplicity, a pattern matched by EPOS LHC but not by HIJING or AMPT.
Constraints from the first LHC data on hadronic event generators for ultra-high energy cosmic-ray physics
astro-ph.HE 2011-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

LHC minimum-bias hadron production from 0.9 to 7 TeV is bracketed but not consistently reproduced by QGSJET, SIBYLL, EPOS, PYTHIA or PHOJET, and the central charged-particle density follows a power law in energy with ...
Event-by-Event Simulation of the Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Evolution from Flux Tube Initial Conditions in Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions
nucl-th 2010-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A single event-by-event chain of flux-tube initial conditions, ideal 3+1D hydrodynamics, a cross-over equation of state, and a hadronic cascade reproduces ridge correlations, elliptic flow, spectra, yields, and HBT ra...
Proton and anti-proton production in the forward region of d+Au collisions at RHIC from the color glass condensate
hep-ph 2006-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Forward anti-proton spectra in d+Au collisions are described by the CGC with standard fragmentation, while the proton excess suggests a contribution from diquarks surviving the collision.
Directed Flow of Protons and Deuterons in Xe+Cs(I) Collisions: Preliminary BM@N Data and THESEUS Modeling
nucl-ex 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Comparing preliminary BM@N proton and deuteron directed flow with THESEUS shows good proton agreement and a slight deuteron overestimation, tentatively supporting thermodynamic light-nucleus formation.
Measurements of the Higgs boson production, fiducial and differential cross-sections in the four lepton decay channel using 164 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Higgs boson cross-section in H→4ℓ measured as 3.65 fb with new LHC data, consistent with SM expectation of 3.68 fb and signal strength 0.99±0.13.
Search for charginos and neutralinos with $B-L$ $R$-parity violating decays in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and $13.6$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-05 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No evidence for charginos and neutralinos in R-parity violating Higgs-decay channels; masses 150-1100 GeV excluded at 95% CL assuming equal lepton branching fractions.
Search for the Higgs boson decay to a $Z$ boson and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and $13.6$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2025-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

ATLAS measures the Higgs to Z and photon signal yield as 1.3 +0.6 -0.5 times the Standard Model prediction in the combined 305 inverse femtobarn dataset, with 2.5 sigma observed significance.
The hadronic interaction model SIBYLL 2.3c and Feynman scaling
hep-ph 2017-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Retuning the hadronization parameters of Sibyll 2.3 removes an unwanted hardening of forward meson spectra, restoring approximate Feynman scaling while keeping agreement with LHCf neutron data and improving the descri...
Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Standard Model processes
hep-ph 2016-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

At 100 TeV, photon-initiated and electroweak-boson-initiated channels grow to rival quark-antiquark annihilation for multi-TeV Drell-Yan and diboson production, and electroweak splittings appear in multi-TeV jets at t...
EPOS LHC : test of collective hadronization with LHC data
hep-ph 2013-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A retuned EPOS Monte Carlo reproduces LHC minimum-bias p-p, p-Pb and Pb-Pb particle production with a single parameter set, using a two-regime collective-flow prescription that depends only on the mass of the dense core.
Search for a leptoquark in events with a hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton and missing transverse momentum using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

No excess above Standard Model background is observed; 95% CL limits are set on couplings of the U1 vector leptoquark model for masses 1.5-3.0 TeV.
Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC
hep-ex 2024-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

ATLAS reports on its Run 3 software infrastructure for data management, workflows, databases, validation, and physics analysis tools at the LHC.

How later papers used it

96 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 91 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 51 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 18 of the 130 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

6 later papers by other authors are listed below: 6 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 6 of 39 papers with this label

Generated simulated p+p production interactions with this paper's EPOS 1.99 hadronic interaction model, using the CRMC 1.4 package, to construct its resonance templates.

K*(892)^0 production in p+p interactions at 158 GeV/c from NA61/SHINE (2019) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used inelastic p+p collisions generated with this paper's 1.99 model to obtain corrections for reconstruction inefficiency and trigger bias.

Two-particle correlations in azimuthal angle and pseudorapidity in inelastic p+p interactions at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron (2016) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Generated tables for pi-p interactions using this paper's hadronic model EPOS.

Testing the Newborn Pulsar Origin of Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays with EeV Neutrinos (2013) · 0.98 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Generated the Monte Carlo samples used to prepare its resonance templates with this paper's hadronic interaction model, using the CRMC 1.4 package.

$K^{*}(892)^0$ meson production in inelastic $p+p$ interactions at 40 and 80 GeV/$c$ beam momenta measured by NA61/SHINE at the CERN SPS (2021) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Employed this paper's 1.99 (version 1.5.3), which uses the Glauber model and a parton ladder mechanism, to estimate the average number of wounded nucleons for its selected central collisions.

Measurements of $\pi^-$ production in $^7$Be+$^9$Be collisions at beam momenta from 19$A$ to 150$A$GeV/$c$ in the NA61/SHINE experiment at the CERN SPS (2020) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Constructed its resonance templates by passing p+p interactions generated with this paper's hadronic interaction model, using the CRMC 1.4 package, through the detector simulation and reconstruction routines.

$K^{*}(892)^0$ meson production in inelastic p+p interactions at 158 GeV/$c$ beam momentum measured by NA61/SHINE at the CERN SPS (2020) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

77 arXiv papers cite this in 92 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 37 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 30 papers

Tables for $πp$ interactions were generated using the hadronic model EPOS [ref] .

Testing the Newborn Pulsar Origin of Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays with EeV Neutrinos · Neutrinos from a single pulsar · 0.98
The interaction cross sections and products are obtained from analytic formulae [ref] or tabulated from Sophia [ref] for photopion production, Talys [ref] for photonuclear interactions, and Epos [ref] for hadronic interactions.

High-energy neutrinos from fallback accretion of binary neutron star merger remnants · Numerical setup · 0.86
We use the Monte-Carlo (MC) event generators [ref] , [ref] and [ref] to fit the coalescence momenta for anti-nuclei with the experiments including ALEPH [ref] , CERN ISR [ref] and ALICE [ref] , and generate the energy spectra of anti-nuclei.

The high energy window of probing dark matter with cosmic-ray antideuterium and antihelium · Introduction · 1.00

Uses its data or values 1 paper

In the case of the heaviest nuclear collisions foreseen, collisions at $=$ 72 GeV, the average number of charged particles is maximal at $=4.2$ and amounts to $dN_ch/dη∼600$ for the most 10% central collisions according to EPOS [ref] .

A Fixed-Target Programme at the LHC: Physics Case and Projected Performances for Heavy-Ion, Hadron, Spin and Astroparticle Studies · Detector requirements · 0.98

Compares with it 14 papers

Figure [ref] shows the comparison of four different high energy hadronic interaction models: QGSJet01c [ref] , SIBYLL2.1 [ref] and EPOS1.99 [ref] , in addition to QGSJet-II.03, for showers at $log(E/eV)=19$.

Sensitivity to primary composition and hadronic models from average shape of high energy cosmic ray shower profiles · Primary composition and hadronic parameters · 0.86
The results are compared to a measurement by the ALICE Collaboration [ref] and to predictions from the v3400 [ref] , 1.9 [ref] , and 1.26t5 [ref] event generators.

Pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in xenon-xenon collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =$ 5.44 TeV · Introduction · 1.00
The results obtained with LHC-tuned versions of QGSJet [ref] and EPOS [ref] are compared with those of Sibyll.

A new version of the event generator Sibyll · Air shower predictions · 1.00

Cites it as background 7 papers

Under the core–corona picture [ref] , the systems generated in high-energy nuclear collisions are described with two components: the core (equilibrated matter) and the corona (non-equilibrated matter).

Non-equilibrium components in very low transverse momentum region in high-energy nuclear collisions · Introduction · 0.98
PHOJET [ref] , DPMJET [ref] and EPOS [ref] fall in between the two categories.

Investigating the dark matter signal in the cosmic ray antiproton flux with the machine learning method · Hadronic models · 0.95
Different implementations of such effects exist in the current hadronic interaction models [ref] .

Measurement of the inelastic cross section in proton-lead collisions at a centre-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV · Introduction · 0.94

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 91, 172302, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[2] [2]

PHENIX collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034910 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[3] [3]

PHENIX collaboration, S. S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. C 69, 034909 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[4] [4]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. C70, 0649 07, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[5] [5]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072304, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[6] [6]

PHENIX collaboration, S.S. Adler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett . 91, 072303, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[7] [7]

BRAHMS collaboration, I. Arsene et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 242303, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[8] [8]

PHOBOS collaboration, B.B. Back et al., Phys. Rev. C70, 0 61901, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[9] [9]

Dmitri Kharzeev, Eugene Levin, Larry McLerran, Nucl.Ph ys.A748: 627-640, 2005; D. Kharzeev, Y. V. Kovchegov and K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. D 68, 094013, 2003

View on Pith 2005

[10] [10]

R. Baier, A. Kovner and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 68, 0 54009, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[11] [11]

J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, A. Kovner, C. A. Salgado and U . A. Wiede- mann,Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 082001, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[12] [12]

J. Jalilian-Marian, Y. Nara and R. Venugopalan, Phys. L ett. B 577, 54, 2003;A. Dumitru and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 , 022301, 2002

View on Pith 2003

[13] [13]

Rudolph C. Hwa,C.B. Yang, Phys.Rev.C70: 037901, 2004; Rudolph C. Hwa,C.B. Yang, Phys.Rev.C70: 054902, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[14] [14]

X.~N.~Wang, Phys. Lett. B 565, 116, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[15] [15]

I.~Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 562, 36, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[16] [16]

A. Accardi and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Lett. B 586, 244, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[17] [17]

Z. W. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054904, 2003

View on Pith 2003

[18] [18]

M. Bleicher, F. M. Liu, A. Keränen, J. Aichelin, S.A. Bas s, F. Becattini, K. Redlich, and K. Werner, Phys.Rev.Lett.88, 202501, 2002

View on Pith 2002

[19] [19]

F.M. Liu, J.Aichelin, M.Bleicher, H.J. Drescher, S. Os tapchenko, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. D67, 034011 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[20] [20]

UA5 collaboration, G.J. Alner et al., Z. Phys. C33, 1, 19 86

View on Pith

[21] [21]

STAR collaboration, J. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 , 172302, 2003. 38

View on Pith 2003

[22] [22]

PHENIX collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 241803

View on Pith

[23] [23]

PHOBOS collaboration , B.B. Back, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 0 82301, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[24] [24]

BRAHMS collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032301, 200 5

View on Pith

[25] [25]

PHOBOS collaboration, nucl-ex/0409021, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

H. J. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog and K. Werner, Phys. Rept. 350, 93, 2001

View on Pith 2001

[27] [27]

G. Altarelli, Phys. Rep. 81, 1, 1982

View on Pith 1982

[28] [28]

E. Reya, Phys. Rep. 69, 195, 1981

View on Pith 1981

[29] [29]

L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20, 94, 1975

View on Pith 1975

[30] [30]

V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438 , 1972

View on Pith 1972

[31] [31]

G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298, 1977

View on Pith 1977

[32] [32]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641, 1977

View on Pith 1977

[33] [33]

L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP 63, 904, 1986

View on Pith 1986

[34] [34]

M. G. Ryskin and Y. M. Shabelski, Yad. Fiz., Rus. 55, 2149 , 1992

View on Pith 1992

[35] [35]

A. Donnachie and P. Landshoff, Phys. Lett. B 332, 433, 19 94

View on Pith

[36] [36]

D. Amati, A. Stanghellini, and S. Fubini, Nuovo Cim. 26, 896, 1962

View on Pith 1962

[37] [37]

M. Baker and K. A. Ter-Martirosyan, Phys. Rep. 28, 1, 197 6

View on Pith

[38] [38]

M. Hladik, H. J. Drescher, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, an d K. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3506, 2001 39

View on Pith 2001