(Non)Thermal Aspects of Charmonium Production and a New Look at J/$\psi$ Suppression

Darmstadt; Germany); Germany) J. Stachel (Physikalisches Institut der Universit\"at Heidelberg; Heidelberg; P. Braun-Munzinger (Gesellschaft f\"ur Schwerionenforschung

REVIEW

(Non)Thermal Aspects of Charmonium Production and a New Look at J/$\psi$ Suppression

P. Braun-Munzinger (Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany) J. Stachel (Physikalisches Institut der Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany)

Nuclear Theory · Submitted 26 Jul 2000 · 39 references

Pith's verdict: The negative claim (charm is not thermally produced at SPS) is solid; the positive one (statistical hadronization of hard-produced charm) is the real contribution, but its Fig. 3 normalization is quadratically sensitive to a charm yield the authors themselves admit is uncertain by a factor of 2-3.

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 →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDnucl-th/0007059 (version 2)

Pith IDTTGRZXW7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationDarmstadt, Germany), Germany) J. Stachel (Physikalisches Institut der Universit\"at Heidelberg, Heidelberg, P. Braun-Munzinger (Gesellschaft f\"ur Schwerionenforschung. "(Non)Thermal Aspects of Charmonium Production and a New Look at J/$\psi$ Suppression." arXiv:nucl-th/0007059 (2000). https://pith.science/paper/TTGRZXW7

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

Worth your time, and worth citing: this is where the statistical-hadronization picture of charmonium production starts, and it holds up better than most seed papers do. Two claims. The negative one is solid and I would defend it: with T and mu_B fixed from light hadrons, the thermal model with charm added misses the NA50 J/psi yield by a factor 2-3, and the equilibration-time argument against thermal charm at SPS is right. The positive one is the interesting part. All c-cbar pairs come from hard collisions, and the charmonia come from statistical hadronization of those quarks, so N_J/psi scales as g_c^2 with g_c fixed by charm conservation. That is a real idea, not a relabeling, and the RHIC/LHC predictions (no suppression at RHIC, enhancement at LHC) are falsifiable. Where it is soft: the stress-test point lands. g_c is proportional to N_direct, so N_J/psi goes as N_direct squared. The paper's own caveats give a factor-2 K-factor and a conjectured factor-3 open-charm enhancement in Pb+Pb; squared, that is a factor 4-9 spread in the predicted J/psi yield, against a discrepancy of only 2-3. Fig. 3 carries no error band, and the 'no new parameters' line is too strong when the normalization is one PYTHIA number. The authors flag the charm uncertainty in their schematic-caveats paragraph but never push it through eqs. (2)-(3), so the reader cannot tell whether Fig. 3 is a prediction or a single-point coincidence. One correction to the reader's report: the psi'/(J/psi) agreement is not circular. Both scale as g_c^2, so the ratio is g_c-independent and depends only on T. That is the model's cleanest prediction, and it is why Fig. 2 is more convincing than Fig. 3. The reader scored circularity at 4.0; I would put it lower. Minor: the open-charm Npart dependence is imported from Drell-Yan and comes out linear in Npart rather than N^{4/3}; the authors call it surprising and move on, which is fair but leaves it hanging. Who should read it: anyone working on quarkonium in heavy-ion collisions, and anyone who wants to see where this model came from. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

The first conclusion is a useful, well-posed falsification test of a specific proposal, and it is supported by a direct comparison of a model whose light-quark parameters are fixed independently by hadron yields. The second part is the more original contribution: a statistical-hadronization picture in which the J/psi yield is quadratic in the direct charm cross section, together with the explicit, falsifiable predictions that J/psi suppression should disappear at RHIC and turn into an enhancement at LHC. The psi'/(J/psi) ratio is a genuine parameter-free prediction of the model, since both charmonia scale as g_c^2 in Eq. (3) and the ratio depends only on T; this is the paper's cleanest testable statement and deserves to be highlighted as such. The authors are also candid that the approach is schematic and that the open-charm input is poorly known. The paper is a proposal rather than a demonstration, and its quantitative support should be read with that in mind.

Major objections (4)

[Eqs. (2)-(3) and Fig. 3] The agreement in Fig. 3 is quadratically sensitive to the least well known input. Since hidden charm is negligible in Eq. (2), g_c is approximately 2 N_c-cbar^direct / (V sum n_D), so g_c is proportional to N_c-cbar^direct, and Eq. (3) gives N_J/psi proportional to (N_c-cbar^direct)^2. The adopted value 0.173 yields g_c = 1.38 and g_c^2 = 1.90, which is precisely the factor that converts the factor-2.2 thermal deficit of Fig. 1 into the agreement of Fig. 3. The manuscript itself quotes a K-factor uncertainty of about 2 and a conjectured factor-3 open-charm enhancement in Pb+Pb; squared, these correspond to a factor 4 to 9 spread in the predicted J/psi yield, wider than the factor 2 to 3 discrepancy the model is introduced to repair. The schematic-caveats paragraph acknowledges the charm uncertainty but does not propagate it through Eqs. (2)-(3), so the reader cannot judge whether Fig. 3 is a prediction or a coincidence at the PYTHIA central value. A shaded band in Fig. 3 corresponding to the quoted charm uncertainty, and a softened form of the 'without introduction of new parameters' claim, would resolve this.
[Fig. 3, footnote 4, and the N_part dependence] There is an internal tension in the centrality dependence that should be resolved explicitly. The text states that the thermal model underpredicts the data by about a factor of 3 at N_part = 200 but by only a little more than a factor of 2 at N_part = 400, i.e. the data rise more slowly than N_part. However, footnote 4 takes open charm to scale approximately linearly in N_part, and V is proportional to N_part by baryon conservation, so g_c is N_part-independent and the solid curve of Fig. 3 has the same N_part dependence as the dashed thermal curve, differing from it only by the constant factor g_c^2. Such a curve cannot simultaneously reproduce a factor-3 deficit at N_part = 200 and a factor-2 deficit at N_part = 400. Either the quoted discrepancy trend, the linear scaling of footnote 4, or the statement that the approach 'describes the measured yield very well' needs qualification. As written, Fig. 3 appears to test a single overall normalization rather than the shape of the centrality dependence, and the text should say so.
[Fig. 2 and the psi'/(J/psi) discussion] The psi'/(J/psi) ratio is the model's strongest and cleanest prediction, because both charmonia scale as g_c^2 in Eq. (3) and the ratio is therefore independent of the charm normalization; this should be stated explicitly, since it is what makes Fig. 2 a real test rather than a rescaling. The difficulty is that the text attributes the observed saturation near 3.7% to 'thermal features' without confronting the standard alternative: psi' is less bound and larger than J/psi, so sequential dissociation in a comover or deconfinement scenario also suppresses psi' preferentially and can plausibly produce a similar saturation. The paper cites Refs. [1-8] for suppression models but does not compare their predicted psi'/(J/psi) with Fig. 2. A short quantitative comparison, or an explicit statement of what distinguishes the thermal ratio from the sequential-suppression ratio in the data, is needed before the 'thermal features' conclusion can carry the weight the abstract places on it.
[Abstract and first paragraph, versus the g_c framework] The abstract states that the comparison 'demonstrates the non-thermal origin of hidden charm production', but what Fig. 1 actually excludes is a fireball in full charm chemical equilibrium, a scenario the manuscript itself argues is unreachable on equilibration-time grounds. The paper's own later framework is a thermal-shaped hadronization with a charm fugacity g_c = 1.38, i.e. a modest departure from equilibrium, and with that fugacity the thermal model does describe the data. The distinction the authors intend, between thermal production of charm and statistical hadronization of non-thermally produced charm, is physically meaningful but is not the distinction the abstract's wording draws. The abstract and the opening paragraph should state the conclusion at the level actually demonstrated, namely that full charm equilibration is excluded while a non-equilibrium statistical hadronization of hard-scattered charm quarks describes the yields.

Minor objections (8)

[Table 1] The notation 'D+ = D0' and 'D- = D0bar' is ambiguous: it is not stated whether the single quoted number applies to each species separately or to the pair combined. Since g_c = 1.38 can only be reproduced from Table 1 under the first reading, please state the convention explicitly in the caption.
[Table 1 and Table 2] The thermal list omits D_s and D* states while the PYTHIA comparison of Table 2 includes D_s^+ and D_s^-, so the text's statement that 'ratios of charmed meson yields differ significantly from the thermal to the direct scenario' compares non-matching particle sets. Either add the missing states to the thermal calculation or restrict the comparison to species common to both tables.
[Charmonium state list, p. 2] The list 'psi,, psi,,, psi,,,' is garbled and should be written out as psi(2S), psi(3770), psi(4040) (or whichever states are meant), with the same correction applied to the 'chi's' entry in the last row of Table 1.
[Fig. 2] The vertical axis label is unreadable in the present form and should be given as the product of branching ratio and cross section, B sigma, for each state, with the normalization stated.
[Ref. [27] and the QGP charm estimate] The quantitative QGP statements, that thermal charm falls short by a factor of 40 and that the parton gas is undersaturated by a factor of 50, rest on a private communication. Since these numbers are used to argue that charm equilibrium is impossible even in a plasma, they should be supported by a published or otherwise documented calculation, or the estimate should be reproduced in the text.
[p. 3, open-charm comparison] The sentence 'one cannot, under any circumstances, neglect direct production' is stronger than the comparison supports; the statement holds for the adopted temperature and charm yield and should be phrased as such.
[RHIC and LHC predictions] The predictions of no suppression at RHIC and enhancement at LHC depend on the assumption that charm quark momenta are close to thermal at T_c. The authors flag this, but the predictions should be labelled explicitly as conditional on charm kinetic equilibration wherever they are stated, including in the abstract's closing sentence.
[Canonical versus grand-canonical ensemble] The authors note that this question was raised after first submission and defer it to the N_part dependence. A sentence estimating the size of the canonical correction at N_c-cbar^direct = 0.173 would let the reader judge whether the deferral is adequate.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The J/ψ yield in Pb+Pb collisions is not thermal, but the ψ′ to J/ψ ratio looks thermal — and that combination points to statistical hadronization of hard-produced charm quarks.

The reading

The paper asks a sharp question: is hidden charm (the J/ψ and its relatives) produced thermally in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions, as had recently been proposed? The authors extend the statistical hadronization model that successfully describes all other hadron yields at SPS energies — chemical freeze-out at $T = 168$ MeV, $μ_B = 266$ MeV, volume 3085 fm$^3$ for 400 participants — to include open and hidden charm, and find that it underpredicts the measured J/ψ yield per collision by more than a factor of two in the most central Pb+Pb events. So the answer to the opening question is no: the absolute charmonium yield is not thermal. But the ψ′/(J/ψ) ratio is a different story. In pp and p-nucleus collisions that ratio sits near 12%, which would require about 280 MeV to reproduce thermally; in central nucleus-nucleus collisions it falls and saturates at roughly the thermal prediction of 3.7%. The authors take that split — non-thermal normalization, thermal-looking ratio — as the clue that charm quarks are all made in hard collisions and only their hadronization is statistical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a charm-enhancement factor $g_c$, defined by requiring that the statistically hadronized yields add back up to the number of directly produced charm pairs: $N^{direct}_{c̄c} = ½ g_c V (∑_i n^{therm}_{D_i} + n^{therm}_{Λ_i}) + g_c^2 V (∑_i n^{therm}_{ψ_i}) + …$, with the $g_c^2$ and higher terms negligible. Because a $D$ meson carries one charm quark and a J/ψ carries two, the prescription gives $N_D = g_c V n^{therm}_D$ and $N_{J/ψ} = g_c^2 V n^{therm}_{J/ψ}$ — a linear versus quadratic dependence on a single number. At $N_{part} = 400$ the PYTHIA-based direct charm yield of 0.173 pairs per collision implies $g_c = 1.38$, and the resulting J/ψ curve tracks the NA50 data across centrality without any new fitted parameter. The same machinery makes the collider predictions: $g_c = 6.8$ at RHIC gives $dN_{J/ψ}/dy ≈ 10^{-2}$, essentially the unsuppressed hard-scattering value.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a chemically equilibrated thermal model including charm cannot reproduce the measured J/ψ yield in central Pb+Pb collisions at the SPS: the thermal prediction falls short by more than a factor of two at $N_{part} = 400$ and by about a factor of three at $N_{part} = 200$, and closing the gap would need $T ≈ 180$ MeV, outside the $168 ± 4$ MeV range fixed by the rest of the hadron spectrum. The authors also argue that charm cannot chemically equilibrate in any case, since hadronic open-charm cross sections are at the sub-$μ$b level and a parton-cascade estimate gives fewer than 0.01 thermal $c̄c$ pairs in central Pb+Pb, a factor of 40 short. What survives is the ratio: ψ′/(J/ψ) drops with participant number and saturates near the thermal value of 3.7% in the most central S+U and Pb+Pb data, while remaining near 12% in pp and p-nucleus collisions. The proposed reading is that all $c̄c$ pairs come from direct hard scattering at the expected pp rate, and that these quarks then hadronize statistically at the phase boundary, so that the J/ψ yield scales as the square of a charm-enhancement factor while open-charm meson yields scale linearly with it.

Load-bearing premise

The normalization of the whole prediction rests on the assumed number of charm quark pairs made directly in a central Pb+Pb collision, 0.173, which comes from extrapolating proton-proton charm with a factor-of-two uncertainty and could plausibly be three times larger.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the picture holds, there should be no J/ψ suppression at RHIC energies relative to hard-scattering expectations, even though no J/ψ survives inside a deconfined phase — the mesons are regenerated at hadronization from charm quarks.
At LHC energies the same accounting predicts a significant enhancement of charmonium above the directly produced hard-scattering yield, since $g_c$ grows with the charm cross section.
The scenario requires a deconfined phase: either directly produced J/ψ mesons are never formed before the plasma stage, or they are broken up in it, so the observed charmonia must come from quarks that survived the plasma.
Thermal (not chemical) equilibration of charm quark momenta near $T_c$ is needed, and the measured J/ψ transverse spectra with inverse slopes around 230 MeV are consistent with that.
Secondary charmonium production during the mixed phase, computed elsewhere under the assumption that all charm ends in D mesons, should be added on top of these yields rather than compete with them.

Reading between the lines

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

The sharpest test is a direct open-charm measurement in Pb+Pb: the whole normalization rests on 0.173 $c̄c$ pairs per central collision, and the authors themselves flag a possible factor-of-three enhancement of open charm over the pp extrapolation, which would move $g_c$ and hence the J/ψ curve by the same factor.
The linear-versus-quadratic splitting between D and J/ψ yields gives a clean experimental discriminant: a measured open-charm yield combined with a measured J/ψ yield over-determines $g_c$, so the two channels can be checked against each other rather than each against theory separately.
The proposal makes the ψ′/(J/ψ) ratio a thermometer-like diagnostic of the hadronization stage rather than of the initial temperature, which suggests looking for the same saturation pattern in the χ states, where the authors note thermal feeding into J/ψ would be under 3%.
Because the argument leans on the Npart dependence rather than on absolute yields, the shape of $dN_{J/ψ}/dN_{part}$ at RHIC and the LHC — flat or rising rather than falling — is the cheapest falsification available.

Original abstract

To investigate a recent proposal that J/$\psi$ production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions is of thermal origin we have reanalyzed the data from the NA38/50 collaboration within a thermal model including charm. Comparison of the calculated with measured yields demonstrates the non-thermal origin of hidden charm production at SPS energy. However, the ratio $\psi^{'}$/(J/$\psi)$ exhibits, in central nucleus-nucleus collisions, thermal features which lead us to a new interpretation of open charm and charmonium production at SPS energy. Implications for RHIC and LHC energy measurements will be discussed.

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-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,634 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.22 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.17 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.07 · compares with prior results 0.84 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

To investigate a recent proposal that J/$\psi$ production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions is of thermal origin we have reanalyzed the data from the NA38/50 collaboration within a thermal model including charm. Comparison of the calculated with measured yields demonstrates the non-thermal origin of hidden charm production at SPS energy. However, the ratio $\psi^{'}$/(J/$\psi)$ exhibits, in central nucleus-nucleus collisions, thermal features which lead us to a new interpretation of open charm and charmonium production at SPS energy. Implications for RHIC and LHC energy measurements will be discussed.

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	To investigate a recent proposal that J/$\psi$ production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions is of thermal origin we have reanalyzed the data from the NA38/50 collaboration within a thermal model including charm.	contribution 0.75	0.91	0.05	unclear 0.44
s1	Comparison of the calculated with measured yields demonstrates the non-thermal origin of hidden charm production at SPS energy.	result 0.96	0.89	0.58	asserted 1.00
s2	However, the ratio $\psi^{'}$/(J/$\psi)$ exhibits, in central nucleus-nucleus collisions, thermal features which lead us to a new interpretation of open charm and charmonium production at SPS energy.	interpretation 0.66	0.88	0.39	asserted 0.91
s3	Implications for RHIC and LHC energy measurements will be discussed.	future work 0.96	0.17	0.03	unclear 0.89

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.53 · evidence from analysis of existing data 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

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

Figures

**Figure 1.** Comparison of measured J/ψ yield per Pb+Pb collision as a function of centrality with the predictions of the thermal model (dashed line). The data are from [21,22] as analyzed in [23]. For details see text

**Figure 2.** Comparison of the dependence of the measured

**Figure 3.** Comparison of the dependence of the measured (J/

Figures reproduced from arXiv:nucl-th/0007059 by the authors.

References

Works cited (39)

[11]

P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Heppe, J. Stachel, Phys. Lett B465 (1999) 15

View on Pith 1999
[1]

T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B178 (1986) 416

View on Pith 1986
[2]

C. Louren¸ co, Nucl. Phys. A610 (1996) 552c

View on Pith 1996
[3]

D. Kharzeev, Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 279c

View on Pith 1998
[4]

H. Satz, hep-ph/0007069

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[5]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B477 (2000) 28

View on Pith 2000
[6]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B450 (1999) 456

View on Pith 1999
[7]

C. Cicalo for the NA50 collaboration, Proc. Quark Matter 99 conf erence, Torino, June 1999, Nucl. Phys. A661 (1999) 93c

View on Pith 1999
[8]

J.P. Blaizot, M. Dinh, J.Y. Ollitrault, nucl-th/0007020

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

M. Gazdzicki, Phys. Rev. C60 (1999) 054903

View on Pith 1999
[10]

M. Gazdzicki and M. Gorenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4009

View on Pith 1999
[12]

P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels, N. Xu, Phys. L ett. B365 (1996) 1

View on Pith 1996
[13]

P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels, N. Xu, Phys. L ett. B344 (1995) 43

View on Pith 1995
[14]

R. Stock, Phys. Lett. B456 (1999) 277

View on Pith 1999
[15]

U. Heinz, Nucl. Phys. A661 (1999) 140c

View on Pith 1999
[16]

F. Becattini, M. Gazdzicki, J. Sollfrank, Eur. Phys. J. C5 (1998) 143

View on Pith 1998
[17]

J. Cleymans, K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C60 (1999) 054908

View on Pith 1999
[18]

P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 3c

View on Pith 1998
[19]

J. Stachel, Proc. INPC, Paris, August 1998, Nucl. Phys. A654 (1999) 119c

View on Pith 1999
[20]

P. Braun-Munzinger, Proc. PANIC, Uppsala, June 1999, Nucl. Phys. A663-664 (2000) 183

View on Pith 2000
[21]

F. Bellaiche, dissertation, Univ. Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, 1997

View on Pith 1997
[22]

M. C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B410 (1997) 337

View on Pith 1997
[23]

J. Gosset, A. Baldisseri, H. Borel, F. Staley, Y. Terrien, Eur. P hys. J. C13 (2000) 63

View on Pith 2000
[24]

M. C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 443

View on Pith 2000
[25]

P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Miskowiec, A. Drees, C. Louren¸ co, E ur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 123. 7

View on Pith 1998
[26]

J. Sollfrank and U. Heinz in: Quark Gluon Plasma 2, R.C. Hwa, editor , World Scien- tiﬁc 1996, p. 555

View on Pith 1996
[27]

K. Redlich, private communication

View on Pith
[28]

P. Braun-Munzinger and K. Redlich, hep-ph/0001008 and Eur. Phys. J C (in print)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[29]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B438 (1998) 35, and references therein

View on Pith 1998
[30]

C. Gerschel, Acta Phys. Pol. B30 (1999) 3585

View on Pith 1999
[31]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA38 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B449 (1999) 128

View on Pith 1999
[32]

M. Gonin et al., NA50 collaboration, Proc. 3rd Conf. on Physics an d Astrophysics of Quark-Gluon Plasma, Jaipur, India, March 1999, B. C. Sinha, D.K Sriv astava, Y.P. Viyogi, editors, Narosa Publ. House 1998, p. 393

View on Pith 1999
[33]

L. Ramello et al., NA50 collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 261c

View on Pith 1998
[34]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA38 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B466 (1999) 408

View on Pith 1999
[35]

K. Redlich and B. M¨ uller, private communication

View on Pith
[36]

S. Kabana, hep-ph/0004138

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[37]

V. Emel’yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein, R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett . 81 (1998) 1801

View on Pith 1998
[38]

V. Emel’yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein, R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C61 (2000) 044904

View on Pith 2000
[39]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA38 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B423 (1998) 207. 8 Table 1 Yields for particles with open and hidden charm at mid-rapidity for cen tral Pb+Pb col- lisions as predicted by the thermal model calculation. Chemical free ze-out takes place at T=168 MeV in a volume of 3085 fm 3 corresponding to 400 participants. The chemical potentials are: µ...

View on Pith 1998

Forward citations

Cited by 35 Pith papers

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

The chromoelectric adjoint correlators in Euclidean space at next-to-leading order
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

The chromoelectric adjoint correlators are evaluated at next-to-leading order, revealing a Wilson-line zero-mode induced asymmetry that matches lattice data at extremely high temperatures.
Coupled charm and charmonium transport in a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma
nucl-th 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A unified T-matrix transport framework for charm-quark diffusion and charmonium kinetics with off-shell spectral functions recovers the statistical equilibrium limit and gives fair LHC charmonium R_AA data.
Centrality, rapidity and transverse momentum dependence of $J/\psi$ suppression in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2013-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Inclusive J/psi yields in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV are suppressed to 0.58-0.72 of the binary-scaled pp expectation, with a low-momentum excess over RHIC data that hints at charm-quark recombination.
Heavy quarkonium spin transport in a hot medium
hep-ph 2026-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Relative motion between quarkonium and the medium is the leading source of in-medium spin alignment, and the derived Boltzmann framework yields medium-induced Upsilon(1S) polarization of order 1e-5.
Evidence for sequential $\Upsilon$(nS) suppression in light ion collisions
nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

First evidence of sequential Upsilon(nS) suppression in oxygen-oxygen and neon-neon collisions, with the Upsilon(3S)/Upsilon(2S) ratio reduced by 3.2 standard deviations.

Show 30 more citing papers

Quantum Brownian motion of a heavy quark pair in the quark-gluon plasma
nucl-th 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Heavy quarkonium's relative motion in the quark-gluon plasma can be evolved with a Lindblad master equation whose stochastic unraveling includes drag, and in one-dimensional simulations the pair thermalizes with a tem...
Prompt and non-prompt $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2\mathrm{S})$ suppression at high transverse momentum in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS experiment
nucl-ex 2018-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions, prompt psi(2S) is suppressed more than prompt J/psi, while non-prompt psi(2S) and non-prompt J/psi are suppressed equally, and prompt and non-prompt J/psi show nearly the same centrality ...
Measurement of prompt and nonprompt charmonium suppression in PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2017-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Prompt and nonprompt J/psi mesons are both suppressed in PbPb collisions with a centrality dependence matching the 2.76 TeV results, while prompt psi(2S) mesons are more suppressed than J/psi across the full measured ...
Quantum and Classical Dynamics of Heavy Quarks in a Quark-Gluon Plasma
hep-ph 2017-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A Markovian master equation for the reduced density matrix of heavy quarks in a quark-gluon plasma is derived, and two approximate numerical strategies for the color dynamics of a quark-antiquark pair are explored.
Dynamical dissociation of quarkonia by wave function decoherence
nucl-th 2017-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In a one-dimensional stochastic-potential simulation, wave-function decoherence driven by a noise correlation length l_corr dissolves quarkonium bound states faster than screening alone and faster than a complex-poten...
Suppression and azimuthal anisotropy of prompt and nonprompt J/psi production in PbPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2016-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Prompt J/psi mesons in PbPb collisions at 2.76 TeV show a nonzero elliptic anisotropy (v2 = 0.066, 3.3 sigma) with little dependence on centrality, rapidity or pT, while nonprompt J/psi from b-hadron decays are consis...
Centrality dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2015-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, inclusive J/psi production is suppressed relative to binary-scaled pp by up to 40% at mid- and forward rapidity, with the suppression deepening toward central collisions at forward rapidity.
Inclusive, prompt and non-prompt J/$\psi$ production at mid-rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2015-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV, inclusive J/psi production is less suppressed at low transverse momentum than at high, and non-prompt J/psi from beauty decays is suppressed more strongly than most models predict.
Heavy quark bound states in a quark-gluon plasma: dissociation and recombination
nucl-th 2015-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A configuration-dependent Langevin equation, derived from a weak-coupling influence functional, reproduces both the dissociation and the recombination of heavy quark bound states in a hot Abelian plasma.
Charmonium at high temperature in two-flavor QCD
hep-lat 2007-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In two-flavor lattice QCD, S-wave charmonium (J/psi, eta_c) survives to about 2 Tc while P-wave charmonium (chi_c0, chi_c1) melts below 1.2 Tc.
Generalized susceptibilities and the properties of charm degrees of freedom across the QCD crossover temperature
hep-lat 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Charm fluctuations from lattice QCD match a hadron resonance gas only when quark-model-predicted charmed hadrons are added, and above the crossover a charm-quark-like partial pressure emerges.
Nuclear modification of $B_c$ mesons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions based on a linear Boltzmann transport model
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A linear Boltzmann transport model with Yukawa and string interactions reproduces the measured B_c nuclear modification in Pb+Pb collisions and predicts larger low-pT B_c R_AA in Au+Au at RHIC than at the LHC.
Measurement of the J/$\psi$ polarization with respect to the event plane in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC
nucl-ex 2022-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Inclusive J/psi mesons in Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV show a small transverse polarization with respect to the event plane, reaching 3.9 sigma at low pT and 30-50% centrality.
Charm-quark fragmentation fractions and production cross section at midrapidity in pp collisions at the LHC
nucl-ex 2021-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Charm fragmentation fractions measured in pp collisions at 5.02 TeV differ from e+e- and ep values, with the Lambda_c+ fraction enhanced by a factor 3.3 at 5 sigma, and the total ccbar cross section per unit rapidity ...
The multiple-charm hierarchy in the statistical hadronization model
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Charm hadron yields in Pb-Pb collisions are consistent with a statistical model in which charm quarks thermalize, and the model predicts a steep enhancement hierarchy for doubly and triply charmed hadrons.
Temperatures and chemical potentials at kinetic freeze-out in relativistic heavy ion collisions from coarse grained transport simulations
hep-ph 2019-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Kinetic freeze-out in central Au+Au collisions is a continuous process spanning broad ranges of temperature and baryon chemical potential, with averages nearly flat in transverse momentum and rapidity.
Transverse momentum distributions of charmonium states with the statistical hadronization model
nucl-th 2019-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A statistical-hadronization model with hydrodynamic flow reproduces low-momentum J/psi spectra in Pb-Pb collisions and predicts that X(3872) production is about 1% of J/psi with a similar momentum shape.
Differential studies of inclusive J/$\psi$ and $\psi$(2S) production at forward rapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{{\textit s}_{_{NN}}}}$ = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2015-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Inclusive J/psi production in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV is suppressed by roughly 40% in central collisions, but the suppression is weakest at low transverse momentum, a pattern that requires charm-quark recombinati...
Hadronic final-state effects on open-charm production at LHC energies
hep-ph 2026-11 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Hadronic final-state interactions do not affect integrated D-meson multiplicities but modify transverse momentum spectra and enhance elliptic flow, as shown by the PHSD transport model compared to ALICE data.
Charmonium production at energies available at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron and Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Remler formalism with in-medium heavy-quark potential describes charmonium yields at SPS energies and supplies estimates for FAIR energies after calibration on p+p and p+A collisions.
Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy
nucl-th 2017-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Thermal fits to hadron yields in nuclear collisions yield a freeze-out temperature that tracks the lattice-QCD pseudo-critical line, which the authors read as an experimental determination of the QCD phase boundary.
New Observables in Inclusive Production of Quarkonia
hep-ph 2019-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A comprehensive review argues that associated-production channels (quarkonium plus boson, quarkonium, heavy quark, or jet) are the most discriminating observables for resolving how quarkonia are produced and for probi...
Properties of the QCD Matter -- An Experimental Review of Selected Results from RHIC BES Program
nucl-ex 2024-07 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

A review compiling STAR beam-energy-scan results on collectivity, chirality, criticality, global polarization, strangeness, heavy flavor, dileptons and light nuclei, prefaced by the history of the Chinese-built STAR M...
Heavy-Quark Diffusion in the Quark-Gluon Plasma
hep-ph 2022-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The review argues that lattice QCD plus heavy-flavor data point to a weakly screened, still-confining force in the quark-gluon plasma, giving a charm diffusion coefficient of roughly 1.5 to 4.5 times the conjectured q...
Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP
hep-ph 2022-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review connecting jet, heavy-flavor, and quarkonium measurements at RHIC and the LHC to the theoretical descriptions of parton energy loss, diffusion, and quarkonium suppression in the quark-gluon plasma.
Properties of hot and dense matter from relativistic heavy ion collisions
nucl-th 2015-10 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Collisions of heavy nuclei at RHIC and the LHC produce a locally thermalized, nearly perfect fluid whose equation of state, transport coefficients, and freeze-out conditions can be read off bulk observables.
The Hot QCD White Paper: Exploring the Phases of QCD at RHIC and the LHC
nucl-ex 2015-02 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

The white paper consolidates evidence that quark-gluon plasma is a strongly coupled liquid with the smallest specific viscosity measured, and lays out the measurements and facilities needed to pin down its temperature...
QCD and strongly coupled gauge theories: challenges and perspectives
hep-ph 2014-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A large multi-author survey of quantum chromodynamics and strongly coupled gauge theories that catalogues the field's established results, open problems, and planned experiments as of early 2014, without reporting a n...
Heavy-flavor production and medium properties in high-energy nuclear collisions - What next?
nucl-th 2016-12 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

The heavy-flavor community's 2016 consensus roadmap names B-meson suppression near 10 GeV, open charm and bottom cross sections to 10 percent accuracy, and quarkonium feed-down measurements as the priorities for the n...
The equation of state for neutron stars
nucl-th 2026-07 unverdicted

A textbook-style review of the neutron-star equation of state covering the models, experimental and observational constraints, and open questions, with no new result claimed or derived.

How later papers used it

128 later papers cite it

Evidence: some. 114 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 10 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 7 of the 171 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

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 cited it as support.

Cites it as support 1 of 3 papers with this label

The SHM provides a good description of the production yield within uncertainties, supporting the statistical (re)combination of charm and anticharm quark pairs at the phase boundary [ref] .

The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD (2022) · Hadron gas composition and QCD thermodynamics · 0.98

How the literature uses it

116 arXiv papers cite this in 156 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 · 105 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 5 papers

However, such an enhancement of heavy quarkonia is not supported at RHIC energy by the statistical model [ref] and has never been observed at RHIC or LHC [ref] .

B_c meson enhancement and the momentum dependence in Pb+Pb collisions at LHC energy · Introduction · contest 0.78
Both the PHENIX data on $J/ψ$ production in Au+Au and in Cu+Cu collisions, are not consistent with models which predict $J/ψ$ enhancement [ref] .

$J/\psi$ suppression in the threshold model at RHIC and LHC energy · introduction · contest 0.85
Apparently, both the PHENIX data on $J/ψ$ production in Au+Au and in Cu+Cu collisions, are not consistent with models which predict $J/ψ$ enhancement [ref] . $J/ψ$'s are suppressed both in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions, suppression is more in central collisions than in peripheral collisions.

Hydrodynamical model for $J/\psi$ suppression and elliptic flow · Introduction · contest 0.84

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

A regeneration model used [ref] , which is based on a first-order rate equation to compute the local particle density function,

Bottomonium suppression at RHIC and LHC · Model implementation and results · 0.99
To implement this condition we introduce a fugacity factor [ref] g_c(T) = N_$cc̅$/2 ·3 ·V(T) ( M_c T/2 π )^3/2 e^-M_c/T , where $M_c=1.7$ GeV is the charm-quark mass.

Prediction of a Photon Peak in Heavy Ion Collisions · Introduction · 0.85

Uses its data or values 1 paper

The nuclear modification factor $R_AA∼0.3$ in central Au+Au collisions at RHIC [ref] goes up to about 0.5 in central Pb+Pb collisions at $√(s_NN)=2.76$ TeV at LHC [ref] due to the increasing contribution of charmonium regeneration [ref] .

Physics perspectives of heavy-ion collisions at very high energy · $J/ψ$ production · 0.93

Compares with it 2 papers

The results are compared with statistical [ref] , microscopic parton transport [ref] , and comover [ref] model calculations.

Centrality and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ production at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV · Introduction · 0.98
Furthermore, we show, in Fig. [ref], the transverse momentum spectra of J/$ψ$ mesons decaying into dielectrons at mid-rapidity compared with a statistical hadronisation model approach [ref] for the production which is combined with a hydrodynamic model calculation to describe its spectrum in the shown band [ref] .

Loosely-bound objects produced in nuclear collisions at the LHC · Discussion · 0.94

Cites it as support 3 papers

is further evidence that the main concept of SHMc, proposed in [ref] is realized.

Emergence of New Systematics for Open Charm Production in High Energy Collisions · Summary and Conclusions · 0.98
The success of the SHM in the charm sector which provides a natural explanation of the increase with collision energy of $R_AA$ for J/$ψ$ is deeply connected to and provides unique evidence for the deconfinement of charm quarks [ref] in the hot medium.

Hadron yields in central nucleus-nucleus collisions, the statistical hadronization model and the QCD phase diagram · Statistical hadronization of charm quarks · 0.99
The SHM provides a good description of the production yield within uncertainties, supporting the statistical (re)combination of charm and anticharm quark pairs at the phase boundary [ref] .

The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD · Hadron gas composition and QCD thermodynamics · 0.98

Cites it as background 37 papers

The suppression [ref] and (re-)combination mechanism [ref] reflect the underlying dynamics of charm and anti-charm quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) and at the phase boundary.

Testing charm quark thermalisation within the Statistical Hadronisation Model · Introduction · 0.95
In 2000, two phenomenological publications [ref] introduced the picture of quarkonium regenerated at a late stage of the collision history, either during the deconfined state or at the phase boundary between QGP and hadrons.

Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP · Heavy-Flavor and Quarkonia · 0.99
How to extend the SHM to the charm sector, i.e., to SHMc, was outlined more than 20 years ago [ref] and further developed in [ref] .

The multiple-charm hierarchy in the statistical hadronization model · Introduction · 0.90

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] [11]

P. Braun-Munzinger, I. Heppe, J. Stachel, Phys. Lett B465 (1999) 15

View on Pith 1999

[2] [1]

T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B178 (1986) 416

View on Pith 1986

[3] [2]

C. Louren¸ co, Nucl. Phys. A610 (1996) 552c

View on Pith 1996

[4] [3]

D. Kharzeev, Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 279c

View on Pith 1998

[5] [4]

H. Satz, hep-ph/0007069

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [5]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B477 (2000) 28

View on Pith 2000

[7] [6]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B450 (1999) 456

View on Pith 1999

[8] [7]

C. Cicalo for the NA50 collaboration, Proc. Quark Matter 99 conf erence, Torino, June 1999, Nucl. Phys. A661 (1999) 93c

View on Pith 1999

[9] [8]

J.P. Blaizot, M. Dinh, J.Y. Ollitrault, nucl-th/0007020

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [9]

M. Gazdzicki, Phys. Rev. C60 (1999) 054903

View on Pith 1999

[11] [10]

M. Gazdzicki and M. Gorenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4009

View on Pith 1999

[12] [12]

P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels, N. Xu, Phys. L ett. B365 (1996) 1

View on Pith 1996

[13] [13]

P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels, N. Xu, Phys. L ett. B344 (1995) 43

View on Pith 1995

[14] [14]

R. Stock, Phys. Lett. B456 (1999) 277

View on Pith 1999

[15] [15]

U. Heinz, Nucl. Phys. A661 (1999) 140c

View on Pith 1999

[16] [16]

F. Becattini, M. Gazdzicki, J. Sollfrank, Eur. Phys. J. C5 (1998) 143

View on Pith 1998

[17] [17]

J. Cleymans, K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C60 (1999) 054908

View on Pith 1999

[18] [18]

P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 3c

View on Pith 1998

[19] [19]

J. Stachel, Proc. INPC, Paris, August 1998, Nucl. Phys. A654 (1999) 119c

View on Pith 1999

[20] [20]

P. Braun-Munzinger, Proc. PANIC, Uppsala, June 1999, Nucl. Phys. A663-664 (2000) 183

View on Pith 2000

[21] [21]

F. Bellaiche, dissertation, Univ. Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, 1997

View on Pith 1997

[22] [22]

M. C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B410 (1997) 337

View on Pith 1997

[23] [23]

J. Gosset, A. Baldisseri, H. Borel, F. Staley, Y. Terrien, Eur. P hys. J. C13 (2000) 63

View on Pith 2000

[24] [24]

M. C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C14 (2000) 443

View on Pith 2000

[25] [25]

P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Miskowiec, A. Drees, C. Louren¸ co, E ur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 123. 7

View on Pith 1998

[26] [26]

J. Sollfrank and U. Heinz in: Quark Gluon Plasma 2, R.C. Hwa, editor , World Scien- tiﬁc 1996, p. 555

View on Pith 1996

[27] [27]

K. Redlich, private communication

View on Pith

[28] [28]

P. Braun-Munzinger and K. Redlich, hep-ph/0001008 and Eur. Phys. J C (in print)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[29] [29]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA50 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B438 (1998) 35, and references therein

View on Pith 1998

[30] [30]

C. Gerschel, Acta Phys. Pol. B30 (1999) 3585

View on Pith 1999

[31] [31]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA38 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B449 (1999) 128

View on Pith 1999

[32] [32]

M. Gonin et al., NA50 collaboration, Proc. 3rd Conf. on Physics an d Astrophysics of Quark-Gluon Plasma, Jaipur, India, March 1999, B. C. Sinha, D.K Sriv astava, Y.P. Viyogi, editors, Narosa Publ. House 1998, p. 393

View on Pith 1999

[33] [33]

L. Ramello et al., NA50 collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A638 (1998) 261c

View on Pith 1998

[34] [34]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA38 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B466 (1999) 408

View on Pith 1999

[35] [35]

K. Redlich and B. M¨ uller, private communication

View on Pith

[36] [36]

S. Kabana, hep-ph/0004138

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[37] [37]

V. Emel’yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein, R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. Lett . 81 (1998) 1801

View on Pith 1998

[38] [38]

V. Emel’yanov, A. Khodinov, S.R. Klein, R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C61 (2000) 044904

View on Pith 2000

[39] [39]

M.C. Abreu et al., NA38 collaboration, Phys. Lett. B423 (1998) 207. 8 Table 1 Yields for particles with open and hidden charm at mid-rapidity for cen tral Pb+Pb col- lisions as predicted by the thermal model calculation. Chemical free ze-out takes place at T=168 MeV in a volume of 3085 fm 3 corresponding to 400 participants. The chemical potentials are: µ...

View on Pith 1998