Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Temperatures and chemical potentials at kinetic freeze-out in relativistic heavy ion collisions from coarse grained transport simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Kinetic freeze-out is not a single point in the phase diagram

desk verdict Useful five-energy map of kinetic freeze-out from UrQMD coarse-graining; the continuous-freeze-out claim holds up, but the quantitative tension with Blast-Wave is model-dependent and not yet error-barred. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00643 v2 pith:ZTBVX4SR submitted 2019-09-02 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Gabriele Inghirami , Paula Hillmann , Boris Tomášik , Marcus Bleicher This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords kineticfreeze-outcoarsegrainingheavyioncollisionsbaryonchemicalpotentialQCDphasediagramhadronresonancegasUrQMDhypersurface
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to show that kinetic freeze-out in relativistic heavy-ion collisions cannot be summarized as a single point on the QCD phase diagram. Using a hadron cascade model together with a coarse-graining procedure, the authors track the last interaction of each hadron and assign the local temperature and baryon chemical potential of the surrounding medium at that space-time point. For central Au+Au collisions from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.4$ GeV to 200 GeV, they find that hadrons decouple continuously over a time window of 15-20 fm/c (full width at half maximum) and over broad ranges of temperature and baryon chemical potential, even though the average decoupling temperature and chemical potential vary by less than about 10% across transverse momentum and show only weak rapidity dependence. The paper therefore argues that quoting a single freeze-out point from Blast-Wave fits is an oversimplification, and it highlights a tension: at high collision energy the kinetic freeze-out temperature extracted here is higher than in Blast-Wave fits.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a coarse-graining procedure that converts the microscopic output of a hadron cascade into continuum thermodynamic fields. At fixed times, the net-baryon four-current and energy-momentum tensor are computed in cells of size roughly 0.8 fm, the Eckart frame is used to define the fluid velocity, and the local rest-frame energy density $\varepsilon$ and net-baryon density $\rho_B$ are mapped to temperature and baryon chemical potential through a tabulated Hadron Resonance Gas equation of state with the same degrees of freedom as the cascade. These continuum values are then assigned to the space-time point of each hadron's last interaction, defining the kinetic freeze-out hypersurface. This machinery allows the paper to attach thermodynamic meaning to the decoupling distribution and to compare the resulting averages with Blast-Wave fits.

What would settle it

Measure the momentum distribution of two hadron species (say pions and protons) at the same coarse-grained freeze-out cell and check whether both are described by the same temperature and chemical potential; if the species-dependent temperatures differ by more than the claimed 10% at any cell, the equilibrium mapping fails. Alternatively, if rerunning the analysis with a lattice-based equation of state or with a cascade that includes a hydrodynamically evolving quark-gluon plasma stage changes the average kinetic freeze-out temperature by more than about 10%, the tension with Blast-Wave fits would not be robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that kinetic freeze-out is a continuous, dynamical process rather than a sharp moment. On the decoupling hypersurface defined by the last interaction of each hadron (including strong decays), the temperature and baryon chemical potential are spread over wide ranges whose widths reflect the expansion dynamics and energy-dependent cross sections: for example, at intermediate beam energies the baryon chemical potential distribution is particularly broad because the system transitions from baryon-dominated to meson-dominated matter. Averaged over the hypersurface, however, the temperatures and chemical potentials order smoothly with collision energy, with the average temperature rising and the average baryon chemical potential falling as $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ increases from 2.4 to 200 GeV, and the averaged values vary by less than 10% with transverse momentum and only mildly with rapidity. The paper further claims that the average kinetic freeze-out temperature at high energy exceeds the Blast-Wave fitted value, which it attributes to the weaker transverse expansion generated by the pure hadron cascade without a hydrodynamic or quark-gluon plasma stage.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction assumes that the local mix of hadrons at a freeze-out cell is close enough to thermal equilibrium that a single temperature and baryon chemical potential, read off from an equilibrium hadron-resonance-gas equation of state, can meaningfully describe the cell's energy and baryon densities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Freeze-out parameters should be reported as distributions on a decoupling hypersurface rather than as a single point in the $(T,\mu_B)$ plane if one wants to capture the actual dynamics.
  • The weak transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of the averages means that a single average $(\langle T\rangle, \langle\mu_B\rangle)$ per collision energy remains a useful summary despite the underlying spread.
  • At high collision energy the kinetic freeze-out temperature is higher than Blast-Wave fits suggest, indicating that the hadron cascade produces weaker transverse expansion than the data; this points to the need for a hydrodynamic or particlization stage or a reassessment of Blast-Wave fit assumptions.
  • The separation between chemical and kinetic freeze-out temperatures grows from roughly 5-10 MeV at low energies to more than 40-50 MeV at high energies, quantifying the strength of the expansion between the two stages.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same coarse-grained freeze-out extraction could be applied species-by-species (pions, kaons, protons) to test whether different hadrons decouple at systematically different temperatures and to search for the species-splitting that a single freeze-out temperature cannot capture.
  • The broad spread in $(T,\mu_B)$ at freeze-out implies that inclusive momentum-space observables average over many different thermodynamic conditions; this may contribute to apparent temperatures extracted from slope ratios and may be connected to transverse-momentum-dependent fluctuations.
  • If the tension with Blast-Wave fits stems from the absence of a quark-gluon plasma stage, extending the analysis to hybrid transport-hydrodynamic models at RHIC and LHC energies would be a direct test; the method could also be applied to smaller systems such as pp or pA collisions.
  • The claimed time-extended decoupling of 15-20 fm/c suggests that two-particle correlations and interferometry measurements carry information about the freeze-out duration; comparing the coarse-grained emission function with measured correlations would provide an independent check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extracts kinetic freeze-out temperatures and baryon chemical potentials from UrQMD cascade simulations combined with a coarse-graining procedure. For central Au+Au collisions at five beam energies from 2.4 to 200 GeV, the authors define kinetic freeze-out as the last interaction point of each hadron, compute coarse-grained energy density and net-baryon density around those points, and map the resulting (ε, ρB) values to (T, μB) using a tabulated hadron resonance gas equation of state. They present freeze-out time, temperature, and chemical-potential distributions, study the transverse-momentum and rapidity dependence of the averaged freeze-out parameters, and compare their average (T, μB) points with Blast-Wave fit results and statistical hadronization model results. The central qualitative claim is that kinetic freeze-out is a continuous process occurring over 15–20 fm/c and over broad ranges of T and μB, so that representing it by a single point in the QCD phase diagram is an oversimplification. The paper also claims a tension with Blast-Wave fits, particularly at high collision energy.

Significance. If the quantitative extraction is accepted, the paper provides a useful phenomenological benchmark showing that single-point freeze-out parameters hide a substantial spread in decoupling conditions, and it offers a direct microscopic definition of the kinetic freeze-out hypersurface in a transport approach. Strengths of the paper are its large event statistics, the transparent step-by-step presentation of the coarse-graining and mapping procedure, and the explicit listing of limitations in Section IV, including the equilibrium-EoS assumption and the absence of a particlization stage. The qualitative claim about the continuous nature of freeze-out is robust because it follows directly from the last-interaction samples, whereas the quantitative claims about average T and μB, the 10% flatness statement, and the comparison with Blast-Wave fits depend on the unvalidated equilibrium mapping of non-equilibrium cascade cells.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (2)–(5) and interpolation step] The central quantitative step is the mapping of coarse-grained (ε, ρB) from non-equilibrium UrQMD cells to unique (T, μB) via the hadron resonance gas EoS. This assumes local thermal and chemical equilibrium in every cell, but UrQMD is a non-equilibrium cascade and no test in the paper checks whether cell-level momentum or species distributions are thermal. The manuscript itself concedes in Section IV that the EoS 'might introduce a bias' for a system out of chemical equilibrium. Because this mapping feeds directly into the average ⟨T⟩, the pT- and y-dependence claims, and the Blast-Wave comparison in Fig. 11, the authors should quantify the bias, for example by comparing coarse-grained cell momentum distributions with thermal fits, by repeating the extraction with a lattice-based EoS at high T, or by restricting the analysis to cells where an equilibrium criterion is satisfied. Without such a test, the quantitative values are conditional on an unquantified assumption.
  2. [Section III.C, Fig. 11] The claimed tension with Blast-Wave fits at high collision energy is interpreted as weaker transverse expansion in the cascade. However, Blast-Wave Tkin is a fit parameter strongly correlated with the fitted transverse velocity and with the selected pT ranges, so a direct comparison of the present average freeze-out temperature with the Blast-Wave parameter is not apples-to-apples. The paper notes the pT cuts and resonance feed-down as possible sources of difference but does not quantify them. A quantitative robustness test is needed, for instance by applying the same Blast-Wave fitting procedure to UrQMD-generated spectra and comparing the resulting Tkin with the coarse-grained ⟨T⟩, or by varying the pT ranges used in the data fits. This is load-bearing for the paper's comparison and for the interpretation that the cascade produces weaker radial flow than the data.
  3. [Section II, coarse-graining acceptance at √sNN=200 GeV] The sentence 'except at √sNN = 200 GeV, where we drop at ≈ 85%' is ambiguous and potentially serious. If 85% of the kinetically frozen-out hadrons are discarded because their cells have fewer than 100 particles, the 200 GeV results in Figs. 4–11 are based on only about 15% of the freeze-out sample, which could bias the averages and distributions toward high-density central cells. The authors should clarify the retention fraction and, if the drop is indeed 85%, quantify the selection bias by comparing the accepted and rejected samples or by lowering the acceptance threshold with a statistical correction.
  4. [Section III.B and Section IV] The claim that the average freeze-out temperature and baryon chemical potential are 'essentially independent of rapidity and transverse momentum' is too strong as stated. The paper itself notes that at √sNN = 2.4 GeV the pT dependence is not flat (Figs. 4–6 show a pronounced rise of ⟨T⟩ and ⟨μB⟩ with pT at the lowest energy), and the conclusion is already qualified in the body of Section III.B. The abstract and conclusions should either explicitly restrict the flatness claim to √sNN ≥ 4.5 GeV or quantify the size of the deviations at each energy, since the 10% statement is one of the paper's quantitative results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistencies: 'for for high collision energies' in Section III.A, 'UrMQD' in Section IV, the comma in '√sNN = 2.4, GeV' in Section III.A, and the axis label 'T [Mev]' in Fig. 10. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section III.C] The text refers to √sNN = 7 GeV when the simulated energies are 7.7 GeV and 19.6 GeV; please make the numbers consistent.
  3. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption of Fig. 12 describes a density profile in the (T, μB) plane but does not state the axis labels or the meaning of the color scale. Please clarify what is plotted and how the density is normalized.
  4. [References] Reference [49] appears incomplete (no year or journal information is given), and Refs. [45] and [49] share the same authors; please provide full bibliographic information and check for duplication.
  5. [Section III.A] The statement that the peak emission temperature 'does not rise above a certain threshold of approx. 150 MeV' is based on the HRG EoS used in the mapping; this should be stated together with the caveat that the EoS itself restricts the accessible temperature range, as is already partially acknowledged later in the same paragraph.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: T and muB are model extractions via an external HRG EoS, the comparison benchmarks are external, and the paper openly states its limitations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not feed the target result back into the inputs. UrQMD defines kinetic freeze-out points as the space-time locations of last interactions; coarse graining computes average energy density and net-baryon density from the UrQMD ensemble; a tabulated Hadron Resonance Gas EoS, taken from external literature (Zschiesche et al. 2002), converts those densities into T and muB; and the resulting averages are compared with Blast-Wave and statistical-model values taken from the literature. No parameter is fitted to the Blast-Wave points or to the experimental spectra used in the comparison. The paper explicitly states that the chosen hadronic EoS may be inadequate for hot cells and for a system out of chemical equilibrium (“The inadequacy of our chosen EoS to describe a system out of chemical equilibrium might introduce a bias, as well”), which is a validity caveat rather than circularity. The central claim that freeze-out is a continuous process is a direct readout of the UrQMD last-interaction distribution; the model could in principle have produced a narrow distribution, so the breadth is not true by construction. Self-citations to UrQMD and to the coarse-graining method identify the code and the technique; they do not import the target result or forbid alternatives. No step reduces a predicted quantity to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters and no invented entities. It depends on domain assumptions that are mostly stated in the paper: local equilibrium at freeze-out cells, adequacy of the HRG EoS up to about 200 MeV, adequacy of the cascade-only UrQMD dynamics, and the standard Eckart frame choice. The first of these is the least explicit and the most load-bearing.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Coarse-grained energy density and net-baryon density at freeze-out cells map through an equilibrium hadron-resonance-gas EoS to unique values of temperature and baryon chemical potential.
    Section II: interpolation from a tabulated HRG EoS; assumes local equilibrium in a non-equilibrium cascade, the step that converts transport output into thermodynamic variables.
  • domain assumption The hadron-resonance-gas EoS remains adequate for cells with temperatures up to about 200 MeV.
    Section III.A: the paper acknowledges the use of the hadronic EoS is adequate for a purely hadron based model and postpones a better EoS to future work.
  • domain assumption Pure cascade UrQMD without a QGP or hydrodynamic stage reproduces the freeze-out dynamics well enough for quantitative comparison with Blast-Wave fits.
    Section III.C and IV: no particlization temperature is introduced; the paper states the hadronic dynamics lead to weaker transverse expansion than observed in data.
  • standard math The Eckart frame fluid four-velocity, defined from the net-baryon current (Eq. 4), is the correct frame for the local rest frame densities.
    Standard relativistic fluid definition used throughout the coarse-graining method; not specific to this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temperatures and chemical potentials at kinetic freeze-out in relativistic heavy ion collisions from coarse grained transport simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTBVX4SR

@misc{pith2026190900643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temperatures and chemical potentials at kinetic freeze-out in relativistic heavy ion collisions from coarse grained transport simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTBVX4SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00643}
}
abstract

Using the UrQMD/coarse graining approach we explore the kinetic freeze-out stage in central Au + Au collisions at various energies. These studies allow us to obtain detailed information on the thermodynamic properties (e.g. temperature and chemical potential) of the system during the kinetic decoupling stage. We explore five relevant collision energies in detail, ranging from $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.4\,\mathrm{GeV}$ (GSI-SIS) to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200\,\mathrm{GeV}$ (RHIC). By adopting a standard Hadron Resonance Gas equation of state, we determine the average temperature $\langle T \rangle$ and the average baryon chemical potential $\langle\mu_{\mathrm{B}}\rangle$ on the space-time hyper-surface of last interaction. The results highlight the nature of the kinetic freeze-out as a continuous process. This differential decoupling is an important aspect often missed when summarizing data as single points in the phase diagram as e.g. done in Blast-Wave fits. We compare the key properties of the system derived by using our approach with other models and we briefly review similarities and differences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00643 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Freeze-out time distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Emission probabilities as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Emission probabilities as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Average kinetic freeze-out tempera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Average baryo-chemical poten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Average of the ratio hµB/Ti at ki￾netic freeze-out as a function of transverse momentum pT at midrapidity (|y| < 0.2) for central Au+Au reaction at center￾of-mass energies of √ sNN = 2.4, 4.5, 7.7, 19.6, 200 GeV (full line, short dashed line, dashed line…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Color online) Average of the ratio hµB/Ti at kinetic freeze-out as a function of rapidity y for central Au+Au reaction at center-of-mass energies of √ sNN = 2.4, 4.5, 7.7, 19.6, 200 GeV (full line, short dashed line, dashed line, long dashed-dotted line, dotted dashed…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Color online) Kinetic freeze-out temperature with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Color online) Comparison between the average ki [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (Color online) Profile of the kinetic freeze-out [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    U. W. Heinz, Nucl. Phys. A721, 30 (2003), nucl- th/0212004

    work page arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Blaizot and J.-Y

    J.-P. Blaizot and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1703 (1996), hep-ph/9606289

    arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    S. A. Bass, M. Gyulassy, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G25, R1 (1999), hep-ph/9810281

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    K. J. Eskola, in Proceedings, International Europhysics Conference on High energy physics (EPS-HEP 1999): Tampere, Finland, July 15-21, 1999 , 231–250 (1999), hep-ph/9911350

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim

    R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. 3, 147 (1965)

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Matsui and H

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

    1986

  8. [8]

    Philipsen, Prog

    O. Philipsen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 70, 55 (2013), 1207.5999

    arXiv 2013

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Rapp, PoS HardProbes2018, 029 (2019), 1901.06440

    R. Rapp, PoS HardProbes2018, 029 (2019), 1901.06440

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    T. Song, H. Berrehrah, D. Cabrera, J. M. Torres-Rincon, L. Tolos, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C92, 014910 (2015), 1503.03039

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bleicher, B

    M. Bleicher, B. Buchle, S. Endres, T. Lang, and G. Grf, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 7, 173 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    L.-G. Pang, K. Zhou, N. Su, H. Petersen, H. Stcker, and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A982, 867 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Plumberg and U

    C. Plumberg and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C98, 034910 (2018), 1611.03161

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Petersen, D

    H. Petersen, D. Oliinychenko, M. Mayer, J. Stauden- maier, and S. Ryu, Nucl. Phys. A982, 399 (2019), 1808.06832

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gallmeister, M

    K. Gallmeister, M. Beitel, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C98, 024915 (2018), 1712.04018

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Karpenko and F

    I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Nucl. Phys. A982, 519 (2019), 1811.00322

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nahrgang, M

    M. Nahrgang, M. Bluhm, T. Schaefer, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. D99, 116015 (2019), 1804.05728

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Rev. C99, 044908 (2019), 1901.04378

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Wang, in 13th International Workshop on High-pT Physics in the RHIC/LHC Era (HPT 2019) Knoxville, TN, USA, March 19-22, 2019 (2019), 1906.11998

    X.-N. Wang, in 13th International Workshop on High-pT Physics in the RHIC/LHC Era (HPT 2019) Knoxville, TN, USA, March 19-22, 2019 (2019), 1906.11998

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Tu (CMS), Nucl

    Z. Tu (CMS), Nucl. Phys. A982, 527 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Knoll, Nucl

    J. Knoll, Nucl. Phys. A821, 235 (2009), 0803.2343

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bellwied, H

    R. Bellwied, H. Caines, and T. J. Humanic, Phys. Rev. C62, 054906 (2000), hep-ph/0003264

    2000 arXiv

  15. [23]

    V. K. Magas, C. Anderlik, L. P. Csernai, F. Grassi, W. Greiner, Y. Hama, T. Kodama, Z. I. Lazar, and H. Stoecker, Heavy Ion Physics 9, 193 (1999), nucl- th/9903045

    1999

  16. [24]

    Molnar, L

    E. Molnar, L. P. Csernai, V. K. Magas, A. Nyiri, and K. Tamosiunas, Phys. Rev. C74, 024907 (2006), nucl- th/0503047

    2006

  17. [25]

    Cleymans and K

    J. Cleymans and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C60, 054908 (1999), nucl-th/9903063

    1999 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Florkowski and W

    W. Florkowski and W. Broniowski, Phys. Lett. B477, 73 (2000), nucl-th/9910016

    2000 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Braun-Munzinger, J

    P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B596, 61 (2004), nucl-th/0311005

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Broniowski and W

    W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 272302 (2001), nucl-th/0106050

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Broniowski and W

    W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. C65, 064905 (2002), nucl-th/0112043

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Baran, W

    A. Baran, W. Broniowski, and W. Florkowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B35, 779 (2004), nucl-th/0305075

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Prorok, Acta Phys

    D. Prorok, Acta Phys. Polon. B40, 2825 (2009), nucl- th/0702042

    2009

  24. [32]

    Chatterjee, S

    S. Chatterjee, S. Das, L. Kumar, D. Mishra, B. Mohanty, R. Sahoo, and N. Sharma, Adv. High Energy Phys.2015, 349013 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Bleicher, J

    M. Bleicher, J. Steinheimer, and R. Stock, 41–64 (2018), 1712.03748

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Heinz and G

    U. Heinz and G. Kestin, PoS CPOD2006, 038 (2006), nucl-th/0612105

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. A. Bass, A. Dumitru, M. Bleicher, L. Bravina, E. Zabrodin, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C60, 021902 (1999), nucl-th/9902062

    1999 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cleymans, H

    J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C73, 034905 (2006), hep-ph/0511094

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cleymans, B

    J. Cleymans, B. Kampfer, M. Kaneta, S. Wheaton, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. C71, 054901 (2005), hep-ph/0409071

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature 561, 321 (2018), 1710.09425

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Becattini and U

    F. Becattini and U. W. Heinz, Z. Phys. C76, 269 (1997), [Erratum: Z. Phys.C76,578(1997)], hep-ph/9702274

    1997 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Braun-Munzinger and J

    P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B490, 196 (2000), nucl-th/0007059

    2000 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Becattini, P

    F. Becattini, P. Castorina, J. Manninen, and H. Satz, Eur. Phys. J. C56, 493 (2008), 0805.0964

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Andronic, F

    A. Andronic, F. Beutler, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B675, 312 (2009), 0804.4132

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wei, F.-H

    H.-R. Wei, F.-H. Liu, and R. A. Lacey, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 102 (2016), 1601.07045

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C48, 2462 (1993), nucl-th/9307020

    1993 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Melo and B

    I. Melo and B. Tom´ aˇ sik, J. Phys.G43, 015102 (2016), 1502.01247

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C79, 034909 (2009), 0808.2041

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kumar (STAR), Nucl

    L. Kumar (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A931, 1114 (2014), 1408.4209

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C96, 044904 (2017), 1701.07065

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Melo and B

    I. Melo and B. Tom´ aˇ sik (2019), 1908.03023

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. P. Rode, P. P. Bhaduri, A. Jaiswal, and A. Roy, Phys. Rev. C98, 024907 (2018), 1805.11463

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cimerman, B

    J. Cimerman, B. Tom´ aˇ sik, M. Csanad, and S. Lokos, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 161 (2017), 1702.01735

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brandstetter, L. Bravina, et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41, 255 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    Bleicher, E

    M. Bleicher, E. Zabrodin, C. Spieles, S. Bass, C. Ernst, et al., J. Phys. G 25, 1859 (1999). 10

    1999

  46. [54]

    Huovinen, M

    P. Huovinen, M. Belkacem, P. J. Ellis, and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C 66, 014903 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    Endres, H

    S. Endres, H. van Hees, J. Weil, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054911 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    L. V. Bravina et al., Phys. Lett. B434, 379 (1998), nucl- th/9804008

    1998

  49. [57]

    L. V. Bravina et al., J. Phys. G25, 351 (1999), nucl- th/9810036

    1999

  50. [58]

    Endres, H

    S. Endres, H. van Hees, and M. Bleicher, PoS CPOD2013, 052 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Endres, H

    S. Endres, H. van Hees, J. Weil, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 92, 014911 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Endres, H

    S. Endres, H. van Hees, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054901 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Inghirami, H

    G. Inghirami, H. van Hees, S. Endres, J. M. Torres- Rincon, and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 52 (2019), 1804.07751

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Eckart, Phys

    C. Eckart, Phys. Rev. 58, 919 (1940)

    1940

  55. [63]

    Zschiesche, S

    D. Zschiesche, S. Schramm, J. Schaffner-Bielich, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B547, 7 (2002)

    2002

  56. [64]

    Florkowski and R

    W. Florkowski and R. Ryblewski, Phys. Rev. C83, 034907 (2011), 1007.0130

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Moreau, O

    P. Moreau, O. Soloveva, L. Oliva, T. Song, W. Cassing, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C100, 014911 (2019), 1903.10257

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. (HADES), Eur. Phys. J. A54, 85 (2018), 1712.07993

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C88, 044910 (2013), 1303.0737

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. (HADES), Eur. Phys. J. A41, 243 (2009), 0902.3478

    2009 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Blume (NA49), J

    C. Blume (NA49), J. Phys. G31, S685 (2005), nucl- ex/0411039

    2005

  62. [70]

    Odyniec, PoS CPOD2013, 043 (2013)

    G. Odyniec, PoS CPOD2013, 043 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    M. He, R. J. Fries, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C85, 044911 (2012), 1112.5894

    2012 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Borsanyi, G

    S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 11, 077 (2010), 1007.2580

    2010 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Reisdorf and H

    W. Reisdorf and H. G. Ritter, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47, 663 (1997)

    1997

  66. [74]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A772, 167 (2006), nucl-th/0511071

    2006 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Huovinen and H

    P. Huovinen and H. Petersen, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 171 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Yang (STAR), Nucl

    C. Yang (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A967, 800 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Friman, C

    B. Friman, C. Hohne, J. Knoll, S. Leupold, J. Randrup, R. Rapp, and P. Senger, Lect. Notes Phys. 814, pp.1 (2011)

    2011

  70. [78]

    Syresin et al., in Proceedings, 10th International Par- ticle Accelerator Conference (IPAC2019): Melbourne, Australia, May 19-24, 2019 , MOPMP014 (2019)

    E. Syresin et al., in Proceedings, 10th International Par- ticle Accelerator Conference (IPAC2019): Melbourne, Australia, May 19-24, 2019 , MOPMP014 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.