Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Studying charm hadronisation into baryons with azimuthal correlations of $\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$ with charged particles in pp collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{\it s} = 13}$ TeV

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First $\Lambda_c^+$-charged-particle azimuthal correlations show a $2.7\sigma$ near-side excess over D mesons at low $p_{\rm T}$, indicating baryon-specific charm hadronisation.

desk verdict First Lambda_c azimuthal correlations are real and worth publishing, but the 2.7 sigma baryon/meson yield difference rests on a beta shape parameter fixed from PYTHIA CR-BLC; referees should ask for a beta-scan. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10104 v2 pith:YKQYWFOT submitted 2024-11-15 hep-ex nucl-ex

ALICE Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exnucl-ex
keywords charmhadronisationazimuthalcorrelationsLambda_cbaryonpromptproductionfragmentationnear-sideassociatedyieldbaryon-to-mesonratio13TeVppcollisions
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

Charm quarks in proton-proton collisions can hadronise into mesons or baryons, and this paper asks whether the two paths leave different imprints on the particles produced alongside the charm hadron. It reports the first measurement of azimuthal correlations between prompt $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons (produced in charm hadronisation rather than in beauty decays) and charged particles in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, using the angular separation $\Delta\varphi$ between the baryon and each associated particle as the probe. The central result is the comparison with D-meson-triggered correlations: for $3

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-trigger azimuthal correlation $(1/N_{\Lambda_c^+})\,dN^{\rm assoc}/d\Delta\varphi$, built by pairing each $\Lambda_c^+$ candidate with charged particles (with $p_{\rm T}^{\rm assoc}>0.3$ GeV/$c$, $|\eta|<0.8$) in the same event, dividing by mixed-event pairs, and then correcting for efficiency, secondary-particle contamination, beauty feed-down, and $\Sigma_c(2455)$ decays. The quantitative comparison is carried by a fit of the baseline-subtracted distribution with a generalized Gaussian for the near-side peak, a Gaussian for the away-side peak, and a constant baseline; ratios of the fitted near-side yield, near-side width, and away-side yield against the D-meson values are the observables that carry the $2.7\sigma$ difference. The generalized Gaussian's shape parameter $\beta$ is fixed from a Monte Carlo prediction of the correlation shape, which is one of the model-dependent inputs needed to stabilise the fit.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to repeat the measurement with LHC Run 3 statistics and a data-driven, template-independent subtraction of beauty feed-down; if the $\Lambda_c^+/D$ near-side yield ratio for $3<p_{\rm T}<5$ GeV/$c$ and $0.3<p_{\rm T}^{\rm assoc}<1$ GeV/$c$ then becomes consistent with unity, the claimed $2.7\sigma$ excess would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes the first measurement of the per-trigger azimuthal correlation distribution between prompt $\Lambda_c^+$ baryons and charged particles at midrapidity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, for $\Lambda_c^+$ transverse momenta $3<p_{\rm T}<16$ GeV/$c$ and associated-particle momenta $p_{\rm T}^{\rm assoc}>0.3$ GeV/$c$. After subtracting the baseline, fitting the correlation peaks shows that in the charm-hadron momentum interval $3<p_{\rm T}<5$ GeV/$c$ and for associated particles with $0.3<p_{\rm T}^{\rm assoc}<1$ GeV/$c$, the $\Lambda_c^+$-triggered near-side yield exceeds the D-meson-triggered yield by $2.7\sigma$; a comparable excess is seen on the away side. The models tested, including those that reproduce the $\Lambda_c^+/D^0$ production ratio, underpredict these low-momentum yields, and adding the decay feed-down from unobserved heavier charm-baryon states does not remove the discrepancy. The authors conclude that the charm quark fragments more softly, or hadronises via a different mechanism, when the final state contains a baryon.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the Monte Carlo templates used to subtract beauty feed-down and $\Sigma_c(2455)$ decays have the correct shape and normalization, and that fixing the near-side peak shape from one model prediction is safe; if either assumption fails, the near-side yield excess could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\Lambda_c^+$ and D-meson fragmentation patterns differ at low momentum: the near-side yield excess of $2.7\sigma$ for $3<p_{\rm T}<5$ GeV/$c$ and $0.3<p_{\rm T}^{\rm assoc}<1$ GeV/$c$ is a direct jet-level signature of baryon-specific charm hadronisation.
  • The away-side excess indicates the effect extends beyond the charm jet to the recoiling (anti)charm quark, consistent with the charm quark having less energy after a softer fragmentation.
  • All tested generators underpredict the low-momentum associated yields even when they describe $\Lambda_c^+/D^0$ ratios, so the observable provides a new discriminating constraint on hadronisation models.
  • For trigger $p_{\rm T}>5$ GeV/$c$ the $\Lambda_c^+$ and D-meson correlations agree, suggesting the hadronisation difference is confined to low and intermediate momentum.
  • The correlation results give a concrete way to connect the multiplicity-dependent baryon-to-meson enhancement to jet structure: the increase could come from more particles in $\Lambda_c$-containing jets rather than from a higher baryon formation probability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: measuring the same correlations with higher-mass charm baryons such as $\Xi_c^+$ or $\Omega_c^0$ would show whether the soft-particle excess grows with strangeness, as the baryon-to-meson production ratios do.
  • A reader may infer that the near-side excess, if confirmed, would favour a softer fragmentation picture over coalescence, since coalescence models predict a reduction of jet-associated particles for a given $\Lambda_c^+$ momentum.
  • An implication of the multiplicity discussion is that the measured rise of $\Lambda_c^+/D^0$ with event multiplicity could be driven by more particles inside $\Lambda_c$ jets rather than by more baryon production per se.
  • A practical cross-check is to measure the same correlation for non-prompt $\Lambda_c$ baryons from beauty decays, isolating the largest model-dependent correction and testing the feed-down subtraction directly.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of azimuthal correlations between prompt Lambda_c+ baryons and charged particles in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV with ALICE, using L_int=29.2 pb^-1 of Run 2 data. The correlation distributions are corrected for acceptance, efficiency, combinatorial background, secondary contamination, beauty feed-down, and Sigma_c(2455) feed-down, then fitted with Eq. (3) to extract near- and away-side yields and widths. The main physics result is a comparison with published D-meson correlations: for 3 < pT^{Lambda_c,D} < 5 GeV/c and 0.3 < pT^{assoc} < 1 GeV/c, the near-side associated yield for Lambda_c triggers is larger than for D-meson triggers, with a quoted deviation of 2.7 sigma. The paper also compares the extracted observables with PYTHIA 8 Monash, POWHEG+PYTHIA 8, PYTHIA 8 CR-BLC Mode 2, and JETSCAPE predictions, finding that all models underpredict the low-pT associated yields, and tests a SHM+RQM-inspired resonance contribution that cannot explain the data.

Significance. If correct, this is the first measurement of charm-baryon azimuthal correlations, a genuinely new observable that can discriminate between in-vacuum fragmentation and modified hadronization mechanisms. The paper is a standard ALICE analysis with a detailed systematic table (Table 1) and appropriately hedged claims (the word 'hints' is used, and the 2.7 sigma significance is explicitly 'limited'). The comparison with D mesons and with several models provides a useful, falsifiable benchmark for charm hadronization models. The strengths of the paper are the established analysis chain, the explicit treatment of feed-down and contamination corrections, and the quantitative comparison with multiple generators. The main weakness is the model-dependent fixing of the generalized-Gaussian shape parameter beta, which is load-bearing for the central yield comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3); Sec. 4] The central 2.7 sigma near-side yield enhancement for Lambda_c over D-meson triggers depends on the extraction of Y_NS from Eq. (3), where beta is fixed to the value obtained from PYTHIA 8 CR-BLC Mode 2. For beta in the quoted range 0.7-1.9, the generalized Gaussian has substantial tails, so Y_NS is sensitive to how much near-side tail is separated from the flat baseline. The systematic check in Sec. 4 leaves beta free and takes the RMS over the same data, but this does not cover a systematic mismatch between the true near-side shape and the CR-BLC shape, especially because the paper itself finds that CR-BLC underpredicts the measured yields. Also, the paper does not demonstrate that the D-meson reference from Ref. [27] used the same beta convention; if the two analyses used different beta prescriptions, the ratio could be biased. Please add a robustness test: extract Y_NS with beta fixed to the values obtained from Monash, JETSCAPE, or a free-beta fit, and quote the spread as an additional systematic; or explicitly show that the D-meson reference used the same beta values and that the ratio is insensitive to beta.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 4] There is an inconsistency between the data and model treatments in the comparison shown in Fig. 4. The data near-side yields are obtained with beta fixed to the PYTHIA 8 CR-BLC Mode 2 value, whereas the model predictions are fitted with beta left unconstrained ('the beta parameter was left unconstrained'). This asymmetry can change the extracted Y_NS for data relative to the models and may bias the conclusion that all models underpredict the yields. Please either fit the data and models with the same beta prescription, or quantify the effect of the differing prescriptions on the data-to-model ratios.
  3. [Sec. 5.1] The paper quotes 'a deviation of 2.7 sigma' for the Lambda_c/D near-side yield ratio at 3 < pT < 5 GeV/c and 0.3 < pT^{assoc} < 1 GeV/c, but it does not state explicitly whether this significance includes only statistical uncertainties or the total (statistical plus systematic) uncertainties, nor how the correlations between the Lambda_c and D-meson measurements were propagated. Since this number is the primary quantitative claim of the paper, please specify the exact uncertainty treatment used to compute the deviation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5.1] The notation '3 < p^{Lambda_c,D}_T < 5, GeV/c' contains a stray comma; also the symbol p^{Lambda_c,D}_T is introduced in the abstract before it is defined in the text.
  2. [Sec. 3.3] The typical beta values are quoted as a range (0.7-1.9) without reporting the actual value used for each pT interval. A table or a sentence listing the beta values per interval would make the model dependence more transparent.
  3. [Figure captions (Figs. 1-6)] The 'scale unc.' boxes in the figures are not defined in the captions; please state explicitly that these represent the Delta-phi-independent systematic uncertainties.
  4. [Sec. 5.3] The 'PYTHIA 8 Monash+Reso' model is described in the text but does not appear to have a dedicated reference; if this is a new model variant developed for this paper, please provide more detail on the implementation, or cite a companion paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Lambda_c correlation yields are extracted from data with propagated MC-based corrections and compared to independent D-meson and generator results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs at any load-bearing point. The per-trigger correlation distribution in Eq. (1) is built from measured same-event and mixed-event pairs with acceptance/efficiency weights, sideband subtraction, and a primary-particle purity factor from simulation; none of these quantities encode the near- or away-side yields that are later reported. The beauty feed-down correction in Eq. (2) uses FONLL calculations, LHCb fragmentation fractions, and ALICE-measured Sigma_c(2455) feed-down fractions [13]; these are external or previously published inputs with independent content, not parameters fitted to the present correlation data, and their uncertainties are propagated. The generalized-Gaussian beta parameter is fixed from a PYTHIA 8 CR-BLC Mode 2 fit in Sec. 3.3; this is a model-dependent choice, but Sec. 4 explicitly evaluates the impact by leaving beta free and taking the RMS of the peak observables, so the quoted yields are not a tautological restatement of the model. The central claim of a larger near-side yield for Lambda_c than for D mesons is a direct comparison of yields fitted to the measured correlation functions with the D-meson results from Ref. [27], and the comparison with Monte Carlo generators treats those generators as external predictions rather than fitting them to the data. No equation reduces to another equation by construction, and no self-citation is used as the sole justification for a conclusion. The only minor self-citation content is the use of ALICE measurements for the Sigma_c feed-down fraction and the choice of fit ansatz consistent with the earlier ALICE D-meson analysis; these are supporting corrections, not the basis of the physics claim, so they do not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement itself contains no free parameters in the theory sense; the listed quantities are fit parameters of the correlation function (Eq. 3) that define the reported peak observables. The beta parameter is fixed from a PYTHIA tune, which is a model input. The dominant assumptions are the Monte Carlo based corrections for feed-down and detector effects. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Near-side yield Y_NS
    Extracted from fit to the correlation distribution (Eq. 3); the central observable compared to D mesons and models.
  • Away-side yield Y_AS
    Extracted from fit; used for the away-side comparison with D mesons.
  • Near-side width parameter alpha
    Generalized Gaussian scale from fit; yields are integrals over the fitted peak.
  • Away-side width sigma_AS
    Gaussian width from fit.
  • Baseline b
    Flat component in Eq. 3; its choice dominates systematic uncertainty on yields.
  • Generalized Gaussian beta = 0.7-1.9, fixed from PYTHIA CR-BLC Mode 2
    Fixed to MC prediction in the default fit; varying it is used for systematic uncertainty.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math QCD factorization of heavy-flavour production into PDFs, hard scattering, and fragmentation functions.
    Invoked in Sec. 1 as the theoretical framework for charm hadron production.
  • domain assumption PYTHIA 8 plus GEANT3 simulation accurately models ALICE detector response and correction factors.
    Used in Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.2 for acceptance, efficiency, purity, and mixed-event corrections.
  • domain assumption Beauty feed-down fraction and shape are described by FONLL calculations, LHCb fragmentation fractions, and PYTHIA 8 templates.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 (Eq. 2) to subtract non-prompt Lambda_c contributions.
  • domain assumption The generalized-Gaussian shape parameter beta of the near-side peak equals the PYTHIA 8 CR-BLC Mode 2 prediction.
    Used in Sec. 3.3 to stabilize the fit; if the true beta differs, yields may be biased.
  • domain assumption The correlation baseline is flat (constant b in Eq. 3).
    Assumed in Sec. 3.3, motivated by D-meson correlation analyses; baseline choice dominates systematic uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Trigger and associated particle acceptance-efficiency corrections factorize.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 when weighting correlation pairs by 1/(A*epsilon)_assoc times 1/(A*epsilon)_trigger.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Studying charm hadronisation into baryons with azimuthal correlations of $\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$ with charged particles in pp collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{\it s} = 13}$ TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKQYWFOT

@misc{pith2026241110104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Studying charm hadronisation into baryons with azimuthal correlations of $\Lambda_\rm c^+$ with charged particles in pp collisions at $\mathbf\sqrt\it s = 13$ TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKQYWFOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10104}
}
abstract

The distribution of angular correlations between prompt charm hadrons and primary charged particles in pp collisions is sensitive to the charm-quark hadronisation process. In this letter, charm-baryon correlations are measured for the first time by studying the azimuthal-angle difference between charged particles and prompt $\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$ baryons produced in pp collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, with the ALICE detector. $\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$ baryons are reconstructed at midrapidity ($|y| < 0.5$) in the transverse-momentum interval $3 < p_{\rm T} < 16$ GeV/$c$, and correlated with charged particles with $p_{\rm T} > 0.3$ GeV/$c$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 0.8$. For $3< p_{\rm T}^{\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+},{\rm D}} <5$ GeV/$c$, the comparison with published measurements of D-meson and charged-particle correlations in the same collision system hints at a larger number of low-momentum particles associated with $\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$-baryon triggers than with D-meson triggers, both in the collinear and opposite directions with respect to the trigger particle. These differences can be quantified by the comparison of the properties of the near- and away-side correlation peaks, and are not reproduced by predictions of various Monte Carlo event generators, generally underpredicting the associated particle yields at $p_{\rm T}^{\rm assoc}<1$ GeV/$c$. This tension between $\Lambda_{\rm c}^{+}$-baryon and D-meson associated peak yields could suggest a modified fragmentation of the charm quark, or a different hadronisation process, when a charm baryon is produced in the final state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10104 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of azimuthal-correlation distributions of Λ + c -baryons with associated particles (red markers) after the baseline subtraction in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV, compared to the average of the azimuthal-correlation distributions of D0 , D+, and D∗+ mesons with associated particles measured by ALICE (blue markers) [27], for the pT intervals 3 < p D,Λ + c T < 5 GeV/c and 0.3 < p assoc T < 1 GeV/c, 5 < p D,Λ +… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Near-side peak yields (first row) and widths (third row) obtained from the fit to the azimuthal correlation distributions of Λ + c with charged particles after the baseline subtraction in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV. The measurements are compared to D-meson average results by ALICE in the same collision system [27]. The ratios of Λ + c -baryon to D-meson near-side peak observables are shown in the second and fourt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Away-side peak yields (first row) obtained from the fit to the azimuthal correlation distributions of Λ + c and charged particles after the baseline subtraction in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV. The measurements are compared to D-meson average results by ALICE in the same collision system [27]. The ratios of Λ + c -baryon to D-meson away-side peak yields are shown in the second row. 5.2 Comparison with model predict… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Near-side peak yields (first row) and widths (third row) from the fit to the Λ + c -charged particle azimuthal correlation distributions after the baseline subtraction, compared to simulations from PYTHIA 8 with Monash tune [38], POWHEG+PYTHIA 8 [48, 49], PYTHIA 8 with…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Away-side peak yields (first row) from the fit to the Λ + c -charged particle azimuthal-correlation dis￾tributions after the baseline subtraction, compared to simulations from PYTHIA 8 with Monash tune [38], POWHEG+PYTHIA 8 [48, 49], PYTHIA 8 with CR-BLC mode 2 [21], a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: comparison between the measured Λ + c -charged particle azimuthal correlation function and the Monte Carlo correlation templates obtained from PYTHIA 8, Monash tune and by including SHM+RQM charm baryon states (see text for details) for 3 < p Λ + c T < 5GeV/c and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Investigating charm production and fragmentation via azimuthal correlations of prompt D mesons with charged particles in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Investigating charm production and fragmentation via azimuthal correlations of prompt D mesons with charged part icles in pp collisions at√ s = 13 TeV”, Eur . Phys. J. C82 (2022) 335, arXiv:2110.10043 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Factorizat ion of Hard Processes in QCD

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Factorizat ion of Hard Processes in QCD”, Adv. Ser . Direct. High Energy Phys.5 (1989) 1–91, arXiv:hep-ph/0409313

    arXiv 1989

  3. [2]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  4. [3]

    Measurement of D 0 , D+ , D∗+ and D+ s production in pp collisions at√ s = 5.02 TeV with ALICE

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of D 0 , D+ , D∗+ and D+ s production in pp collisions at√ s = 5.02 TeV with ALICE”, Eur . Phys. J. C79 (2019) 388, arXiv:1901.07979 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Observation of a multiplicity dependence in the pT-differential charm baryon-to-meson ratios in proton–pro ton collisions at√ s=13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Observation of a multiplicity dependence in the pT-differential charm baryon-to-meson ratios in proton–pro ton collisions at√ s=13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137065, arXiv:2111.11948 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Charm production and fragmentation fractions at midrapidity in pp collisions at√ s = 13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Charm production and fragmentation fractions at midrapidity in pp collisions at√ s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 12 (2023) 086, arXiv:2308.04877 [hep-ex] . 18 Azimuthal correlations of Λ + c with charged particles in pp collisions ALICE Collaboratio n[6] A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of D∗± , D± and Ds± meson ...

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Measurement of prompt open-charm production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at√ s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., “Measurement of prompt open-charm production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at√ s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 11 (2021) 225, arXiv:2107.01476 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at√ s = 5 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at√ s = 5 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2017) 147, arXiv:1610.02230 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at√ s = 13 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurements of prompt charm production cross-sections in pp collisions at√ s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 03 (2016) 159, arXiv:1510.01707 [hep-ex] . [Erratum: JHEP 09, 013 (2016), Erratum: JHEP 05, 074 (2017)]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    First measurement of Λ + c production down to pT=0 in pp and p–Pb collisions at √ sNN=5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “First measurement of Λ + c production down to pT=0 in pp and p–Pb collisions at √ sNN=5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064901, arXiv:2211.14032 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Λ + c production in pp and in p–Pb collisions at√ sNN=5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “ Λ + c production in pp and in p–Pb collisions at√ sNN=5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 054905, arXiv:2011.06079 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Λ + c Production and Baryon-to-Meson Ratios in pp and p-Pb Collisions at√ sNN=5.02 TeV at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “ Λ + c Production and Baryon-to-Meson Ratios in pp and p-Pb Collisions at√ sNN=5.02 TeV at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 202301, arXiv:2011.06078 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Measurement of Prompt D 0, Λ + c , and Σ 0,++ c (2455) Production in Proton–Proton Collisions at √ s = 13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of Prompt D 0, Λ + c , and Σ 0,++ c (2455) Production in Proton–Proton Collisions at √ s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 012001, arXiv:2106.08278 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Production of Λ + c baryons in proton-proton and lead-lead collisions at√ sNN = 5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Production of Λ + c baryons in proton-proton and lead-lead collisions at√ sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135328, arXiv:1906.03322 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Measurement of the production cross section of prompt Ξ 0 c baryons at midrapidity in pp collisions at √ s = 5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the production cross section of prompt Ξ 0 c baryons at midrapidity in pp collisions at √ s = 5.02 TeV”, JHEP 10 (2021) 159, arXiv:2105.05616 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Measurement of the Cross Sections of Ξ 0 c and Ξ + c Baryons and of the Branching-Fraction Ratio BR( Ξ 0 c→ Ξ − e+ ν e)/BR(Ξ 0 c→ Ξ − π +) in pp collisions at 13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the Cross Sections of Ξ 0 c and Ξ + c Baryons and of the Branching-Fraction Ratio BR( Ξ 0 c→ Ξ − e+ ν e)/BR(Ξ 0 c→ Ξ − π +) in pp collisions at 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 272001, arXiv:2105.05187 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    First measurement of Ω 0 c production in pp collisions at√ s=13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “First measurement of Ω 0 c production in pp collisions at√ s=13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 137625, arXiv:2205.13993 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Charm-quark fragmentation fractions and production cross section at midrapidity in pp collisions at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Charm-quark fragmentation fractions and production cross section at midrapidity in pp collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) L011103, arXiv:2105.06335 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Combined an alysis of charm-quark fragmentation-fraction measurements

    M. Lisovyi, A. V erbytskyi, and O. Zenaiev, “Combined an alysis of charm-quark fragmentation-fraction measurements”, Eur . Phys. J. C76 (2016) 397, arXiv:1509.01061 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Semileptonic Bs→ D∗ s2(2573)ℓ ¯ ν ℓ transition in QCD

    K. Azizi, H. Sundu, and S. Sahin, “Semileptonic Bs→ D∗ s2(2573)ℓ ¯ ν ℓ transition in QCD”, Eur . Phys. J. C75 (2015) 197, arXiv:1411.3100 [hep-ph] . 19 Azimuthal correlations of Λ + c with charged particles in pp collisions ALICE Collaboratio n[21] J. R. Christiansen and P . Z...

    2015 arXiv

  13. [22]

    New feature of low pT charm quark hadronization in pp collisions at√ s = 7 TeV

    J. Song, H.-h. Li, and F.-l. Shao, “New feature of low pT charm quark hadronization in pp collisions at√ s = 7 TeV”, Eur . Phys. J. C78 (2018) 344, arXiv:1801.09402 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Charm hadrons i n pp collisions at LHC energy within a coalescence plus fragmentation approach

    V . Minissale, S. Plumari, and V . Greco, “Charm hadrons i n pp collisions at LHC energy within a coalescence plus fragmentation approach”, Phys. Lett. B 821 (2021) 136622, arXiv:2012.12001 [hep-ph]

    2021

  15. [24]

    Charm-Baryon Production in Proton-P roton Collisions

    M. He and R. Rapp, “Charm-Baryon Production in Proton-P roton Collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 795 (2019) 117–121, arXiv:1902.08889 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Exploring the non-universality of charm hadronisation through the measurement of the fraction of jet longitudinal momentum carried by Λ + c baryons in pp collisions

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Exploring the non-universality of charm hadronisation through the measurement of the fraction of jet longitudinal momentum carried by Λ + c baryons in pp collisions”, arXiv:2301.13798 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  17. [26]

    Measurement of the production of charm jets tagged with D0 mesons in pp collisions at√ s = 5.02 and 13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Measurement of the production of charm jets tagged with D0 mesons in pp collisions at√ s = 5.02 and 13 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2023) 133, arXiv:2204.10167 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Measurement of azimuthal correlations of D mesons and charged particles in pp collisions at√ s = 7 TeV and p–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Measurement of azimuthal correlations of D mesons and charged particles in pp collisions at√ s = 7 TeV and p–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Eur . Phys. J. C77 (2017) 245, arXiv:1605.06963 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [29]

    Azimuthal correlations of prompt D mesons with charged particles in pp and p–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Azimuthal correlations of prompt D mesons with charged particles in pp and p–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Eur . Phys. J. C80 (2020) 979, arXiv:1910.14403 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [30]

    The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “The ALICE experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08002

    2008

  21. [31]

    Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks

    ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Alignment of the ALICE Inner Tracking System with cosmic-ray tracks”, JINST 5 (2010) P03003, arXiv:1001.0502 [physics.ins-det]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [33]

    The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events

    J. Alme et al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 622 (2010) 316–367, arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [34]

    Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the L HC

    A. Akindinov et al., “Performance of the ALICE Time-Of-Flight detector at the L HC”, Eur . Phys. J. Plus128 (2013) 44

    2013

  25. [35]

    Performance of the ALICE VZERO system

    ALICE Collaboration, E. Abbas et al., “Performance of the ALICE VZERO system”, JINST 8 (2013) P10016, arXiv:1306.3130 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [36]

    Determination of the event collision time with the ALICE detector at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Determination of the event collision time with the ALICE detector at the LHC”, Eur . Phys. J. Plus132 (2017) 99, arXiv:1610.03055 [physics.ins-det] . 20 Azimuthal correlations of Λ + c with charged particles in pp collisions ALICE Collabor...

    2017 arXiv

  27. [38]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De sai, P . Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P . Z. Skands, “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2” , Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [39]

    Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune

    P . Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune”, Eur . Phys. J. C74 (2014) 3024, arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [40]

    R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson, G. Patrick, and L. Urban, GEANT: Detector Description and Simulation Tool; Oct 1994 . CERN Program Library. CERN, Geneva, 1993. http://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634. Long Writeup W5013

    1994

  30. [41]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boost ing System

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boost ing System”, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Disc overy and Data Mining , KDD ’16, pp. 785–794. ACM, Aug., 2016. arXiv:1603.02754 [cs.LG]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [42]

    The alice definition of primary particles

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “The alice definition of primary particles.” Jun, 2017. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270008. ALICE-PUBLIC-2017-005

    2017

  32. [43]

    The pT spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction

    M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P . Nason, “The pT spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction.”, JHEP 05 (1998) 007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400

    1998 arXiv

  33. [44]

    The pT spectrum in heavy flavor photoproduction

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, and P . Nason, “The pT spectrum in heavy flavor photoproduction”, JHEP 03 (2001) 006, arXiv:hep-ph/0102134

    2001 arXiv

  34. [45]

    Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M. L. Mangano, P . N ason, and G. Ridolfi, “Theoretical predictions for charm and bottom production at the LHC”, JHEP 10 (2012) 137, arXiv:1205.6344 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Measurement of b hadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions

    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., “Measurement of b hadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 031102, arXiv:1902.06794 [hep-ex]

    2019

  36. [47]

    Upton and I

    G. Upton and I. Cook, A Dictionary of Statistics . Oxford Paperback Reference. OUP Oxford,

  37. [48]

    A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms

    P . Nason, “A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”, JHEP 11 (2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    2004 arXiv

  38. [49]

    Matching NLO QCD c omputations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD c omputations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method”, JHEP 11 (2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  39. [50]

    JETSCAPE framework: p + p results

    JETSCAPE Collaboration, A. Kumar et al., “JETSCAPE framework: p + p results”, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 054906, arXiv:1910.05481 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [51]

    Jet Fragmentation vi a Recombination of Parton Showers

    K. C. Han, R. J. Fries, and C. M. Ko, “Jet Fragmentation vi a Recombination of Parton Showers”, Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) 045207, arXiv:1601.00708 [nucl-th] . 21 Azimuthal correlations of Λ + c with charged particles in pp collisions ALICE Collaboratio nA The ALICE Collaboration ...

    2016 arXiv

  41. [2008]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199679188.001.0001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.