Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Examining hadronic resonance dynamics at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: Insights from EPOS4

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resonance-to-stable yield ratios imply a non-zero hadronic-phase lifetime that grows from high-multiplicity pp to central Pb–Pb collisions at LHC energies.

desk verdict Solid EPOS4 benchmark for Run 3 resonance data, but the headline hadronic-phase lifetimes are differential (high-mult minus min-bias), not absolute, because the chemical baseline already includes UrQMD rescattering. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05178 v3 pith:2P4BMPMS submitted 2024-12-06 hep-ph

Vikash Sumberia , Dukhishyam Mallick , Sanjeev Singh Sambyal , Nasir Mehdi Malik This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords hadronicresonancesphaselifetimeEPOS4UrQMDrescatteringregenerationstrangenessenhancementsmallcollisionsystems
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 uses the EPOS4 model with the UrQMD hadronic afterburner switched on and off to show that the suppression of short-lived hadronic resonances in pp and Pb–Pb collisions is a real final-state effect. The central claim is that yield ratios such as $K^{*0}/K$, $\rho^0/\pi$, and $\Lambda^{*}/\Lambda$ can be converted, through the exponential decay law, into a lower limit on the duration of the hadronic phase, and that this duration increases with charged-particle multiplicity and system size, reaching about 0.5–1 fm/c even in high-multiplicity pp collisions. If true, resonance ratios become a practical clock for the hadronic phase in both heavy-ion and small collision systems, and EPOS4 with UrQMD becomes a quantitative tool for interpreting such measurements. The paper also connects the same machinery to strangeness enhancement, radial flow, and baryon-to-meson ratios.

What carries the argument

The central object is the yield ratio of a short-lived resonance to a stable hadron of similar quark content, read through the exponential decay law $[h^*/h]_{\mathrm{kinetic}} = [h^*/h]_{\mathrm{chemical}} \, e^{-\tau/\tau_{h^*}}$. Choosing ratios such as $K^{*0}/K$ cancels strangeness-related production effects and isolates rescattering in the hadronic phase, converting a measured suppression into a time. The simulations use EPOS4 with a core–corona separation and microcanonical hadronization, plus UrQMD as a hadronic afterburner; toggling UrQMD on and off is what isolates the hadronic-phase signal.

What would settle it

Run the same high-multiplicity pp events through EPOS4 with UrQMD turned off: if $K^{*0}/K$ no longer falls below the minimum-bias pp baseline, the non-zero $\tau$ is a genuine afterburner effect, whereas if the suppression remains, the signal is produced before the hadronic phase and the exponential-decay interpretation would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that switching UrQMD on makes short-lived resonance spectra and yields fall relative to stable hadrons at low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, with suppression ordered roughly by vacuum lifetime ($\rho^0 < \Delta^{++} < K^{*0} < \Sigma^{*\pm} \sim \Lambda^{*} < \Xi^{*0} < \phi$), while the long-lived $\phi$ stays nearly unchanged. It then estimates the hadronic-phase duration $\tau$ from integrated resonance-to-stable ratios using $[h^*/h]_{\mathrm{kinetic}} = [h^*/h]_{\mathrm{chemical}} \, e^{-\tau/\tau_{h^*}}$, taking the result as a lower limit because regeneration is neglected. The extracted $\tau$ increases with charged-particle multiplicity and system size, and it is non-zero, about 0.5–1 fm/c, in high-multiplicity pp collisions. Different resonances give different values of $\tau$, which the paper attributes to regeneration and decay-daughter cross-sections beyond the simple exponential model.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that minimum-bias pp collisions have no hadronic rescattering, so their resonance-to-stable ratios stand in for the undamaged starting values, and if that reference system rescatters decay products, every extracted $\tau$ is shifted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-zero hadronic-phase duration in high-multiplicity pp collisions would mean small collision systems do have a measurable late hadronic stage, not only a hydrodynamical core.
  • The increasing lower-limit $\tau$ with charged-particle multiplicity provides a single curve connecting small and large collision systems, making resonance ratios a system-size clock.
  • The species-dependent $\tau$ values found for $\rho^0$, $K^{*0}$, and $\Lambda^{*}$ imply that regeneration and decay-daughter cross-sections must be modeled explicitly rather than absorbed into a single freeze-out temperature.
  • EPOS4 with UrQMD reproduces the measured suppression order and the $K^{*0}/K$ multiplicity trend, so the same setup can give quantitative predictions for unmeasured resonances such as $\Delta^{++}$ and heavier baryonic states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the minimum-bias pp ratio is assumed to be the no-hadronic-phase reference, the absolute value of $\tau$ is only as reliable as that assumption; the increasing trend with multiplicity would survive, but the 0.5–1 fm/c number is a differential estimate.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same $\tau$ extraction to p–Pb collisions at matched multiplicity; if the paper's picture is right, the resonance ratios should fall on the same curve as pp and Pb–Pb, directly testing multiplicity scaling.
  • The spread among $\rho^0$, $K^{*0}$, and $\Lambda^{*}$ suggests that fitting all three simultaneously with an equation that includes regeneration would yield both a more physical $\tau$ and a handle on resonance–medium cross-sections.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an EPOS4 study of hadronic resonance production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=13.6 TeV and Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.36 TeV, comparing simulations with the UrQMD hadronic afterburner enabled and disabled. It reports pT spectra, resonance-to-stable yield ratios, baryon-to-meson ratios, mean pT versus reduced mass, and strangeness enhancement, and it uses the exponential-decay formula (Eq. 1) to estimate a lower limit for the hadronic phase duration tau from the suppression of rho, K*0, and Lambda* relative to stable hadrons. The main claims are that EPOS4+UrQMD reproduces the qualitative system-size dependence of resonance suppression seen by ALICE, and that tau increases with multiplicity, remaining non-zero at about 0.5-1 fm/c in high-multiplicity pp collisions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a useful model-based diagnostic of the hadronic phase and demonstrates the value of the EPOS4 UrQMD ON/OFF comparison. The strengths are the systematic confrontation with ALICE data, the internal consistency of the suppression ordering with resonance lifetimes, and the absence of parameter fitting in the tau extraction. The main risk is the chemical baseline assumption in Section 3.5, which directly controls the numerical headline claim; because the baseline is taken from minimum-bias pp with UrQMD ON, the extracted tau may be an excess over hadronic rescattering already present in the baseline rather than an absolute hadronic phase duration. The paper flags this assumption but does not test its sensitivity, even though the UrQMD-OFF calculation in the same model provides a ready chemical reference.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.5, Eq. (1)] The chemical reference [h*/h]_chemical is taken from minimum-bias pp collisions simulated with UrQMD ON, despite the stated assumption that no hadronic phase forms in pp. Since the UrQMD ON simulation includes hadronic rescattering, the minimum-bias pp ratio already contains suppression relative to the true chemical value. Under the exponential-decay model, the tau extracted for high-multiplicity pp is therefore tau_high-mult - tau_min-bias, not an absolute hadronic phase duration; this directly affects the headline claim of a non-zero ~0.5-1 fm/c duration in high-multiplicity pp collisions. The authors have the UrQMD-OFF calculation available, which would provide an actual chemical reference, and I request a sensitivity test using that baseline, or a clear report of both interpretations, before the numerical claim is accepted. The current text flags the assumption but provides no quantitative assessment of its impact.
  2. [3.5 vs 3.1/3.4] Assumption (i) of Eq. (1) states that regeneration effects are negligible, but Sections 3.1 and 3.4 attribute the comparable net suppression of Sigma* and Lambda* to substantial regeneration for Sigma*, and state that regeneration contributions follow the order R_{K+p} < R_{K+pi} < R_{Lambda+pi}. The tau extraction uses rho, K*0, and Lambda*, so the assumption may be acceptable, but the paper should justify that this hierarchy makes regeneration negligible for exactly those resonances, or quantify the systematic bias introduced by regeneration. As written, the same paper both relies on and disputes the negligible-regeneration assumption without reconciliation, which weakens the interpretation of tau as a lower limit.
  3. [3.5, Fig. 11] Fig. 11 shows that the extracted tau differs substantially among rho, K*0, and Lambda*, with longer-lived resonances giving larger timescales. If tau were a common hadronic-phase property, all resonances would give the same value within regeneration effects; the spread suggests that the exponential-decay model is incomplete. The paper acknowledges this but does not assess how the central trend of 'tau increases with system size and is non-zero in high-multiplicity pp' depends on the choice of resonance. I recommend adding a systematic variation or stating explicitly that the claim is per-resonance and not a single common phase duration.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The word 'multiplicity' is misspelled as 'multiplicty' in the caption.
  2. [3.3] 'handel' should be 'handle' in 'It is important to properly handel feed-down contribution'.
  3. [3.6] The sentence 'The EPOS4 model with MCE framework, which reproduces the observed behavior seen in the experimental measurements.' is a fragment; it should be rephrased as a complete sentence.
  4. [Section 2, Table 1] There is a formatting glitch in 'T able 1' at the start of the table caption.
  5. [Abstract] In 'lifetimes of a few fm/care', a space is missing between 'fm/c' and 'are'.
  6. [3.5] The central quantitative result would be easier to assess if the extracted tau values and their statistical uncertainties were collected in a table for each resonance and multiplicity class, rather than only shown in Fig. 11.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Chemical baseline for the hadronic-phase lifetime is taken from minimum-bias pp simulated with UrQMD ON, so the extracted tau is a differential excess over the MB-pp hadronic phase rather than an absolute duration; otherwise the derivation is self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.5, Eq. (1) and the paragraph following it]
    "For this calculation, it is further assumed that no hadronic phase forms in pp collisions due to the small system size. Therefore, the yield ratio in minimum bias pp collisions is used as a proxy for [h*/h]_chemical."

    The proxy [h*/h]_chemical is taken from EPOS4 simulations with UrQMD ON, i.e., from the same afterburner that the paper uses to generate hadronic-phase rescattering. Under Eq. (1), if minimum-bias pp has any hadronic phase of duration tau_MB, its UrQMD-ON ratio equals the true chemical ratio times exp(-tau_MB/tau*). Inserting this proxy into Eq. (1) gives exp(-tau_calc/tau*) = exp(-tau_class/tau*)/exp(-tau_MB/tau*), so tau_calc = tau_class - tau_MB. The headline 'non-zero time duration (~0.5-1 fm/c) in high-multiplicity pp' is therefore an excess over the unquantified MB-pp hadronic phase in the same model, not an absolute hadronic-phase duration.

full rationale

The paper does not fit parameters to data; tau is obtained from the exponential decay law, and the UrQMD ON/OFF comparison is a model diagnostic rather than a fitted input. The central suppression trends are checked against independent ALICE measurements, and the EPOS4 model documentation is cited as external support, not as a self-citation chain. The main circularity concern is the chemical baseline in Section 3.5: the minimum-bias pp ratio used as [h*/h]_chemical comes from the same UrQMD-ON simulations that include hadronic afterburner effects, so the extracted tau is algebraically a difference tau_class - tau_MB rather than an absolute hadronic-phase duration if the stated no-hadronic-phase assumption fails. Since the paper explicitly flags the assumption but provides no sensitivity test using its own UrQMD-OFF reference, this is a partial, load-bearing circularity in the headline numerical claim. Because the trend and the model-data comparisons retain independent content, the overall circularity is moderate rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted parameters; it inherits EPOS4's tuned parameters (eta/s, epsilon_H) and relies on several domain assumptions in the tau extraction. The minimum-bias pp chemical baseline is the most fragile input.

free parameters (2)
  • eta/s (specific shear viscosity in EPOS4 core) = 0.08
    EPOS4 model parameter from Ref [21], not fit here; sets hydrodynamic response and collective flow that shapes the baryon-to-meson ratios and <pT> trends.
  • epsilon_H (hadronization energy density) = 0.57 GeV/fm^3
    EPOS4 hadronization hypersurface parameter from Ref [21]; determines where hydrodynamics converts to particles, affecting the hadronic phase and resonance yields.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Exponential decay law [h*/h]_kinetic = [h*/h]_chemical exp(-tau/tau_h*), Eq. 1
    Used in Sec. 3.5 to convert yield-ratio suppression into a hadronic phase lifetime; assumes all loss of short-lived resonance yield is due to decay within the medium.
  • domain assumption Negligible regeneration in the hadronic phase (assumption i in Sec. 3.5)
    Stated in Section 3.5; if regeneration is significant, the extracted tau is a lower limit and the absolute values shift.
  • domain assumption Simultaneous freeze-out for all particle species (assumption ii in Sec. 3.5)
    Stated in Section 3.5; needed for the single exponential decay law to apply to all resonances.
  • ad hoc to paper No hadronic phase forms in minimum-bias pp collisions, used as chemical baseline
    Section 3.5: 'it is further assumed that no hadronic phase forms in pp collisions due to the small system size. Therefore, the yield ratio in minimum bias pp collisions is used as a proxy for [h*/h]_chemical.' This is load-bearing for all tau estimates.
  • domain assumption EPOS4 with UrQMD faithfully represents the late hadronic phase of heavy-ion collisions
    The paper's interpretation of UrQMD ON/OFF differences as physical rescattering/regeneration effects assumes the model's hadronic cascade is realistic; validated qualitatively against ALICE data but not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Examining hadronic resonance dynamics at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: Insights from EPOS4." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2P4BMPMS

@misc{pith2026241205178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Examining hadronic resonance dynamics at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: Insights from EPOS4},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2P4BMPMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05178}
}
abstract

Hadronic resonances, with lifetimes of a few $\mathrm{fm}/c$, are key tools for studying the hadronic phase in high-energy collisions. This work investigates resonance production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13.6~\mathrm{TeV}$ and Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.36~\mathrm{TeV}$ using the EPOS4 model. By switching the Ultra-Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) hadronic afterburner ON or OFF, EPOS4 enables the study of final-state hadronic interactions. The production of strange and non-strange hadrons is also investigated using transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$) spectra and particle ratios to study rescattering, regeneration, baryon-to-meson production, and strangeness enhancement. Rescattering effects and strangeness enhancement dominate the low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ region, while enhanced baryon-to-meson yield ratios and strong mass-dependent radial flow are observed at intermediate $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in central Pb--Pb collisions. The average $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ scaled by the reduced hadron mass deviates from a linear trend for short-lived resonances, indicating hadronic phase effects. The hadronic phase lifetime ($\tau$), estimated from yield ratios of short-lived resonances to stable hadrons, increases with charged-particle multiplicity and system size, while remaining non-zero in high-multiplicity pp collisions. The production of non-strange (p), strange ($\Lambda$), and multi-strange ($\Xi$, $\Omega$) baryons in central Pb--Pb collisions is governed by the competing effects of strangeness enhancement and baryon--antibaryon annihilation. These results provide valuable insights into the hadronic phase and particle production at LHC energies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: The pT spectra of K∗0 and ϕ reso￾nances in the midrapidity region for central (0–10%) and pe￾ripheral (60–80%) Pb–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.36 TeV with EPOS4 in UrQMD ON and UrQMD OFF tunes. The solid lines represent measurements with UrQMD ON while dot￾ted lines represent measurements with UrQMD OFF. Lower panel: The pT-differential yield ratios of K∗0 and ϕ for UrQMD ON to UrQMD OFF tunes. The bands … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel: The pT spectra of K∗0 and ϕ res￾onances in the midrapidity region for high multiplciity (0– 1%) and low multiplciity (70–100%) in pp collisions at √ s = 13.6 TeV with EPOS4 in UrQMD ON and UrQMD OFF tunes. The solid lines represent measurements with UrQMD ON while dotted lines represent measurements with UrQMD OFF. Lower panel: The pT-differential yield ratios of K∗0 and ϕ for UrQMD ON to UrQMD OFF tune… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: The pT-differential ratios K∗0 /K (left) and ϕ/K (right) in the central (0–10%) and peripheral (60–80%) Pb–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.36 TeV and also in the high multiplicity (0-1%) pp collisions at √ s = 13.6 TeV with UrQMD. Lower panel: The comparison of…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison of pT-differential ratios ρ 0 /π, K∗0 /K, ϕ/K, ∆++/p, Λ∗ /Λ, Ξ∗0 /Ξ − and Σ∗±/Λ in the central (0– 10%, left) and peripheral (60–80%, right) Pb–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.36 TeV to the high multiplicity (0-1%) pp collisions at √ s = 13.6 TeV with UrQMD. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: for the most central collisions, where a clear mass￾dependent trend is observed. Radial flow boosts low￾momentum particles to intermediate pT, with a more pronounced effect for heavier particles. To further investigate whether the enhancement at intermediate pT arises …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The pT-differential ratios p/ϕ, p/π and p/K∗0 in the central Pb–Pb collisions with ALICE at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV (markers) and using EPOS4 model with UrQMD (solid lines) and without UrQMD (dotted lines) at √ sNN = 5.36 TeV. The bars and boxes in the ALICE measurements rep￾…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average transverse momentum of protons, mesonic resonances (ρ 0 , K∗0 , and ϕ) and baryonic resonances (Σ∗±, Λ∗ Ξ ∗0 ) as a function of charged particle multiplicity density at intermediate-rapidity. Markers indicate ALICE measurements in pp system at √ s = 2.76 TeV (o…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The average transverse momentum of hadrons in the midrapidity region plotted as a function of the hadron mass, scaled by the number of valence quarks, in high multiplicity (0-1%) pp collisions at √ s = 13.6 TeV (left panel) and in central (0-10%) Pb–Pb collisions at √ …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel shows the ratios of mesonic resonances to stable mesons yield while the right panel shows the ratios of baryonic resonances to stable baryons yield. Different markers represent ALICE results in pp collisions at √ sNN = 13 TeV (solid triangles) [3, 4] and √ …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lower limit on the lifetime of the hadronic phase between chemical and kinetic freeze-outs in Pb–Pb collisions across different V0M multiplicity classes, obtained from yield ratios: Λ∗ /Λ at √ sNN = 2.76 TeV (magenta markers) [12], K ∗0 /K at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV (red mar…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left panel shows the ratios of proton, strange and multi-strange hadrons while the right panel shows the ratios of hadronic resonances, normalized to pions yield. Different markers represent ALICE results in pp collisions at √ sNN = 13 TeV (solid circles) [3, 4, 39, 4…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Particle yield ratios to proton, normalized to the values measured inelastic pp collisions, as predicted by the EPOS4 model with UrQMD. The results are shown for ∆++ and multi-strange baryons in Pb–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.36 TeV and in pp collisions at √ s =13.6 Te…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Investigation of hadronic effects on resonance productions in small collision systems using the EPOS4 model

    nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In EPOS4, resonance yields and mean transverse momenta are governed by a species-dependent balance between hadronic rescattering and regeneration even in pp, p-O, and O-O collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. W. Harris and B. Muller, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.46, 71 (1996),hep-ph/9602235

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C84, 813 (2024),2211.04384

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B807, 135501 (2020),1910.14397

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Multiplicity-dependent production of $\Sigma(1385)^{\pm}$ and $\Xi(1530)^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), JHEP05, 317 (2024), 2308.16116

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Production of the $\rho$(770)${^{0}}$ meson in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C99, 064901 (2019),1805.04365

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Measurement of $\Lambda$(1520) production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV and p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 160 (2020),1909.00486

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B802, 135225 (2020),1910.14419

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 351 (2023),2205.13998

    arXiv 2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 132301 (2006),nucl-ex/0604019

    2006 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C71, 064902 (2005),nucl-ex/0412019

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gaudichet (STAR), J

    L. Gaudichet (STAR), J. Phys. G30, S549 (2004), nucl-ex/0307013

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C99, 024905 (2019),1805.04361

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C106, 034907 (2022),2106.13113

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C107, 055201 (2023),2110.10042

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C72, 064901 (2005),nucl-th/0411110

    2005 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Oliinychenko and C

    D. Oliinychenko and C. Shen, arXiv preprint (2021), [hep-ph],2105.07539

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Motornenko, V

    A. Motornenko, V. Vovchenko, C. Greiner, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. C102, 024909 (2020), 1908.11730

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Stein- heimer, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C104, 054907 (2021),2102.06797

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Stein- heimer, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C93, 014911 (2016),1509.07895

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430044 (2014),1402.4476

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Werner, Phys

    K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C109, 014910 (2024),2306. 10277

    2024

  14. [22]

    V. N. Gribov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53, 654 (1967)

    1967

  15. [23]

    V. N. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP29, 483 (1969)

    1969

  16. [24]

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

    1972

  17. [25]

    V. A. Abramovsky, V. N. Gribov, and O. V. Kancheli, Yad. Fiz.18, 595 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    Altarelli and G

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

    1977

  19. [27]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641 (1977)

    1977

  20. [28]

    L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept.100, 1 (1983)

    1983

  21. [29]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3352 (1994),hep-ph/9311205

    1994 arXiv

  22. [30]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2233 (1994),hep-ph/9309289

    1994 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kovner, L

    A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D52, 3809 (1995),hep-ph/9505320

    1995 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D54, 5463 (1996), hep-ph/9605446

    1996 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C92, 034906 (2015), 1306.0121. 20

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Werner, Phys

    K. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 152301 (2007), 0704.1270

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Werner, I

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher, and K. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. C82, 044904 (2010), 1004.0805

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Werner, B

    K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, Phys. Rev. C89, 064903 (2014),1312.1233

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bleicher et al., J

    M. Bleicher et al., J. Phys. G25, 1859 (1999), hep-ph/9909407

    1999 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C101, 044907 (2020),1910.07678

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C81, 256 (2021),2005.11120

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 202303 (2003),nucl-th/ 0301087

    2003

  33. [41]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 693 (2020),2003.02394

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C76, 245 (2016),1601.07868

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 167 (2020),1908.01861

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C91, 024609 (2015),1404.0495

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Seifert and W

    E. Seifert and W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. C97, 024913 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.97.024913

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.