Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Predictions for Identified Hadron ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$ and $p(\overline{p})$) Production and Collective Dynamics in Oxygen-Oxygen Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 7 TeV with EPOS4, AMPT-SM, and Angantyr in Pythia 8

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that in oxygen–oxygen collisions at 7 TeV, the three main generator families can be ranked by the strength of the collective radial flow they produce, with EPOS4's full hydrodynamics strongest, AMPT-SM intermediate, and…

desk verdict A useful three-generator benchmark for O+O, but the flow ranking is inferred, not isolated, and Table I has a real internal inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07435 v1 pith:SOJ363J6 submitted 2025-05-12 hep-ph

Rabia Bashir , Ramoona Shehzadi , M. U. Ashraf , A. M. Khan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords oxygen-oxygencollisionsidentifiedhadronspectracollectiveradialflowEPOS4AMPTstringmeltingAngantyrmodelBjorkenenergydensityparticleratios
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

Predictions for identified hadron production in $\mathrm{O}+\mathrm{O}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 7$ TeV are made with three generators: EPOS4, AMPT-SM, and Angantyr in Pythia 8. The paper's central claim is that the differences between them—flatter $p_T$ spectra for heavier hadrons, larger $K/\pi$ and $p/\pi$ ratios at intermediate $p_T$, and higher Bjorken energy density—are driven by the strength of collective radial flow, strongest in EPOS4's hydrodynamics, moderate in AMPT-SM, and weakest in Pythia 8. It also claims that all three models exceed the lattice-QCD critical energy density in central collisions, a hint that QGP signals should be observable in oxygen–oxygen collisions at LHC energies. If these predictions are right, the upcoming oxygen–oxygen data will act as a model discriminator and constrain the generators' parameters.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-way generator comparison built on two probes of radial flow: the $p_T$ spectra of pions, kaons, and protons, and the $p_T$-differential $K/\pi$ and $p/\pi$ ratios. The named models are EPOS4 (a Gribov–Regge multiple-scattering framework whose core–corona prescription sends dense string segments through hydrodynamics and a hadronic cascade), AMPT-SM (a transport model whose string-melting version converts hadrons to partons, runs a parton cascade, and recombines via quark coalescence), and Angantyr in Pythia 8 (a Glauber-based stacking of $pp$-like sub-collisions with no collective phase). The Bjorken formula converts measured transverse energy into an initial energy density and is used to compare the models against the lattice-QCD critical density. The argument works by attributing the systematic ordering of spectra, ratios, and energy densities across the three generators to the strength of collective flow each mechanism generates.

What would settle it

Measure the proton-to-pion ratio at mid-rapidity in 0–5% central oxygen–oxygen collisions at 7 TeV. If the ratio at intermediate $p_T$ (roughly 1.5–3 GeV/c) stays as flat and low as Angantyr/Pythia 8 predicts, the claim that EPOS4's full hydrodynamic flow is significantly more effective is contradicted; if the ratio follows EPOS4, the no-flow baseline is excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a predicted ordering of the three generator families for oxygen–oxygen collisions at 7 TeV. EPOS4, which combines core–corona separation with full hydrodynamic evolution and a hadronic cascade, produces the flattest proton $p_T$ spectra and the steepest rise of $K/\pi$ and $p/\pi$ ratios at intermediate $p_T$, signatures the authors read as strong radial flow. AMPT-SM, with its string-melting partonic cascade and coalescence hadronization, sits between EPOS4 and Pythia 8, while Angantyr/Pythia 8, which stacks $pp$-like sub-collisions without a collective phase, produces the softest spectra and lowest ratios. The same ordering appears in the Bjorken energy density, where EPOS4 gives the highest values and all models remain above the lattice-QCD threshold for deconfinement. The authors conclude that the models' flow implementations, not just their particle-production details, will be distinguishable once oxygen–oxygen data arrive.

Load-bearing premise

The comparisons of spectra and ratios are interpreted as measuring collective flow strength, but the same differences could in principle come from the generators' independent treatments of initial geometry, string fragmentation, strangeness production, or hadronization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Upcoming LHC oxygen–oxygen data at 7 TeV should separate the generator families: if the proton $p_T$ spectrum is flat and the $p/\pi$ ratio rises markedly at intermediate $p_T$, the hydrodynamic description is favored over the no-flow baseline.
  • The $K/\pi$ ratio at intermediate $p_T$ is a direct test of strangeness enhancement: EPOS4 and AMPT-SM predict a stronger rise than Pythia 8, so data can indicate whether in-medium strange-quark production is needed even in a small system.
  • Because all three models sit above the lattice-QCD critical energy density in central collisions, the paper predicts that QGP-like signals in oxygen–oxygen collisions should not be suppressed by lack of energy density; absence of such signals would challenge the threshold interpretation.
  • The comparison with existing pp, p+Pb, and Pb+Pb data shows that none of the models reproduces the proton mean $p_T$ in p+Pb, so proton observables in oxygen–oxygen collisions are the most discriminating place to constrain hadronic transport and coalescence treatments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not explore the possibility that the same observable ordering could arise from differences in strangeness suppression or hadronization rather than from flow; a control simulation that fixes particle chemistry across the three generators would separate these effects.
  • Their flow ranking implies a direct elliptic-flow prediction: if full hydrodynamics is the operative mechanism, EPOS4's $v_2(p_T)$ should exceed AMPT-SM's for the same centrality; the paper does not compute $v_2$, but that is a testable consequence.
  • The claim that all models sit above the lattice-QCD threshold rests on the chosen formation time $\tau = 1$ fm/c; scanning smaller formation times would show how robust the QGP-signal hint is, since the Bjorken estimate diverges as $\tau \to 0$.
  • If the measured proton-to-pion ratio lands between AMPT-SM and EPOS4, the natural reading is partial thermalization in a small system; extending the same comparison to proton–oxygen collisions, where the initial geometry is even more dilute, would sharpen that conclusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Monte Carlo comparison of identified hadron production (π±, K±, p/p̄) and collective-dynamics observables in O+O collisions at √sNN = 7 TeV using EPOS4, AMPT in string-melting mode, and Pythia8 with the Angantyr model. It reports centrality-dependent dNch/dη, transverse-momentum spectra, dN/dy, ⟨mT⟩, K/π and p/π ratios, ⟨pT⟩ as a function of mass, and Bjorken energy density. The central conclusion is that the three models display a hierarchy of collective-flow strength: EPOS4 has the strongest hydrodynamic flow, AMPT-SM is intermediate, and Pythia8 has the weakest flow; the authors argue that upcoming LHC O+O data will help constrain the generators.

Significance. The paper's value lies in providing independent, non-tuned predictions from three widely used event generators for a collision system that the LHC is expected to measure. The statistics are large (1.5–5 million events per generator), and no parameter is fitted to the target observables, so the comparison has a genuine benchmark character. If the flow hierarchy is correct, future data will discriminate between the generators' treatments of collective dynamics. However, the current analysis does not yet establish the claimed hierarchy rigorously: the observables shown are degenerate between flow and hadronization/initial-state effects, and one observable (⟨pT⟩ for protons) points opposite to the claimed EPOS4/AMPT ordering.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I] Table I lists non-monotonic centrality dependence for EPOS4: the 20–30% value of ⟨dNch/dη⟩ is 72.190±0.013, identical to the Pythia 8 entry at the same centrality, and the 30–40% value (75.086±0.026) exceeds the 20–30% value. This is unphysical for a centrality-ordered observable and suggests a transcription or event-selection error. Because the centrality classes are used throughout the centrality-dependent results (Figs. 1–4) and in the Bjorken energy density in Sec. III.A, this error propagates into several conclusions and must be corrected before publication.
  2. [Sec. III.B–D and Fig. 5] The central claim that EPOS4's hydrodynamic flow is 'significantly more effective' than AMPT-SM's is not uniquely established by the presented observables. In Fig. 5, the mean transverse momentum of protons in 0–5% central collisions is equal or slightly higher for AMPT-SM than for EPOS4, which runs opposite to the expected ordering if EPOS4 had stronger radial flow. Section III.C itself concedes that the K/π and p/π differences could reflect 'more pronounced radial flow or different hadronization dynamics.' Because spectral slopes and particle ratios are degenerate between flow strength and hadronization/strangeness mechanisms, the paper should either add a direct flow-sensitive observable (e.g., harmonic flow coefficients or a quantitative mass-splitting analysis) or a controlled model comparison (e.g., hydro on/off) to support the stated ranking, or it should soften the abstract's claim to reflect the degeneracy.
  3. [Sec. II (Event Generators)] The manuscript does not specify the exact versions of EPOS4, AMPT, and Pythia/Angantyr used, nor the key parameter values (for example, the nuclear radius parameter R0 entering Eq. (2), the formation time τ in Eq. (1), and any generator-specific settings such as parton cross section or hydro parameters). The paper's stated purpose is to provide predictions that the upcoming LHC O+O data can test; without these details the predictions cannot be reproduced or meaningfully compared. In addition, the centrality definition is stated in Sec. II.C as using charged-particle multiplicity at |y|<0.5, whereas Table I reports |η|<0.5; this inconsistency must be clarified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) appears to have a typographical error: the left-hand side is written as dET/dy, but the equation is meant to give εBj; please correct this and ensure the exponent of (Npart/2) is presented unambiguously so that it matches the definition ST = πR0² (Npart/2)^(2/3) in Eq. (2).
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'multipilicty' in Sec. II.C, 'throuout' in Sec. III, 'strongs' in Conclusions, 'T ransport' and 'T ransverse' in section headers, and inconsistent spelling of 'Pythia/Angantyar' in figures and text.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The formation time is given as 'τ = 1' without units; state explicitly that it is 1 fm/c, since the numerical value of εBj depends directly on this choice.
  4. [Fig. 2] The lattice QCD threshold εc from Ref. [59] is not quoted numerically; including its value would make the comparison in Fig. 2 more quantitative and would let the reader judge whether the peripheral points indeed lie above the threshold.
  5. [Fig. 5 and Sec. III.D] The figure legend appears to mislabel the ALICE data: the symbols labeled 'p+p' at 5.02 TeV should presumably be 'p+Pb' at 5.02 TeV and those labeled 'p+Pb' at 2.76 TeV should be 'Pb+Pb' at 2.76 TeV, matching the references cited in the text. Also, the sentence 'none of the model explain the ⟨pT⟩ of protons' has a subject–verb agreement error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No formal circularity: all three generators are external and no parameter is fitted to the target observables; the flow ranking is an interpretation of simulation output, not a derivation. The score reflects minor self-citations and a mild conceptual circularity in the EPOS4 flow interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's predictions are raw outputs of three external, independently developed event generators (EPOS4, AMPT-SM, and Pythia 8/Angantyr); no parameter is fitted to any target observable in this work, and the central observables (pT spectra, ratios, mean pT, multiplicity, and Bjorken energy density) are computed from the generators' default dynamics rather than derived from the conclusions. The self-citations, Refs. [19] and [20], are prior O+O studies by overlapping authors, but they are used only contextually (e.g., 'suggesting stronger radial flow [20]') and are not load-bearing for any uniqueness claim or to forbid alternative interpretations. The main interpretive step, attributing flatter proton spectra and enhanced K/pi and p/pi ratios to radial flow, is physically plausible but not a circular identity; indeed the paper itself concedes in Sec. III.C that the ratios could reflect 'more pronounced radial flow or different hadronization dynamics.' There is a mild conceptual circularity in concluding that EPOS4, which contains a hydrodynamic module by construction, exhibits the strongest flow, but that is a design consequence rather than an equation-level reduction. Separately, Table I contains an internal inconsistency (EPOS4 20-30% multiplicity identical to Pythia 8's value, and EPOS4 30-40% exceeding 20-30%), and Sec. III.D admits that none of the models explain proton mean pT; these are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces two explicit numerical choices for the energy-density estimate (tau=1 fm/c and an unstated R0) and relies on five domain assumptions about the applicability of the Bjorken formula, the centrality-to-Npart mapping, and the interpretation of spectral differences as flow. The many internal parameters of EPOS4, AMPT, and Pythia are inherited from the cited model papers and are not re-fit here; they are not counted as free parameters but their unreported settings limit reproducibility.

free parameters (2)
  • R0 (nuclear radius parameter)
    Appears in Eq. (2) for the transverse overlap area S_T; no numerical value is provided, yet absolute epsilon_BJ values scale with 1/R0^2.
  • Formation time tau = 1 fm/c
    Chosen by hand in Section III.A to regularize the Bjorken formula; epsilon_BJ scales as 1/tau, so this conventional choice controls the absolute normalization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bjorken boost-invariant formula (epsilon_BJ = (1/(tau S_T)) dE_T/dy) is a valid estimator for O+O collisions.
    Invoked in Eq. (1) without discussion of whether a small, short-lived O+O system satisfies boost invariance at the formation time.
  • domain assumption Transverse overlap area is given by S_T = pi R0^2 (Npart/2)^(2/3) with A = Npart/2.
    Eq. (2) uses this mapping from Npart to area; the paper does not describe how Npart is obtained from the centrality selection or what R0 is.
  • domain assumption Centrality classes defined separately by each model's charged multiplicity at |y|<0.5 correspond to comparable physical selections.
    Table I lists centrality bins per model; comparing models at the same percentile assumes the multiplicity ranking in each model selects similar impact-parameter ranges, which is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Differences in pT spectra and particle ratios across models are dominated by collective-flow strength rather than by other model differences (initial state, hadronization, strangeness production).
    Sections III.B and III.C attribute flatter proton spectra and enhanced K/pi and p/pi to radial flow; this is the paper's interpretive premise and is not tested against alternative explanations.
  • domain assumption The generated samples faithfully represent the physics of EPOS4, AMPT-SM, and Pythia8/Angantyr as intended by their authors.
    No version numbers, tune identifiers, or parameter listings are given, so the paper relies on an implicit assumption that the runs are correctly configured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictions for Identified Hadron ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$ and $p(\overline{p})$) Production and Collective Dynamics in Oxygen-Oxygen Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 7 TeV with EPOS4, AMPT-SM, and Angantyr in Pythia 8." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SOJ363J6

@misc{pith2026250507435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictions for Identified Hadron ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$ and $p(\overlinep)$) Production and Collective Dynamics in Oxygen-Oxygen Collisions at $\sqrts_NN$= 7 TeV with EPOS4, AMPT-SM, and Angantyr in Pythia 8},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SOJ363J6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07435}
}
abstract

We study the dynamics of identified hadrons ($\pi^\pm$, $K^\pm$ and $p(\overline{p})$) production in $O+O$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 7$TeV using recently updated version of EPOS4, string melting version of A Multi-Phase Transport Model (AMPT-SM) and Angantyr model, incorporated within Pythia 8. We examine the interplay between different mechanisms implemented in these models. Predictions for charged particle multiplicity ($dN_{ch}/d\eta$), transverse momentum ($p_T$) spectra of identified hadrons, particle yield ($dN/dy$) and mean transverse mass ($\langle m_T \rangle$) are presented. To probe the collective behavior of the produced particles, the $p_T$-differential kaons-to-pion and proton-to-pion ratios are studied. While AMPT incorporates some flow effects, EPOS4's implementation of full hydrodynamic flow proves significantly more effective. In contrast, the flow effects in Pythia 8 are substantially weaker compared to the other models. The upcoming $O+O$ data from the LHC will help constrain the parameters of these models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07435 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The centrality dependence of integrated yields ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Centrality dependence of Bjorken [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) The transverse momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Mean Transverse momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, “Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 339–376, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    The Quark Gluon Plasma and relativistic heavy ion collisions in the LHC era

    F. Becattini, “The Quark Gluon Plasma and relativistic heavy ion collisions in the LHC era”,J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 527 (2014) 012012

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, “The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics”, Nature 443 (2006) 675–678, arXiv:hep-lat/0611014

    arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123–151, arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adamet al., “Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions”, Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 535–539, arXiv:1606.07424 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Evidence for collectivity in pp collisions at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryanet al., “Evidence for collectivity in pp collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 193–220, arXiv:1606.06198 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Observation of a "Ridge" correlation structure in high multiplicity proton-proton collisions: A brief review

    W. Li, “Observation of a ’Ridge’ correlation structure in high multiplicity proton-proton collisions: A brief review”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27 (2012) 1230018, arXiv:1206.0148 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Long-range angular correlations ofπ, K and p in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelevet al., “Long-range angular correlations ofπ, K and p in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B 726 (2013) 164–177, arXiv:1307.3237 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    The ’Ridge’ in Proton-Proton Scattering at 7 TeV

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, “The ’Ridge’ in Proton-Proton Scattering at 7 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 122004, arXiv:1011.0375 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Evidence for hydrodynamic evolution in proton-proton scattering at 900 GeV

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher, and K. Mikhailov, “Evidence for hydrodynamic evolution in proton-proton scattering at 900 GeV”,Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044915, arXiv:1010.0400 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, “Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC”, in Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC . 3,

  4. [12]

    Glauber Monte Carlo predictions for ultrarelativistic collisions with 16O

    M. Rybczyński and W. Broniowski, “Glauber Monte Carlo predictions for ultrarelativistic collisions with 16O”, Phys. Rev. C 100 no. 6, (2019) 064912, arXiv:1910.09489 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Exploring New Small System Geometries in Heavy Ion Collisions

    S. H. Lim, J. Carlson, C. Loizides, D. Lonardoni, J. E. Lynn, J. L. Nagle, J. D. Orjuela Koop, and J. Ouellette, “Exploring New Small System Geometries in Heavy Ion Collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 99 no. 4, (2019) 044904, arXiv:1812.08096 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    CERN Large Hadron Collider system size scan predictions for PbPb, XeXe, ArAr, and OO with relativistic hydrodynamics

    M. D. Sievert and J. Noronha-Hostler, “CERN Large Hadron Collider system size scan predictions for PbPb, XeXe, ArAr, and OO with relativistic hydrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. C 100 no. 2, (2019) 024904, arXiv:1901.01319 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Disentangling contributions to small-system collectivity via scans of light nucleus-nucleus collisions

    S. Huang, Z. Chen, J. Jia, and W. Li, “Disentangling contributions to small-system collectivity via scans of light nucleus-nucleus collisions”,Phys. Rev. C 101 no. 2, (2020) 021901,arXiv:1904.10415 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, “Running the gamut of high energy nuclear collisions”,Phys. Rev. C 102 no. 4, (2020) 044905,arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jet quenching from heavy to light ion collisions

    B. G. Zakharov, “Jet quenching from heavy to light ion collisions”, JHEP 09 (2021) 087, arXiv:2105.09350 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Predicting parton energy loss in small collision systems

    A. Huss, A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, R. Paatelainen, W. van der Schee, and U. A. Wiedemann, “Predicting parton energy loss in small collision systems”,Phys. Rev. C 103 no. 5, (2021) 054903,arXiv:2007.13758 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dynamics of identified particles production in oxygen–oxygen collisions at√sNN = 7 TeV using EPOS4

    A. M. Khan, M. U. Ashraf, H. M. Alfanda, and M. U. Aslam, “Dynamics of identified particles production in oxygen–oxygen collisions at√sNN = 7 TeV using EPOS4”, Eur. Phys. J. A 60 no. 10, (2024) 207, arXiv:2402.13843 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Multiplicity dependence of (multi)strange hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at√sNN = 7 TeV using EPOS4 and AMPT

    M. U. Ashraf, A. M. Khan, J. Singh, G. Nigmatkulov, H. Roch, and S. Kabana, “Multiplicity dependence of (multi)strange hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at√sNN = 7 TeV using EPOS4 and AMPT”, arXiv:2406.04096 [hep-ph]

  13. [21]

    Multiplicity Dependence of p(T) Spectrum as a Possible Signal for a Phase Transition in Hadronic Collisions

    L. Van Hove, “Multiplicity Dependence of p(T) Spectrum as a Possible Signal for a Phase Transition in Hadronic Collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 118 (1982) 138

    1982

  14. [22]

    A Multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, “A Multi-phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901, arXiv:nucl-th/0411110

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Predictions for√sN N = 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb Collisions from a Multi-Phase Transport Model

    G.-L. Ma and Z.-W. Lin, “Predictions for√sN N = 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb Collisions from a Multi-Phase Transport Model”, Phys. Rev. C 93 no. 5, (2016) 054911, arXiv:1601.08160 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The Angantyr model for Heavy-Ion Collisions in PYTHIA8

    C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. Lönnblad, and H. Shah, “The Angantyr model for Heavy-Ion Collisions in PYTHIA8”, JHEP 10 (2018) 134, arXiv:1806.10820 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Producing Hard Processes Regarding the Complete Event: The EPOS Event Generator

    S. Porteboeuf, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, “Producing Hard Processes Regarding the Complete Event: The EPOS Event Generator”, in45th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions , pp. 135–140. Gioi Publishers, 2010. arXiv:1006.2967 [hep-ph] . 9

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Perturbative QCD concerning light and heavy flavor in the EPOS4 framework

    K. Werner and B. Guiot, “Perturbative QCD concerning light and heavy flavor in the EPOS4 framework”, Phys. Rev. C 108 no. 3, (2023) 034904, arXiv:2306.02396 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Revealing a deep connection between factorization and saturation: New insight into modeling high-energy proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus scattering in the EPOS4 framework

    K. Werner, “Revealing a deep connection between factorization and saturation: New insight into modeling high-energy proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus scattering in the EPOS4 framework”,Phys. Rev. C 108 no. 6, (2023) 064903,arXiv:2301.12517 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Core-corona procedure and microcanonical hadronization to understand strangeness enhancement in proton-proton and heavy ion collisions in the EPOS4 framework

    K. Werner, “Core-corona procedure and microcanonical hadronization to understand strangeness enhancement in proton-proton and heavy ion collisions in the EPOS4 framework”, Phys. Rev. C 109 no. 1, (2024) 014910, arXiv:2306.10277 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    K. Werner, “Parallel scattering, saturation, and generalized Abramovskii-Gribov-Kancheli (AGK) theorem in the EPOS4 framework, with applications for heavy-ion collisions at sNN of 5.02 TeV and 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. C 109 no. 3, (2024) 034918, arXiv:2310.09380 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Heavy ion collisions from sNN of 62.4 GeV down to 7.7 GeV in the EPOS4 framework

    K. Werner, J. Jahan, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Stefaniak, and D. Vintache, “Heavy ion collisions from sNN of 62.4 GeV down to 7.7 GeV in the EPOS4 framework”, Phys. Rev. C 111 no. 1, (2025) 014903, arXiv:2401.11275 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in p p, p A and A A collisions”, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501–3516

    1991

  24. [32]

    ZPC 1.0.1: A Parton cascade for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions

    B. Zhang, “ZPC 1.0.1: A Parton cascade for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions”,Comput. Phys. Commun. 109 (1998) 193–206, arXiv:nucl-th/9709009

    1998 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Formation of superdense hadronic matter in high-energy heavy ion collisions

    B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, “Formation of superdense hadronic matter in high-energy heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 2037–2063, arXiv:nucl-th/9505016

    1995 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Partonic effects on the elliptic flow at RHIC

    Z.-w. Lin and C. M. Ko, “Partonic effects on the elliptic flow at RHIC”,Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002) 034904, arXiv:nucl-th/0108039

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Elliptic and triangular flow in p+Pb and peripheral Pb+Pb collisions from parton scatterings

    A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, “Elliptic and triangular flow in p+Pb and peripheral Pb+Pb collisions from parton scatterings”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 no. 25, (2014) 252301, arXiv:1406.2804 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Long-range azimuthal correlations in proton–proton and proton–nucleus collisions from the incoherent scattering of partons

    G.-L. Ma and A. Bzdak, “Long-range azimuthal correlations in proton–proton and proton–nucleus collisions from the incoherent scattering of partons”, Phys. Lett. B 739 (2014) 209–213, arXiv:1404.4129 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Color transparency, color opacity, and fluctuations in nuclear collisions

    H. Heiselberg, G. Baym, B. Blaettel, L. L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, “Color transparency, color opacity, and fluctuations in nuclear collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 2946–2949

    1991

  31. [39]

    Hadronic cross-section fluctuations

    B. Blaettel, G. Baym, L. L. Frankfurt, H. Heiselberg, and M. Strikman, “Hadronic cross-section fluctuations”, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2761–2772

    1993

  32. [40]

    Color fluctuation effects in proton-nucleus collisions

    M. Alvioli and M. Strikman, “Color fluctuation effects in proton-nucleus collisions”,Phys. Lett. B 722 (2013) 347–354, arXiv:1301.0728 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Revealing “flickering

    M. Alvioli, L. Frankfurt, V. Guzey, and M. Strikman, “Revealing “flickering” of the interaction strength in pA collisions at the CERN LHC”,Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 034914, arXiv:1402.2868 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Evidence forx-dependent proton color fluctuations in pA collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    M. Alvioli, B. A. Cole, L. Frankfurt, D. V. Perepelitsa, and M. Strikman, “Evidence forx-dependent proton color fluctuations in pA collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, Phys. Rev. C 93 no. 1, (2016) 011902, arXiv:1409.7381 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Energy conservation and saturation in small-x evolution

    E. Avsar, G. Gustafson, and L. Lonnblad, “Energy conservation and saturation in small-x evolution”,JHEP 07 (2005) 062, arXiv:hep-ph/0503181

    2005 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Small-x dipole evolution beyond the large-N(c) imit

    E. Avsar, G. Gustafson, and L. Lonnblad, “Small-x dipole evolution beyond the large-N(c) imit”,JHEP 01 (2007) 012, arXiv:hep-ph/0610157

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Inclusive and Exclusive Observables from Dipoles in High Energy Collisions

    C. Flensburg, G. Gustafson, and L. Lonnblad, “Inclusive and Exclusive Observables from Dipoles in High Energy Collisions”,JHEP 08 (2011) 103, arXiv:1103.4321 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, 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

  39. [47]

    A Model for Low p(t) Hadronic Reactions, with Generalizations to Hadron - Nucleus and Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. Nilsson-Almqvist, “A Model for Low p(t) Hadronic Reactions, with Generalizations to Hadron - Nucleus and Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions”, Nucl. Phys. B 281 (1987) 289–309

    1987

  40. [48]

    Multiplicity Distributions in Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions at High-Energies

    A. Bialas, M. Bleszynski, and W. Czyz, “Multiplicity Distributions in Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions at High-Energies”, Nucl. Phys. B 111 (1976) 461–476

    1976

  41. [49]

    Centrality and pseudorapidity dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density in Xe–Xe collisions at√sNN =5.44TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Centrality and pseudorapidity dependence of the charged-particle multiplicity density in Xe–Xe collisions at√sNN =5.44TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 35–48, arXiv:1805.04432 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Parton based Gribov-Regge theory

    H. J. Drescher, M. Hladik, S. Ostapchenko, T. Pierog, and K. Werner, “Parton based Gribov-Regge theory”, Phys. Rept. 350 (2001) 93–289, arXiv:hep-ph/0007198

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Strings, pomerons, and the venus model of hadronic interactions at ultrarelativistic energies

    K. Werner, “Strings, pomerons, and the venus model of hadronic interactions at ultrarelativistic energies”,Phys. Rept. 232 (1993) 87–299

    1993

  44. [52]

    Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions

    K. Werner, “Core-corona separation in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 152301, arXiv:0704.1270 [nucl-th]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Event-by-Event Simulation of the Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Evolution from Flux Tube Initial Conditions in Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher, and K. Mikhailov, “Event-by-Event Simulation of the Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Evolution from Flux Tube Initial Conditions in Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 044904, arXiv:1004.0805 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Analysing radial flow features in p-Pb and p-p collisions at several TeV by studying identified particle production in EPOS3

    K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, and T. Pierog, “Analysing radial flow features in p-Pb and p-p collisions at several TeV by studying identified particle production in EPOS3”,Phys. Rev. C 89 no. 6, (2014) 064903, arXiv:1312.1233 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Werner, B

    K. Werner, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, G. Sophys, and M. Stefaniak, “Epos”,EPJ Web Conf. 208 (2019) 11005

    2019

  48. [56]

    Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: The Central Rapidity Region

    J. D. Bjorken, “Highly Relativistic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: The Central Rapidity Region”,Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 140–151

    1983

  49. [57]

    Measurement of transverse energy at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adamet al., “Measurement of transverse energy at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at√sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 94 no. 3, (2016) 034903, arXiv:1603.04775 [nucl-ex] . 10

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Systematic Measurements of Identified Particle Spectra inpp,d + Au and Au+Au Collisions from STAR

    ST ARCollaboration, B. I. Abelevet al., “Systematic Measurements of Identified Particle Spectra inpp,d + Au and Au+Au Collisions from STAR”,Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 034909, arXiv:0808.2041 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Lattice results on QCD thermodynamics

    F. Karsch, “Lattice results on QCD thermodynamics”, Nucl. Phys. A 698 (2002) 199–208, arXiv:hep-ph/0103314

    2002 arXiv

  52. [60]

    An overview of the experimental study of quark-gluon matter in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions

    A. Andronic, “An overview of the experimental study of quark-gluon matter in high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430047, arXiv:1407.5003 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy”,Nature 561 no. 7723, (2018) 321–330,arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Influence of modified light-flavor hadron spectra on particle yields in the statistical hadronization model

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, D. Gündüz, Y. Kirchhoff, M. K. Köhler, J. Stachel, and M. Winn, “Influence of modified light-flavor hadron spectra on particle yields in the statistical hadronization model”, Nucl. Phys. A 1010 (2021) 122176, arXiv:2011.03826 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Production of pions, kaons and protons inpp collisions at√s = 900 GeV with ALICE at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodtet al., “Production of pions, kaons and protons inpp collisions at√s = 900 GeV with ALICE at the LHC”,Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1655, arXiv:1101.4110 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Measurement of pion, kaon and proton production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adamet al., “Measurement of pion, kaon and proton production in proton–proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 no. 5, (2015) 226, arXiv:1504.00024 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, J. Adamet al., “Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 720–735, arXiv:1601.03658 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Centrality dependence ofπ, K, p production in Pb-Pb collisions at√sN N = 2.76 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelevet al., “Centrality dependence ofπ, K, p production in Pb-Pb collisions at√sN N = 2.76 TeV”,Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 044910, arXiv:1303.0737 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [2021]

    arXiv:2103.01939 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.