Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Open-Flavor Heavy Hadron Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In heavy-ion collisions, double-heavy tetraquarks $T_{QQ'}$ are shown to be produced as abundantly as double-heavy baryons $\Xi_{QQ'}$, and chiral restoration gives $N_{\Lambda_c}/N_{D^0}=0.98$ at RHIC, consistent with STAR.

desk verdict A genuine unified coalescence calculation with realistic wave functions, but the absolute normalization and a Table II typo keep the quantitative claims from being as strong as the text suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07090 v1 pith:NXQYFQNQ submitted 2025-06-08 hep-ph

C.E. Fontoura , G. Krein , A. Valcarce , J. Vijande This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords quarkcoalescenceheavy-ioncollisionsopen-flavorheavyhadronsexotictetraquarksdouble-heavybaryonschiralsymmetryrestorationWignerfunctionAL1model
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

The paper tries to establish that a single realistic quark-coalescence model can describe the production of all open-flavor heavy hadrons—mesons, baryons, and exotic tetraquarks—formed when the quark-gluon plasma created in a heavy-ion collision hadronizes. Its central result is that the axial-vector double-heavy tetraquarks $T_{QQ'}$ ($Q,Q'=c$ or $b$) are produced with yields of the same order of magnitude as the corresponding double-heavy baryons $\Xi_{QQ'}$, so a bottom tetraquark should be as discoverable as a double-bottom baryon. Including partial chiral-symmetry restoration at hadronization gives $N_{\Lambda_c}/N_{D^0}=0.98$ at RHIC, matching the STAR measurement $1.08 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.26$. If right, the paper shows baryon-to-meson ratios are sensitive to chiral restoration and that single-Gaussian estimates overstate absolute yields by about an order of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Wigner function of the produced hadron, computed analytically from generalized-Gaussian wave functions obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with a single realistic quark-quark potential, the AL1 model of Semay and Silvestre-Brac (Coulomb-plus-linear confinement with a smeared chromomagnetic term). For $n_q=2,3,4$ constituents, the Gaussian expansion turns the Wigner-function integral into closed form, so meson, baryon, and tetraquark spectra are obtained from the same coalescence formula, Eq. (1), with the same model input. The light-quark momentum distribution is a fully relativistic thermal distribution with $T_{\rm eff}=156$ MeV and fireball volumes $V=2100$ fm$^3$ (RHIC) and $5380$ fm$^3$ (LHC), while charm and bottom distributions come from parametrizations in the literature. This uniformity is what lets the paper compare conventional and exotic hadrons without tuning separate widths.

What would settle it

Measure the $T_{bb}$-to-$\Xi_{bb}$ yield ratio in central Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV: the model predicts $N_{T_{bb}} \simeq 1.1\times 10^{-8}$ and $N_{\Xi_{bb}} \simeq 9.2\times 10^{-8}$, a ratio near 0.1, so an experimental upper limit more than an order of magnitude below $\Xi_{bb}$ would contradict the central claim. A less exotic check is a high-precision $\Lambda_c/D^0$ measurement at RHIC, which would distinguish the chiral-restoration prediction 0.98 from the no-restoration value 0.74.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the dynamical coalescence model, the paper evaluates hadron yields and transverse-momentum spectra from the overlap of quark phase-space distributions with Wigner functions built from hadron wave functions of the AL1 constituent quark model. For the first time, yields and $p_T$ spectra are presented for the $J^P=1^+$ $QQ'\bar u\bar d$ tetraquarks $T_{cc}$, $T_{bc}$, and $T_{bb}$ alongside conventional mesons and baryons. The paper's central discovery is that in this realistic model the $T_{QQ'}$ yields are of the same order as the $\Xi_{QQ'}$ yields; in the $M_Q/m_q\gg 1$ limit the heavy quark pair is dominantly spin 1, just as in a $\Xi_{QQ}$ baryon, leaving degeneracy factors as the main difference. Including partial chiral restoration enhances the yields of the lightest hadrons, reduces the light-quark mass to 221 MeV at $T=156$ MeV, and produces $N_{\Lambda_c}/N_{D^0}=0.98$ at RHIC, consistent with the STAR value. The paper also finds that fully relativistic light-quark distributions roughly double the yields relative to nonrelativistic ones, and that single-Gaussian wave functions with fitted widths overpredict absolute yields by nearly an order of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the light-quark phase-space distribution being a fully relativistic thermal distribution with $T_{\rm eff}=156$ MeV in fireball volumes of 2100 fm$^3$ (RHIC) and 5380 fm$^3$ (LHC), with the hadronization temperature and volume taken equal to the critical ones; a factor-of-two error in these inputs changes every baryon-to-meson and tetraquark-to-meson ratio by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $T_{bb}$ tetraquark should be experimentally accessible with detection strategies similar to those used for $\Xi_{bb}$, because the two yields are predicted to be of the same order.
  • The $\Lambda_c/D^0$ ratio at RHIC is predicted to be 0.98 with chiral restoration and 0.74 without, so the measured STAR value $1.08 \pm 0.16 \pm 0.26$ supports chiral restoration at hadronization.
  • Partial chiral restoration enhances production of the lightest hadrons ($D^0$, $B^0$, $\Lambda_c$, $\Lambda_b$, $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_b$) through larger radii and more light quarks, but leaves $T_{cc}$, $T_{bc}$, $T_{bb}$ yields nearly unchanged.
  • Absolute yield predictions from single-Gaussian Wigner functions overestimate realistic-model results by about an order of magnitude, so absolute spectra require realistic wave functions.
  • The estimated coalescence fraction of charm quarks drops from about 87% at RHIC to about 50% at LHC 5.02 TeV, with fragmentation taking over at higher $p_T$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same-order relation holds, a dedicated LHCb or ALICE search for $T_{bb}$ in Pb+Pb or high-multiplicity pp collisions could test the prediction with a modest increase in luminosity over existing $\Xi_{bb}$ searches.
  • Because baryon and tetraquark yields scale with the light-quark number $N_l$ while meson yields scale linearly, precise baryon-to-meson data could be used to calibrate the hadronization volume and temperature, not just test chiral restoration.
  • The framework could be extended to pA or high-multiplicity pp collisions, where fireball volume is smaller and the ratio of coalescence to fragmentation changes; such data would discriminate the volume scaling assumed here.
  • The predicted insensitivity of tetraquark yields to chiral restoration is a testable handle: if tetraquark yields track the light-hadron enhancement, the cancellation between radius shrinkage and quark-number growth would be ruled out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper computes yields and transverse-momentum spectra for open-flavor heavy hadrons — D0, B0, Lambda_Q, Sigma_Q, Xi_Q, Xi_QQ', and T_QQ' — produced by quark coalescence in central Au+Au and Pb+Pb collisions at RHIC and LHC energies. The distinctive ingredient is a single realistic constituent quark model (AL1) used to obtain multi-Gaussian Wigner functions for all hadron species, including the double-heavy tetraquarks T_cc, T_bc, and T_bb. The authors study two hadronization scenarios, with and without partial chiral symmetry restoration, and report that tetraquark yields are of the same order of magnitude as the corresponding double-heavy baryons, that chiral restoration enhances most yields and baryon-to-meson ratios, and that the Lambda_c/D0 ratio at RHIC agrees with the STAR measurement.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a unified, internally consistent framework for comparing conventional and exotic open-heavy-hadron production, and it gives first-time predictions for double-heavy tetraquark yields and pT spectra, which are directly relevant to the search for T_bb and T_bc states. The use of realistic wave functions from a single quark model, rather than ad hoc single-Gaussian widths, is a genuine strength, as is the simultaneous treatment of mesons, baryons, and tetraquarks and the explicit comparison with STAR and ALICE data. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction that T_QQ yields are comparable to Xi_QQ yields, with implications for experimental searches. However, the uncalibrated normalization of the light-quark phase-space distribution and the internal inconsistencies discussed below currently prevent the quantitative results from being regarded as robust predictions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II.D, Eq. (22); §III.A, Table II; paragraph before Conclusions] The normalization of the light-quark distribution is not calibrated to any measured multiplicity, and the coalescence yields in Table II are not consistent with the paper's own estimate that about 87% of charm quarks hadronize via coalescence at RHIC and about 50% at LHC. Summing the charm-quark content of the RHIC entries in Table II gives roughly 0.21 (No chiSR) and 0.45 (chiSR) charm quarks in the listed hadrons, compared with N_c = 2 from Eq. (30); even after allowing for unlisted excited states and feed-down, this is far below the claimed 87%. Because the headline ratio N_Lambda_c/N_D0 = 0.98 and the tetraquark-to-baryon ratios inherit their normalization from the light-quark density fixed by Eq. (22), the agreement with the STAR measurement cannot be regarded as a robust prediction unless this discrepancy is resolved. The authors should either calibrate the light-quark normalization (for example to measured dN_ch/d_eta or to the light-quark content implied by statistical hadronization at the same T and V) or explicitly reconcile the 87% coalescence fraction with the yields in Table II.
  2. [§III.A, Table II] The entry N_Lambda_c = 2.1 x 10^-2 for LHC 5.02 TeV in the No-chiSR column is internally inconsistent with the text in the same section, which quotes N_Lambda_c/N_D0 = 0.68 together with N_D0 = 3.1 x 10^-1; the product implies N_Lambda_c about 2.1 x 10^-1. The printed value also breaks the smooth trend from the 2.76 TeV entry (2.0 x 10^-1) and reverses the expected energy dependence. Correct the table entry, and also check the formatting of the Sigma_c row for the same energy column.
  3. [§III.B, Figs. 2-6] The absolute D0 spectra are stated to lie one order of magnitude below the published data, and the paper defers to a 'global normalization' that is never specified or applied. Fragmentation is not included in the calculation even though the paper's own estimate is that about 50% of charm quarks hadronize by fragmentation at LHC energies. Since the pT-dependent fragmentation contribution can change both the absolute normalization and the shape of the spectra and ratios at intermediate and high pT, the comparison of the model with experimental Lambda_c/D0 and tetraquark ratios is not yet a complete quantitative prediction. The authors should either implement a fragmentation term (even a schematic one) and specify the normalization procedure, or explicitly restrict the claims to coalescence-only contributions and provide an estimate of the systematic uncertainty from the omitted component.
  4. [§II.D, Eqs. (23)-(28)] The provenance of the heavy-quark input distributions needs clarification: Refs. [30,33] are studies that include hadronization in their description of charm observables, and the manuscript states that these distributions are 'adjusted to reproduce features of particle production.' If the quoted dN_c/d^2pT already contain hadronization effects, feeding them into a second coalescence calculation double-counts hadronization and biases all yields. Please specify explicitly whether the distributions used here are pre-hadronization quark spectra from the transport stages of those models, and if they are not, quantify the resulting bias on the yields.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 2(a)] The legend contains a typo: 'chi-restorarion' should be 'chi-restoration'.
  2. [Fig. 2(c)] The vertical axis label, dN/pTdpT, appears to be missing from the third panel.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that experimental data are taken from Ref. [46], but Ref. [46] is the theory paper by He and Rapp; please verify that the intended experimental references are cited.
  4. [§III.A] The text refers to 'LHC at 2.76 GeV' near the bottom-sector ratios; this should be 2.76 TeV.
  5. [§III.A and Table I] The statement that 'Lambda_c and Sigma_c baryons ... become lighter' is contradicted by Table I, where M_Sigma_c increases from 2456 to 2472 MeV at T = 156 MeV; only Lambda_c becomes lighter.
  6. [Eq. (22) and Eq. (29)] Please clarify whether the degeneracy factor g_l = 6 in Eq. (22) counts both u and d flavors or only a single flavor, and specify how strange quarks are included in the thermal distribution for Xi_Q production; the current notation is ambiguous.
  7. [§III.B] The phrase 'the STAR Collaboration reported a meson-to-baryon ratio of 1.3 +/- 0.5' should read 'baryon-to-meson ratio', given the context of the Lambda_c/D0 discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: computed ratios rest on independent inputs and are checked against, not fitted to, the headline data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The coalescence formula Eq. (1) and the Wigner transforms Eqs. (5), (11), (16) are standard; the hadron wave functions come from the AL1 model [8], an external fit to meson and baryon spectra, not to production yields. The light-quark distribution Eq. (22) uses T=156 MeV and V from statistical-hadronization fits [36,37]; N_l in Eq. (29) is the integral of that distribution, not a parameter tuned to reproduce Lambda_c/D0. Heavy-quark spectra Eqs. (23)-(28) are taken from external transport models. The comparison to the STAR N_Lambda_c/N_D0=1.08 is a check, not an input: no STAR ratio was used to set T, V, g_l, or the AL1 widths. The only overlapping self-citations ([22,23] for NJL-based m_q(T); [14,15,40] for technical wave-function details) are not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified assumption that is itself the target result; the NJL model and AL1 potential are external. The paper's admitted one-order-of-magnitude deficit in absolute D0 spectra (Sec. III B) and the apparent inconsistency between Table II yields and the 87% coalescence-fraction estimate (Sec. III B) are correctness and consistency risks, but they do not make the headline ratios circular: the ratios are controlled by T and m_q through N_l/V, and the paper does not tune T or m_q to the data. No equation is shown to reduce to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of inputs taken from prior literature: the AL1 wave functions, the coalescence formula, thermal light-quark distributions, and fitted charm and bottom quark spectra. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the fitted quark pT distributions and the hadronization temperature and volume, which directly set the yields and ratios.

free parameters (11)
  • AL1 potential and quark masses = Eq. (21), Ref. [8]
    Fit to hadron spectra; sets wave functions and Wigner functions for all hadrons.
  • Charm quark pT distribution at RHIC 200 GeV = Eq. (23)
    Parametrization from Plumari et al., fitted to charm spectra.
  • Charm quark pT distribution at LHC 2.76 TeV = Eq. (24)
    Parametrization from Plumari et al., fitted to charm spectra.
  • Charm quark pT distribution at LHC 5.02 TeV = Eq. (25)
    Fit by authors to data extracted from Ref. [33].
  • Bottom quark pT distribution at RHIC 200 GeV = Eq. (26)
    Parametrization from Oh et al., Ref. [24].
  • Bottom quark pT distribution at LHC 2.76 TeV = Eq. (27)
    Fit by authors to Fig. 5(b) of Ref. [34].
  • Bottom quark pT distribution at LHC 5.02 TeV = Eq. (28)
    Fit by authors to Fig. 16 of Ref. [35].
  • Hadronization temperature Teff = 156 MeV
    Taken from statistical hadronization fit to LHC data; used for both RHIC and LHC.
  • Fireball volumes V = 2100 fm^3 (RHIC), 5380 fm^3 (LHC)
    From Refs. [36,37]; sets light quark multiplicities and yield normalizations.
  • In-medium light quark masses (chiSR) = mu,d = 221 MeV at T = 156 MeV
    From NJL-based temperature dependence in authors' Ref. [22]; drives the chiral restoration effect.
  • Light quark thermal distribution normalization = Eq. (22) with gl = 6
    Assumed fully relativistic thermal distribution; N_l values in Eq. (29) follow.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The coalescence formula Eq. (1) from Refs. [12,13] correctly gives the hadron momentum spectrum from quark phase-space overlap.
    Adopted without re-derivation; basis of all yield and pT computations.
  • domain assumption Hadron wave functions from the AL1 constituent quark model describe the internal structure of mesons, baryons, and tetraquarks relevant for coalescence.
    The paper's key improvement over single-Gaussian Wigner functions; if the AL1 model misshapes tetraquark wave functions, the TQQ yields are wrong.
  • domain assumption The fireball is a uniform, thermally equilibrated source with cylindrical volume V and light-quark distribution Eq. (22).
    Sets N_l and hence the baryon-to-meson ratios; critical for comparing with STAR.
  • domain assumption Hadronization temperature equals the critical temperature, and the critical volume equals the hadronization volume.
    Explicitly assumed in Section II D; allows use of statistical hadronization fits for Teff and V.
  • domain assumption The NJL model gives the correct temperature dependence of the light constituent quark masses.
    Underpins the chiSR scenario and Table I masses; from authors' previous work [22].
  • domain assumption Fragmentation does not affect the ratios at the pT range considered, or its effects cancel in ratios.
    The paper computes only coalescence and omits fragmentation, yet presents ratios as predictions; acknowledged as a limitation for absolute spectra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Open-Flavor Heavy Hadron Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXQYFQNQ

@misc{pith2026250607090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Open-Flavor Heavy Hadron Production in Heavy-Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXQYFQNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07090}
}
abstract

We study the production of open-flavor heavy hadrons in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. The hadronization in the quark-gluon plasma is described in the quark coalescence model. We evaluated yields and transverse momentum distributions. A simultaneous study of conventional and exotic hadrons is carried out. The Wigner functions are evaluated using hadron wave functions obtained from a single realistic quark model. Thus, results are presented in a single framework for the production of open-flavor heavy mesons, baryons, and exotic tetraquarks, in particular: $D^{0}$, $B^{0}$, $\Lambda_{Q}$, $\Sigma_{Q}$, $\Xi_{Q}$, $\Xi_{QQ^\prime}$, and $T_{QQ^\prime}$ ($Q,Q^\prime=c$ or $b$). The consequences of a partial restoration of chiral symmetry at the hadronization temperature are studied in detail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Transverse momentum spectra for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Transverse momentum distribution ratios between Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as Fig. 3 for Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Figure 3 for Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Same as Figure 3 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]

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. Digit anomalies in the hadronic mass spectrum, classical and quantum information entropies, and the dynamical QCD scale

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The first digits of PDG hadron masses deviate strongly from Benford's law, and the paper reads the resulting Shannon-entropy deficit as a signature of Lambda_QCD.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 222001 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 182001 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 112001 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Nature Phys. 18, 751 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Nature Commun. 13, 3351 (2022). 26

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Cho et al

    S. Cho et al. (ExHIC Collaboration), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95, 279 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Semay and B

    C. Semay and B. Silvestre-Brac, Z. Phys. C 61, 271 (1994)

    work page 1994

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    J. P. Ader, J. -M. Richard, and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982)

    1982

  2. [10]

    Colquhoun, A

    B. Colquhoun, A. Francis, R. J. Hudspith, R. Lewis, K. Maltman and W. G. Parrott, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 094503 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    R. J. Fries, V. Greco, and P. Sorensen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 177 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Greco, C.M

    V. Greco, C.M. Ko, and P. Levai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202302 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Greco, C.M

    V. Greco, C.M. Ko, and P. Levai, Phys. Rev. C. 68, 034904 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Vijande and A

    J. Vijande and A. Valcarce, Symmetry 1, 155 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    T. F. Caram´ es, J. Vijande, and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014006 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Silvestre-Brac and C

    B. Silvestre-Brac and C. Semay, Z. Phys. C 57, 273 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Janc and M

    D. Janc and M. Rosina, Few-Body Syst. 35, 175 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    Hiyama, A

    E. Hiyama, A. Hosaka, M. Oka, and J. -M. Richard, Phys. Rev. C 98, 045208 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Hern´ andez, J

    E. Hern´ andez, J. Vijande, A. Valcarce, and J. -M. Richard, Phys. Lett. B800, 135073 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Silvestre-Brac, Few-Body Systems 20, 1 (1996)

    B. Silvestre-Brac, Few-Body Systems 20, 1 (1996)

    1996

  13. [21]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  14. [22]

    T. F. Caram´ es, C. E. Fontoura, G. Krein, K. Tsushima, J. Vijande, and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034009 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    T. F. Caram´ es, C. E. Fontoura, G. Krein, J. Vijande, and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114019 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Y. Oh, C. M. Ko, S. H. Lee, and S. Yasui, Phys. Rev. C 79 , 044905 (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 595, 202 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    S. Cho, K. J. Sun, C. M. Ko, S. H. Lee, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024909 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Cho and S

    S. Cho and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024902 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    S. Cao, K. J. Sun, S. Q. Li, S. Y. F. Liu, W. J. Xing, G. Y. Qin, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135561 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    C. W. Hwang, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 585 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    Plumari, V

    S. Plumari, V. Minissale, S. K. Das, G. Coci, and V. Greco, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 348 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Taesoo and C

    S. Taesoo and C. Gabriele, Nucl. Phys. A 1028, 122539 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Valcarce, P

    A. Valcarce, P. Gonz´ alez, F. Fern´ andez, and V. Vento, Phys. Lett. B367, 35 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Minissale, S

    V. Minissale, S. Plumari, Y Sun, and V. Greco, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 228 (2024). 27

    2024

  26. [34]

    S. Cao, G. Y. Qin, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044907 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    J. Zhao, J. Aichelin, P. B. Gossiaux, V. Ozvenchuk, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 110, 024909 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A 904, 535c (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Stachel, A

    J. Stachel, A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, and K. Redlich, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 509, 012019 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Rapp et al., Nucl

    R. Rapp et al., Nucl. Phys. A 979, 21 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    S. K. Das, J. M.Torres-Rinc´ on and R. Rapp, arXiv:2406.13286

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    C. E. Fontoura, G. Krein, A. Valcarce and J. Vijande, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094037 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 172301 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Acharya et al., (ALICE Collaboration), J

    S. Acharya et al., (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2018) 108

    2018

  35. [43]

    Acharya et al., (ALICE Collaboration), Phys

    S. Acharya et al., (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 793 212 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 99, 034908 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2012) 112

    2012

  38. [46]

    He and R

    M. He and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 042301 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 793, 212 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 04, 108 (2018). 28

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.