Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Impact of particle production mechanisms on pseudorapidity distribution and directed flow in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV using AMPT model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper argues that how strings fragment into baryons—the popcorn mechanism and the Lund splitting parameter—changes the directed-flow slope of protons and kaons at 19.6 GeV and can generate the system-size dependence STAR observes.

desk verdict Clean AMPT parameter-sensitivity study showing popcorn and Lund-a affect proton dv1/dy and its system-size dependence while leaving pions unchanged; deserves referee time but needs a direct v1 data comparison before the baryon-transport claim can land. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12114 v1 pith:BHD4PSSC submitted 2025-06-13 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Muhammad Farhan Taseer , Subhash Singha This is my paper
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.Ld
keywords pseudorapiditydistributiondirectedflowslopeAMPTmodelstringfragmentationpopcornmechanismLundparameterbaryontransport
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 attempts to show that the way strings break into baryons in the early stage of a heavy-ion collision is not a minor detail but controls the directed-flow slope of protons and kaons at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 19.6$ GeV. Using the AMPT model, the authors switch on the popcorn mechanism and raise the Lund string-splitting parameter $a$, and find that proton and antiproton $dv_1/dy$ grow in magnitude, kaons respond nontrivially, and pions barely move. They also find that the same knobs change the Au+Au versus Cu+Cu system-size ordering of proton $\Delta dv_1/dy$, pointing to a mechanism behind STAR's observation of a system-size dependence at fixed centrality. The paper claims these results establish a connection between particle production mechanisms, baryon transport, and directed flow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lund string fragmentation function $f(z) \propto z^{-1}(1-z)^{a}\exp(-b m_T^2/z)$ as implemented in the PYTHIA/JETSET routines inside AMPT, together with the popcorn mechanism governed by MSTJ(12) and PARJ(5). The parameter $a$ softens the splitting into softer hadrons, raising multiplicities; the popcorn mechanism lets baryon-antibaryon pairs form via intermediate meson(s) instead of direct diquark pairs, changing how many baryons are stopped near mid-rapidity. Varying these knobs shifts the mix of pions, kaons, and protons, and the paper uses those shifts to expose which particle species' flow is sensitive to baryon production and transport.

What would settle it

Run the same Au+Au and Cu+Cu setups with MSTJ(12)=0 versus MSTJ(12)=1 or with $a = 0.55$ versus $a = 2.2$, and compare the resulting proton $dv_1/dy$ and $\Delta dv_1/dy$ against STAR's published 19.6 GeV $v_1(y)$ slopes in fixed centrality bins; the claim stands only if the tuned versions move the model toward the data while the default version moves away.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that string-fragmentation parameters—the popcorn mechanism (MSTJ(12), PARJ(5)) and the Lund splitting parameter $a$ (PARJ(41))—act as a lever on mid-rapidity baryon and kaon production and on the rapidity-odd directed flow at 19.6 GeV in AMPT. Enabling popcorn raises $dN/dy$ of pions and protons, lowers kaon and antiproton yields, and increases $|dv_1/dy|$ for $K^+$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$; setting $a = 2.2$ rather than 0.55 raises yields for all species and further boosts proton $dv_1/dy$ while suppressing $\Delta dv_1/dy$ for kaons. Pion flow stays essentially fixed in all variations. In the 10–40% centrality bin, proton $\Delta dv_1/dy$ is larger in Au+Au than in Cu+Cu, matching the ordering that STAR reports for light-hadron $v_1$ across system sizes, so the authors conclude that the baryon production mechanism is a viable source of the observed system-size dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the popcorn mechanism and the Lund string-splitting parameter $a$, as implemented in AMPT's PYTHIA/JETSET routines, faithfully represent baryon production: the paper validates against $dN/dy$ only in peripheral Au+Au collisions and notes AMPT under-predicts central and mid-central yields, so if the real string-breaking picture differs, the flow sensitivities are model artifacts rather than physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Proton directed flow at 19.6 GeV carries information about the early string-breaking stage, so a match with $v_1$ data constrains string-fragmentation parameters.
  • The system-size ordering of proton $\Delta dv_1/dy$ in AMPT with popcorn is in the same direction as STAR's U+U greater than Au+Au greater than isobar pattern, offering a baryon-transport origin for that ordering.
  • Kaon $v_1$ responds nontrivially to both knobs, so strangeness production channels could be separated in flow data.
  • Pion $v_1$ stability across parameter changes indicates pion flow is insensitive to baryon production mechanics, validating it as a baseline observable.
  • AMPT's known under-prediction of central $dN/dy$ suggests the model's default $a$ and $b$ may need centrality-dependent tuning, and flow predictions should be re-evaluated with tuned values.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the string stage is the driving factor, other transport codes with different baryon-production schemes should show correlated differences in proton $v_1$; a code comparison would test universality.
  • The popcorn sensitivity could be probed directly by toggling MSTJ(12) with the hadronic afterburner (ART) disabled; if the $v_1$ changes persist, the effect is born in fragmentation rather than rescattering.
  • The non-zero proton $v_1$ at $b < 1$ fm suggests event-by-event baryon-number fluctuations; correlating $v_1$ with net-proton multiplicity in ultra-central events would test whether transported baryons carry the asymmetry.
  • Extending the same parameter scan to lower BES energies (7.7, 11.5 GeV) could sharpen the comparison with the sign-change region of proton $v_1$, since baryon transport is stronger there.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an AMPT model study of pseudorapidity distributions (dN/dy) and directed flow (v1, dv1/dy) for pions, kaons, and protons in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=19.6 GeV. The authors vary the popcorn mechanism (MSTJ(12), PARJ(5)) and the Lund string-splitting parameter a (PARJ(41)) in four configurations (Table I) with about one million events each. They find that these parameter choices affect the mid-rapidity yields and the slopes dv1/dy, most strongly for protons and to a lesser extent for kaons, while pion v1 is nearly unchanged. They also report that the effects differ between the two collision systems, suggesting a possible mechanism for the system-size dependence of proton v1 recently discussed by STAR. Comparisons are made only with STAR dN/dy data in 40-80% Au+Au collisions; no comparison with measured v1 is presented.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper provides a potentially important physics insight: string-fragmentation details in a transport model can alter not just the yield but also the directed flow of baryons, and can generate a system-size dependence of proton v1 at fixed centrality. The study is a clean sensitivity analysis within the AMPT framework, and the large event statistics give confidence in the qualitative trends. However, the paper's broader interpretation linking these parameter effects to baryon transport and to the STAR system-size ordering is not backed by any quantitative comparison of v1 with experimental data, and the absence of statistical uncertainties on the fitted slopes weakens the quantitative conclusions. The work is best viewed as a model study whose physics relevance depends on future validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 6-9] The central claim about system-size dependence of proton dv1/dy is supported only by AMPT calculations; no v1(y) or dv1/dy result is compared with STAR measurements at 19.6 GeV. The only data comparison is dN/dy in 40-80% Au+Au (Figs. 1, 3, 4), and the authors explicitly note that AMPT underpredicts mid-central and central yields. Since directed flow is an early-time observable, agreement of yields in one peripheral centrality bin does not validate the v1 mechanism. The manuscript should compare the calculated proton (and kaon) v1(y) and dv1/dy with published STAR data at this energy (e.g., refs. [22,23] or other available v1 results) and discuss whether the parameter variations move the model toward or away from the data. Without this, the claimed insight into baryon transport remains an unsupported interpretation of a model artifact.
  2. [Section III, Figs. 6-9] No statistical uncertainties are reported for any of the dv1/dy or Delta dv1/dy values, and the quality of the linear fits (e.g., chi-square per degree of freedom) is not given. Several claims are quantitative: the sign change in K- dv1/dy when popcorn is enabled, the magnitude differences between Au+Au and Cu+Cu for protons, and the centrality dependence of Delta dv1/dy. Each of these requires an uncertainty estimate to establish significance. Please provide errors on the fitted slopes, obtained at least from the fit covariance or from event-subgroup resampling, and state the fit range and fit quality for the linear extraction in -1<y<1.
  3. [Section II, Table I] The choice a=2.2 is not physically motivated; the paper only says it was varied 'to check its impact.' The Lund parameter a is connected to the string tension via Eq. (3), so an arbitrarily large value may correspond to an unrealistic fragmentation function. The authors should justify the range of a used, or better, perform a small scan (e.g., a=0.55, 1.0, 1.5, 2.2) and show whether the observed effects on dv1/dy are monotonic and how they relate to the corresponding changes in yields and pT spectra. A single point at a=2.2 is insufficient to support the general statement that string-splitting parameters affect the system-size dependence of proton directed flow.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] In the summary, the text reads 'when the string-splitting parameter a is increased from 0.5 to 2.2,' but the default value used throughout is a=0.55 (Section II and Table I). This should be corrected.
  2. [Abstract and Section II] The paper uses the term 'string junction parameters' for the popcorn mechanism and the Lund a-parameter, while the introduction separately discusses the gluon junction mechanism as a proposed baryon-stopping mechanism. These are distinct concepts; please align the terminology to avoid implying that the popcorn mechanism and Lund a are string-junction effects in the sense of Refs. [19-21].
  3. [Section III, text near Eq. (4)] The text states that 'with equal probabilities for the B-Bbar and BM-Bbar configurations' the net-baryon rapidity distribution at SPS can be reproduced. According to Eq. (4), equal probabilities correspond to PARJ(5)=0.5 (set-2), while the figures shown use PARJ(5)=1 (set-3). Please clarify which configuration is being referred to.
  4. [Captions of Figs. 6-11] The legends in Figs. 6-11 include 'Default AMPT' without defining which set from Table I this refers to. Please specify whether 'Default AMPT' denotes set-3 (or set-1) in the captions or in the text.
  5. [Captions of Figs. 1, 3, 4] The STAR data points in these figures are only for the 40-80% centrality bin; please state this explicitly in the captions so that the reader does not infer a comparison at all centralities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Simulation sensitivity study with no fitted-to-output parameters; central claim is about AMPT model response, not a derivation from data.

full rationale

The paper varies string-fragmentation parameters (popcorn mechanism via MSTJ(12) and PARJ(5), and the Lund parameter a) and reports how dN/dy, dv1/dy, and their charge-differences change. The observables of interest (v1, dv1/dy, system-size ordering) are never used to set or fit any parameter; the parameter choices are either the default AMPT/HIJING values or an arbitrary variation (a=2.2). The only data comparison is to STAR dN/dy in peripheral Au+Au collisions, and the paper itself notes that AMPT underpredicts mid-central and central yields, so this comparison is a validation caveat, not a fitted input. The self-citation [2] (a STAR SQM 2024 contribution by one of the authors) is used only as motivation for the study, not as a load-bearing step in the simulation results or conclusions. All claims are conditional statements about AMPT behavior ('we observe that string junction parameters can affect...'), and the model outputs are not used to define or derive the parameters. Thus there is no circular reduction of any prediction to a fitted parameter, no self-citation chain forcing the result, and no renaming of a known result as novelty. The study is self-contained as a sensitivity analysis.

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

The central claim rests on four tunable parameters in the AMPT/PYTHIA string fragmentation routines. Only a and b have any empirical anchoring (from HIJING fits to yields and pT); MSTJ(12) and PARJ(5) are varied by hand. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Lund fragmentation parameter a (PARJ(41)) = 0.55 default, 2.2 varied
    Default value fit to charged particle yields and pT spectra [37]; the paper varies it to 2.2 to test sensitivity, without fitting to v1 data.
  • Lund fragmentation parameter b (PARJ(42)) = 0.15 GeV^-2
    Default value from AMPT/HIJING fit to yields and pT; kept fixed in this study.
  • Popcorn parameter PARJ(5) = 0, 0.5, 1
    Controls relative probability of B M anti-B vs B anti-B channels; chosen by hand across three values.
  • Popcorn switch MSTJ(12) = 0 or 1
    Toggles popcorn mechanism on or off; chosen by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AMPT model with Lund string fragmentation (plus ZPC and ART) provides a valid description of particle production and flow at 19.6 GeV.
    The entire study is an AMPT simulation; the model is not independently validated for v1 in this paper.
  • domain assumption The popcorn mechanism as implemented in PYTHIA/JETSET faithfully represents baryon production and transport in heavy-ion collisions.
    The paper relies on this to connect string fragmentation parameters to baryon v1 (Section II).
  • domain assumption v1(y) is well described by a linear function in |y| < 1 so that dv1/dy is a meaningful observable.
    Section III: v1(y) is fitted linearly in -1.0 < y < 1.0 to extract dv1/dy; no fit quality is reported.
  • domain assumption The reaction plane angle is exactly known in the simulation (no detector effects).
    v1 is computed with respect to the true reaction plane (Eq. 1), which idealizes the experimental measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of particle production mechanisms on pseudorapidity distribution and directed flow in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV using AMPT model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHD4PSSC

@misc{pith2026250612114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of particle production mechanisms on pseudorapidity distribution and directed flow in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrts_NN$ = 19.6 GeV using AMPT model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHD4PSSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12114}
}
abstract

The STAR experiment at the top RHIC energy has observed that the directed flow ($v_1$) of inclusive light hadrons is independent of the collision system size at a given centrality~\cite{STAR:2008jgm}. However, recent STAR measurements indicate a system-size dependence in the $v_1(y)$-slope ($dv_{1}/dy$) of protons, antiprotons, and their differences ($\Delta dv_{1}/dy$) at a given centrality, suggesting a potential influence of baryon production and transport mechanisms~\cite{Taseer:SQM2024talk}. We have studied pseudorapidity ($dN/dy$) distributions and directed flow ($v_1$ and $dv_{1}/dy$) for pions, kaons, and protons in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 19.6$ GeV using the A Multi-Phase Transport (AMPT) model. Specifically, we investigated the influence of string junction parameters in AMPT via the PYTHIA/JETSET routines, focusing on the popcorn mechanism and string-splitting parameters, on $dN/dy$, $dv_{1}/dy$, and their charge-dependent splittings ($\Delta dN/dy$ and $\Delta dv_{1}/dy$). We observe that string junction parameters can affect $dN/dy$, $dv_{1}/dy$, $\Delta dN/dy$, and $\Delta dv_{1}/dy$ for $\pi$, K, and p, and influence their system-size dependence. The effect is most prominent on the $v_1$ of protons, non-trivial for kaons, while the pions $v_1$ remain largely unchanged. These findings provide insights into the interplay between particle production mechanisms, baryon transport, and directed flow in heavy-ion collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Pseudorapidity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Pseudorapidity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Pseudorapidity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Pseudorapidity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Directed flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: With the increase in a, the magnitude of ∆dv1/dy decreases for kaons increases for protons, and remains largely unchanged for pions. Furthermore, we analyzed the variation of dv1/dy and ∆dv1/dy in Au+Au and Cu+Cu collisions as a function of the average number of partic…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: As the value of a increases from 0.55 to 2.2, the magnitude of dv1/dy increases for K−, p, and p¯, whereas K+ shows a decreasing trend. In con￾trast, π ± remain unaffected by this variation. The effect of the parameter a on ∆dv1/dy is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 252301 (2008), arXiv:0807.1518 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    M. F. Taseeret al.(for STAR Collabora- tion), Contribution to SQM 2024 (2024), https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/29792/contributions/137162/

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl

    K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Nucl

    I. Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

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

    arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    Muller, J

    B. Muller, J. Schukraft, and B. Wyslouch, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 361 (2012), arXiv:1202.3233 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Braun-Munzinger and J

    P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, Nature448, 302 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Ollitrault, Phys

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D46, 229 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Voloshin and Y

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Phys. C70, 665 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9407282

    1996 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Brachmann, S

    J. Brachmann, S. Soff, A. Dumitru, H. Stoecker, J. A. Maruhn, W. Greiner, L. V. Bravina, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C61, 024909 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9908010

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chunget al.(E895), Phys

    P. Chunget al.(E895), Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 940 (2000), arXiv:nucl-ex/0101003

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chunget al., Phys

    P. Chunget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 2533 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0101002

    2001 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Altet al.(NA49), Phys

    C. Altet al.(NA49), Phys. Rev. C68, 034903 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0303001

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 062301 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 069901 (2021)], arXiv:nucl-ex/0310029

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. B. Backet al.(PHOBOS), Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 012301 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0511045

    2006 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abelevet al.(ALICE), Phys

    B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 232302 (2013), arXiv:1306.4145 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Stoecker, Nucl

    H. Stoecker, Nucl. Phys. A750, 121 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0406018

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Y. Nara, H. Niemi, A. Ohnishi, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. C94, 034906 (2016), arXiv:1601.07692 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    V. P. Konchakovski, W. Cassing, Y. B. Ivanov, and V. D. Toneev, Phys. Rev. C90, 014903 (2014), arXiv:1404.2765 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 162301 (2014), arXiv:1401.3043 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 062301 (2018), arXiv:1708.07132 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Singha, P

    S. Singha, P. Shanmuganathan, and D. Keane, Adv. High Energy Phys.2016, 2836989 (2016), arXiv:1610.00646 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A803, 227 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    McLerran and V

    L. McLerran and V. Skokov, Nucl. Phys. A929, 184 (2014), arXiv:1305.0774 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gursoy, D

    U. Gursoy, D. Kharzeev, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. C89, 054905 (2014), arXiv:1401.3805 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G¨ ursoy, D

    U. G¨ ursoy, D. Kharzeev, E. Marcus, K. Rajagopal, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C98, 055201 (2018), arXiv:1806.05288 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. X14, 011028 (2024), arXiv:2304.03430 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  22. [30]

    STAR (STAR), (2023), arXiv:2304.02831 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Parida and S

    T. Parida and S. Chatterjee, (2023), arXiv:2305.08806 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Parida and S

    T. Parida and S. Chatterjee, (2023), arXiv:2305.10371 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Parida, S

    T. Parida, S. Chatterjee, and S. Singha, (2025), arXiv:2503.04660 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. Isse, A. Ohnishi, N. Otuka, P. K. Sahu, and Y. Nara, Phys. Rev. C72, 064908 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0502058

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Nara and A

    Y. Nara and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C105, 014911 11 (2022), arXiv:2109.07594 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y. Nara, T. Maruyama, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. C102, 024913 (2020), arXiv:2004.05550 [nucl- th]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

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

    2005

  30. [38]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C96, 044904 (2017), arXiv:1701.07065 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Comput

    B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun.109, 193 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9709009

    1998 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. Soderberg, Z. Phys. C20, 317 (1983)

    1983

  34. [42]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjostrand, Phys. Rept.97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  35. [43]

    Sjostrand, Comput

    T. Sjostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun.82, 74 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

    Li and C

    B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C52, 2037 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9505016

    1995 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Z.-w. Lin, S. Pal, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C64, 011902 (2001), arXiv:nucl- th/0011059

    2001

Pith tools

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