Probing Partonic Evolution and Hadronization via Balance Functions and Correlations of Charmed Hadrons

Alexandru Florin Dobrin; Basanta Nandi; Claude Pruneau; Oveis Sheibani; Sadhana Dash; Sumit Basu; Victor Gonzalez; Yash Patley

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Probing Partonic Evolution and Hadronization via Balance Functions and Correlations of Charmed Hadrons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In PYTHIA simulations, a charmed $\Lambda_c^+$ is balanced most often by a $D^0$ meson, with that pairing making up about 45% of cases and the total charm balance integral saturating near 85% in unbiased events.

desk verdict First PYTHIA predictions for charm balance functions with a concrete flavor hierarchy; the biased-sample interpretation is a moderate soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21014 v1 pith:F5PBQ7TG submitted 2025-07-28 hep-ex hep-ph

Oveis Sheibani , Claude Pruneau , Victor Gonzalez , Sumit Basu , Alexandru Florin Dobrin , Yash Patley , Basanta Nandi , Sadhana Dash This is my paper

classification hep-exhep-ph

keywords charmbalancefunctionsheavy-flavorcorrelationsPYTHIA8Lundstringfragmentationhadronizationproton-protoncollisionsat13TeVconservationsumruleLHCmeasurementfeasibility

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 asks whether charm–anticharm balance functions can reveal how charm quarks evolve and hadronize in proton–proton collisions, and it answers with concrete PYTHIA 8.3 predictions at 13 TeV. Balance functions track where the balancing partner of a produced particle goes, and the strong interaction creates charm only in particle–antiparticle pairs, so each charmed hadron should be answered by an anticharmed one. The central result is a predicted ranking of balancing partners for a $\Lambda_c^+$: a $D^0$ about 45% of the time, a $\Lambda_c^-$ about 30%, a $D^-$ about 20%, and a $D_s$ about 5%. The cumulative balance integral saturates near 85% for wide rapidity acceptance rather than 100%, because higher charmed states decay weakly and their charm escapes the measured hadron list. That saturation value, the flavor hierarchy, and the width sensitivity to string-fragmentation parameters give LHC experiments a concrete hadronization probe that the authors argue planned wide-acceptance upgrades could measure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the general balance function, the difference of associated-particle densities $B_2^{\alpha|\bar\beta}(\Delta y,\Delta\varphi) = A_2^{\alpha|\bar\beta} - A_2^{\bar\alpha|\bar\beta}$, evaluated here through its symmetric combination $B_s$ with a $\Lambda_c^+$ reference. Because $A_2$ is a conditional cumulant — the correlated yield of species $\alpha$ per reference particle — the difference isolates the flavor- (or charge-) balancing partner of the chosen hadron while the subtraction removes partners correlated only through energy-momentum conservation. The calculations run on 50 billion unbiased PYTHIA 8.3 events, supplemented by samples reweighted through $d\sigma_{\rm Biased}/d\sigma_{\rm Unbiased} = (\hat p_T/\hat p_{T,\rm Ref})^n$ (Eq. 5) to enrich hard-scattering events, and by variations of the Lund fragmentation parameters $a$ and $b$. The load-bearing feature is that PYTHIA conserves charm exactly, event by event, so the balance functions directly encode where the anticharm partner went.

What would settle it

A wide-acceptance LHC measurement of the balance functions of $D^0$, $\Lambda_c^-$, $D^-$, and $D_s$ relative to a $\Lambda_c^+$ reference in 13 TeV proton–proton collisions, with the cumulative integral evaluated inside $|\Delta y| < 2.5$, would settle the matter: if the hierarchy is not $D^0 \gtrsim \Lambda_c^- \gtrsim D^- \gg D_s$, or if the unbiased total saturates far from about 85%, the PYTHIA prediction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim, on its own terms, is that PYTHIA 8.3 predicts a strong and specific flavor hierarchy in charm balancing. Charm quarks dominate the correlation structure, overriding the monotonic light-flavor trend in which correlations grow with the number of shared valence quarks: the baryon–baryon pair $\Lambda_c^-$–$\Lambda_c^+$, sharing three valence flavors, shows the strongest signal, while meson–baryon pairs show similar strength regardless of whether one or two light flavors are shared. For a $\Lambda_c^+$ reference, the balancing partner is a $D^0$ with roughly 45% probability, a $\Lambda_c^-$ with about 30%, a $D^-$ with about 20%, and a $D_s$ with about 5%. The balance integral saturates at about 85% in unbiased events and at about 40% when the sample is biased toward high momentum transfer, which the authors read as harder collisions producing more excited or non-included charm states. The saturation below unity is presented as a charm 'leak' from weak decays, a model-dependent quantity that a measurement could test by itself.

Load-bearing premise

The momentum-scale conclusions rest on a generator-level reweighting, Eq. (5), that artificially enriches high-momentum-transfer events; if this reweighting does not faithfully represent how real high-momentum collisions behave, the drop in the balance fraction from about 85% to about 40% is a property of the reweighting, not of the physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A rapidity acceptance of $|\Delta y| \lesssim 2.5$ recovers nearly the full balance integral, so planned LHC upgrades with wide pseudorapidity coverage can test the 85% saturation directly.
The predicted hierarchy $D^0 > \Lambda_c^- > D^- > D_s$ for balancing a $\Lambda_c^+$ gives experiments a hadro-chemistry fingerprint that distinguishes models of how light quarks bind with charm.
If the reduced balance fraction near 40% in high-momentum-transfer-biased events holds up, harder charm production populates excited charmed states that escape inclusive balance measurements, changing the meaning of the observed sum rule.
The strong sensitivity of the $\Lambda_c^-\Lambda_c^+$ correlation width to the Lund parameters $a$ and $b$ suggests charm correlations can help constrain hadronization model tuning.
The first convincing measurements likely await detectors with wider acceptance and better vertex resolution, since the paper estimates that matching this statistical precision with reconstructed data requires datasets far beyond 50 billion events.

Reading between the lines

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

A test the paper does not run: select 'hard' events by measurable quantities, such as the $p_T$ of the charmed hadron or event activity, and check whether the roughly 40% balance fraction is reproduced without the generator-level reweighting of Eq. (5).
If the 85% saturation is confirmed, the missing 15% becomes a quantitative handle on weakly decaying excited charm states; comparing that deficit across pp, p–Pb, and Pb–Pb systems would show whether a dense medium shifts charm hadro-chemistry.
The paper discusses but does not propose as a standalone observable the flat-to-peaked transition of the azimuthal correlations under bias, which could serve as an experimental discriminant between gluon-fusion and gluon-splitting production topologies.
A step beyond the reported sensitivity study: because inclusive spectra leave $a$ and $b$ loosely constrained, charm balance functions could be added as a global-fit observable for generator tuning.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The paper delivers the first PYTHIA predictions for charm balance functions, and the core unbiased results are solid and specific. The flavor hierarchy—Lambda_c balanced roughly 45% by D0, 30% by Lambda_c^-, 20% by D^-, and 5% by D_s—is a concrete, testable set of numbers, and the ~85% saturation of the inclusive balance integral at wide acceptance is a clean prediction. The sensitivity to Lund a and b parameters, particularly in the baryon-baryon channel, is a useful secondary result. The authors are transparent about statistical limitations and about the model dependence; they don't overclaim experimental verification.

The soft spot is the momentum-transfer bias in Eq. (5). The reweighting by (pT_hat/pT_ref)^n does shift the event ensemble toward harder scales, but it's a generator-level importance weight, not a kinematic selection. The observed drop in the balance integral from ~85% to ~40% and the appearance of a near-side peak are properties of that reweighted ensemble. The authors' interpretation—that higher momentum transfer populates excited or non-included charm states—is plausible but not secured, because the reweighting also changes the mixture of production channels. This is a moderate concern, not a fatal flaw; the main predictions come from unbiased events and stand alone.

Minor issues: no code or data released for reproduction, and the Lund scan covers only five parameter sets. The biased-sample results would be more convincing if compared to an actual pT_hat cut that preserves the event measure.

Who this is for: heavy-flavor correlation folks and the ALICE 3 / CMS upgrade planning community. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review and ask the authors to either soften the physical interpretation of the biased samples or back it up with an explicit pT_hat threshold test.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a generator-level study of two-particle correlations and balance functions of charmed hadrons in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV using PYTHIA 8.3. The authors define associated cumulants A2, normalized cumulants R2, and general balance functions B2, and compute them for D0, D±, D_s±, and Λ_c± pairs in minimum-bias events and in events reweighted by Eq. (5) to enhance high momentum-transfer processes. They investigate the sensitivity of correlation widths to the Lund string parameters a and b, and estimate statistical uncertainties via sub-sampling a 50-billion-event sample. The main results are: (i) a flavor hierarchy in which a Λ_c^+ is most often balanced by a D0 (~45%), then Λ_c^- (~30%), D^- (~20%), and D_s (~5%); (ii) a saturated balance-function integral of ~85% in unbiased events and ~40% in the strongly biased sample; and (iii) a near-side azimuthal peak that appears only in the biased samples. The paper discusses the implications for charm hadronization and the feasibility of measurements at future LHC upgrades.

Significance. The paper offers a useful set of benchmark predictions for a relatively unexplored observable, charm balance functions, in a well-documented Monte Carlo framework. Its strengths include a transparent definition of the correlation formalism, use of PYTHIA 8.3 with explicit conservation laws, an unusually large 50-billion-event sample, and a sub-sample method for uncertainties. The predicted flavor hierarchy and the rapidity-acceptance dependence of the balance-function integral are concrete and falsifiable, and the sensitivity study to Lund parameters is a constructive step toward using charm correlations as a tuning probe. However, the central interpretation of the momentum-bias results as physical high-momentum-transfer physics is not yet supported, and the lack of reported uncertainties on the headline numbers limits the current significance.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III, Eq. (5); Sec. IV, Figs. 3–5 and 9] The momentum bias defined in Eq. (5) is a generator-level reweighting, dσ_Biased/dσ_Unbiased = (p_T/p_T,Ref)^n, not a physical event selection. The paper computes correlation functions directly on the weighted event mix and interprets the reduction of the balance-function integral from ~85% to ~40% and the appearance of a near-side azimuthal peak as consequences of higher momentum transfer in hard charm production. Because no inverse weights are applied and no equivalence to an explicit p_T-hat threshold is demonstrated, these results may reflect the modified phase-space measure rather than a property of high-momentum-transfer collisions. The conclusions in Sec. V that 'higher momentum transfer ... leads to a greater population of excited or non-included charm states' and that there is a 'complex dependence of the charm balancing on the p_T scale' are therefore not yet secured. A direct validation, such as comparing with a genuine p_T-hat cut or reporting the p_T-hat distributions before and after reweighting, is needed.
[Sec. IV, Fig. 9; Sec. V] The quantitative flavor fractions (~45% D0, ~30% Λ_c^-, ~20% D^-, ~5% D_s) and the 85%/40% balance integrals are quoted without statistical uncertainties, despite the text noting 'appreciable statistical fluctuations' in the same observables. The sub-sample technique is described, but no error bars are shown on the cumulative integrals in Fig. 9 or on the fractional contributions. The significance of the differences among the four balancing channels and between biased and unbiased samples is therefore not established. Adding uncertainties, or at least a statement of the statistical precision of the integrals, is essential for these numbers to be used as quantitative predictions.
[Sec. IV, Table II and Fig. 8] The conclusion that charm correlations show 'good sensitivity' to the Lund parameters a and b rests on five parameter combinations with no quantitative test against the default values. The RMS widths for Λ_c^- - Λ_c^+ vary from 0.533 to 0.926, but the errors on some entries are comparable to the spread (e.g., 0.907 ± 0.025), and the trend is non-monotonic in a and b. A statistical significance estimate or a fit over a finer parameter grid is needed to support the claim of sensitivity, especially since the effect on the ¯D0 - Λ_c^+ channel is small.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 9 caption and Sec. IV text] The caption lists 'D0, D+, D+s, and Λ+c' while the text refers to 'D0, Λ−c, D−, and Ds'; please make the charge conventions and the exact species list consistent.
[Eq. (5)] The quantities p_T,Ref and n should be defined at the point of introduction, and the values used (p_T ≈ 10 GeV/c, n = 2 and 8) should appear in the text near the equation rather than later.
[Abstract and Sec. III] The phrase 'high-pT biased collisions' is misleading because Eq. (5) defines a reweighting, not a selection; consider using 'momentum-transfer reweighted event samples' throughout.
[Table I and Sec. IV] The text refers to 'a and b' while Table I lists 'a-Lund' and 'b-Lund'; unify the notation for clarity.
[Eq. (6)] The relation between the symmetric balance function B_s(Δy) and the general definition in Eq. (4) is not explained; add a sentence clarifying why the symmetrized form is used for the Λ_c^+ reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PYTHIA 8.3 outputs are presented transparently as model predictions; the Eq. (5) reweighting raises a validity concern about the high-pT interpretation, not a circular step.

full rationale

This paper is a transparent generator-level simulation study: every central number is a model output explicitly attributed to PYTHIA ('according to Pythia', 'Pythia predictions', 'Pythia predicts'), and the paper itself states in Sec. IV that 'the actual balancing integrals (for very wide acceptance) are likely model specific and thus constitute, in their own right, good probes of the physics ingredients.' The balance-function formalism (Eqs. 1-6) is drawn from the authors' own prior work (Refs. [15, 16, 25]), but that work supplies a definitional framework, not the numerical hierarchy (45%/30%/20%/5%) or the 85% integral, which are computed from the generator's particle lists; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the formalism's assumptions are stated in the paper rather than smuggled in. The Lund-parameter scan (Fig. 8, Table II) is a parametric sensitivity study: inputs a and b are varied and RMS widths are measured as outputs, so input and output are not equivalent by construction. The momentum-transfer reweighting of Eq. (5), dσ_Biased/dσ_Unbiased = (pT_hat/pT_hat,Ref)^n, defines the biased sample; the reduced balance integral (~40%) and the near-side peak are computed outputs, not algebraic identities with the weight, so the claim is not self-definitional in the strict sense. The paper does, however, assert without external validation that the reweighting 'enabled studies of correlation functions for higher momentum scale processes' (Sec. III) and interprets the drop as evidence that 'higher momentum transfer in the initial production leads to a greater population of excited or non-included charm states' (Sec. IV); this identification of a Monte-Carlo event weight with a physical high-pT event population is a correctness and validity risk, not a circular step, and is flagged here rather than scored as circularity. The manuscript is honest about its limitations: ideal acceptance with 'no transverse momentum threshold, and no efficiency losses' (Sec. V), an open inclusive hadron list for higher charmed mass states (Sec. IV), and 'somewhat poor' statistical significance even with 50 billion events (Sec. III). The self-citations (Refs. [5, 15, 16, 18, 25]) are methods and same-group comparisons; Ref. [18] supplies the light-flavor reference pattern, and the charm-sector conclusion is computed independently in the present paper, so no load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness-imported-from-authors argument is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are the PYTHIA model settings, which are either taken from a standard tune or varied manually in the sensitivity study. The most important assumptions are that PYTHIA correctly models charm production and that the momentum reweighting preserves the physics of hard scattering.

free parameters (9)

a-Lund = 0.36 (default), varied 0.20-0.68
Lund string fragmentation parameter that controls the hardness of fragmentation; the paper studies the sensitivity of correlation widths to its value (Table I, Fig. 8).
b-Lund = 0.56 (default), varied 0.26-0.98
Lund string fragmentation parameter controlling the exponential suppression of large transverse mass hadrons; varied to assess sensitivity (Table I, Table II).
n (momentum bias exponent) = 2 and 8
Exponent in Eq. (5) used to reweight the cross section by (pT/pT,Ref)^n to enhance hard processes; the results differ significantly between n=2 and n=8.
pT,Ref (momentum scale bias reference) = 10 GeV/c
Reference momentum scale in Eq. (5) used for the bias.
expPow = 1.85
Pythia parameter for multiparton interactions; used in the calculation but not varied.
pT0Ref = 2.15
Pythia parameter for multiparton interactions; used in the calculation but not varied.
probQQtoQ = 0.078
Pythia parameter for quark flavor production; used in the calculation but not varied.
ProbStoUD = 0.2
Pythia parameter for strange-to-up/down suppression; used in the calculation but not varied.
Reconnection mode = 2
Color reconnection setting used in the calculation; not varied.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption PYTHIA 8.3 provides a valid description of charm production and hadronization in pp collisions at 13 TeV.
The entire paper is a PYTHIA study; the predictions are conditional on this.
domain assumption General balance functions and the associated cumulants (Eqs. 1-6) are appropriate observables for studying flavor conservation.
The formalism is taken from the authors' prior work [15,16].
ad hoc to paper The momentum-transfer bias of Eq. (5) preserves the physics of charm production while enhancing hard processes.
This is an analysis-specific reweighting; the physical interpretation of biased samples is an assumption of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Partonic Evolution and Hadronization via Balance Functions and Correlations of Charmed Hadrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5PBQ7TG

@misc{pith2026250721014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Partonic Evolution and Hadronization via Balance Functions and Correlations of Charmed Hadrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5PBQ7TG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21014}
}

read the original abstract

Predictions of charm correlation functions and more specifically balance functions are presented in proton--proton (pp) collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 13 TeV based on the PYTHIA 8.3 event generator. Correlations are computed for identical and cross-species charmed hadrons in both minimum bias and high-pT biased collisions. We study the strength of correlations as a function of the number of balanced flavors and investigate the impact of variations of PYTHIA parameters controlling the Lund string fragmentation on the shape and strength of the correlation functions. The feasibility of measurements of the charm balance function presented is discussed in the context of the future LHC experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21014 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Transverse momentum distributions dN/dpT of D0 and Λ+ c hadrons obtained with momentum scale reweighed (open symbols) relative to unbiased events (solid symbols) in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV simulated with Pythia 8.3. The distributions are normalized to the number of events. Particle production in Pythia proceeds through hard QCD processes, tuned multiparton interactions, showers, color reconnection mechanisms… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Two-particle associated cumulants A2 obtained for hadron pairs Λ− c Λ + c (left), D 0 Λ + c (middle), D 0 D 0 (right) with no momentum transfer selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Two-particle associated cumulants A2 obtained for hadron pairs Λ− c Λ + c (left), D 0 Λ + c (middle), D 0 D 0 (right) with momentum transfer selection bias based on Eq. (5) with n = 2. Λ + c is used as the reference particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Two-particle associated cumulants A2 obtained for hadron pairs Λ− c Λ + c (left), D 0 Λ + c (middle), D 0 D 0 (right) with momentum transfer selection bias based on Eq. (5) with n = 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Projections of the associated cumulants A2 onto the ∆y-axis for selected charm–charm hadron pairs in Pythia unbiased (left) and biased generated based on Eq. (5) with n = 8 (right) events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Projections of the normalized cumulant R2 onto the ∆y-axis for selected charm–charm hadron pairs in unbiased Pythia simulations of pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV. hadronization proceeds via string stretching and breaking, where the production of light u and d quarks are…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Variation of the fragmentation function f(z) ∝ z −1 (1−z) a exp −b m2 T /z for selected values of the Lund parameters a and b. The parameter a controls the behavior as z → 1, while b introduces exponential suppression at small z. This function models how a charm quar…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Rapidity dependence of the correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Balance function Bs(∆y) for charm–charm pairs with Λc as the associated particle. Left: Balance function distributions as a function of the rapidity difference ∆y for various trigger particles (D0 , D+, D+ s , and Λ+ c ), shown separately for biased and unbiased Pythia…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. D 105, L011103 (2022), arXiv:2105.06335 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2022
[2]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 829, 137065 (2022), arXiv:2111.11948 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2022
[3]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 107, 064901 (2023), arXiv:2211.14032 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2023
[4]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 104, 054905 (2021), arXiv:2011.06079 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2021
[5]

Measurements of ${\Lambda_{\rm c}^+\rm /D^0}$ ratio as a function of multiplicity at midrapidity at $ \sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}} = 5.02\; \text{TeV}$

O. Sheibani (ALICE), (2023), arXiv:2312.15542 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[6]

Transverse momentum dependence of D-meson production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV

J. Adam et al. (ALICE), JHEP 03, 081 (2016), arXiv:1509.06888 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[7]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 813, 136054 (2021), arXiv:2005.11131 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2021
[8]

Acharya et al.(ALICE), Eur

S. Acharya et al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1123 (2023), arXiv:2307.14084 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2023

Show all 30 references

[9]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), JHEP 10, 141 (2020), arXiv:2005.14518 [nucl-ex]

2020 arXiv
[10]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 791, 172 (2019), arXiv:1810.01473 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[11]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 797, 134917 (2019), arXiv:1905.13669 [nucl-ex]

2019
[12]

V. J. G. Feuillard (ALICE), PoS Hard Probes 2023, 083 (2024), arXiv:2309.08356 [nucl-ex]

2024 arXiv
[13]

A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 790, 270 (2019), arXiv:1805.09215 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[14]

Pratt, Phys

S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014904 (2012), arXiv:1109.3647 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[15]

Pruneau, V

C. Pruneau, V. Gonzalez, B. Hanley, A. Marin, and S. Basu, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014902 (2023), arXiv:2209.10420 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Pruneau, V

C. Pruneau, V. Gonzalez, A. Marin, and S. Basu, Phys. Rev. C 109, 044904 (2024), arXiv:2310.07618 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[17]

S. Basu, P. Christiansen, A. Ohlson, and D. Silvermyr, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1024 (2021), arXiv:2110.05134 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[18]

Patley, B

Y. Patley, B. Nandi, S. Dash, V. Gonzalez, and C. Pruneau, Phys. Rev. C 111, 054909 (2025), arXiv:2408.09923 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[19]

Bierlich et al., SciPost Phys

C. Bierlich et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[20]

Gieseke, A

S. Gieseke, A. Ribon, M. H. Seymour, P. Stephens, and B. Webber, JHEP 02, 005 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0311208

2004
[21]

Petersen, J

H. Petersen, J. Steinheimer, G. Burau, M. Bleicher, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044901 (2008), arXiv:0806.1695 [nucl-th]

2008 arXiv
[22]

Cooper and G

F. Cooper and G. Frye, Phys. Rev. D10, 186 (1974)

1974
[23]

P. B. Gossiaux, J. Aichelin, B. Guiot, I. Karpenko, V. Ozvenchuk, T. Pierog, J. Steinheimer, and K. Werner, PoS Hard Probes 2018, 169 (2019), arXiv:1901.03856 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Oliinychenko, S

D. Oliinychenko, S. Shi, and V. Koch, Phys. Rev. C 102, 034904 (2020), arXiv:2001.08176 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[25]

C. A. Pruneau, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034905 (2019), arXiv:1903.04591 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Andersson, S

B. Andersson, S. Mohanty, and F. Soderberg, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 631 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106185

2001 arXiv
[27]

Parida, P

T. Parida, P. Bozek, and S. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. C 109, 014903 (2024), arXiv:2308.14446 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[28]

ALICE, (2022), arXiv:2211.02491 [physics.ins-det]

2022 arXiv
[29]

Nicassio (ALICE), PoS EPS-HEP 2023, 540 (2024), arXiv:2311.10164 [hep-ex]

N. Nicassio (ALICE), PoS EPS-HEP 2023, 540 (2024), arXiv:2311.10164 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[30]

T. R. Fernandez Perez Tomei (CMS), PoS LHCP 2024, 189 (2025), arXiv:2501.03412 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. D 105, L011103 (2022), arXiv:2105.06335 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 829, 137065 (2022), arXiv:2111.11948 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 107, 064901 (2023), arXiv:2211.14032 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 104, 054905 (2021), arXiv:2011.06079 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2021

[5] [5]

Measurements of ${\Lambda_{\rm c}^+\rm /D^0}$ ratio as a function of multiplicity at midrapidity at $ \sqrt{s_{\text{NN}}} = 5.02\; \text{TeV}$

O. Sheibani (ALICE), (2023), arXiv:2312.15542 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Transverse momentum dependence of D-meson production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=2.76$ TeV

J. Adam et al. (ALICE), JHEP 03, 081 (2016), arXiv:1509.06888 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 813, 136054 (2021), arXiv:2005.11131 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Acharya et al.(ALICE), Eur

S. Acharya et al.(ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1123 (2023), arXiv:2307.14084 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2023