pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2509.07568 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-09 · ⚛️ nucl-th

K^*(892) Resonance Suppression in Ar+Sc Collisions at SPS Energies

Amine Chabane , Tom Reichert , Jan Steinheimer , Marcus Bleicher This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 18:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords K*(892) resonanceresonance suppressionUrQMD modelAr+Sc collisionsSPS energiesNA61/SHINEheavy-ion collisionsfreeze-out
0
0 comments X

The pith

UrQMD reproduces main trends of K*(892) resonance behavior in Ar+Sc collisions but underpredicts the strong suppression measured in central events.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies how short-lived K*(892) resonances are produced and then suppressed through rescattering in proton-proton and argon-scandium collisions at SPS beam energies. It computes multiplicities, rapidity and momentum spectra, and the K*/K yield ratio versus energy and collision centrality inside the UrQMD transport code. Direct comparison to new NA61/SHINE measurements shows that the model gets the qualitative energy and centrality dependence right and yields a plausible estimate for the time between chemical and kinetic freeze-out. A reader would care because the K*/K ratio acts as a clock for the length of the hadronic phase, and any mismatch between model and data points to gaps in our understanding of late-stage particle interactions in dense nuclear matter.

Core claim

We investigate the production and suppression of short-lived K*(892) resonances in p+p and Ar+Sc collisions at CERN-SPS energies using the UrQMD model. We present multiplicities, rapidity and transverse momentum distributions, and analyze the K*/K yield ratios as a function of energy and centrality. We further estimate the time interval between chemical and kinetic freeze-out using the experimental method. A detailed comparison with recent NA61/SHINE data demonstrates that the UrQMD model captures the essential features of resonance dynamics, although the very strong resonance suppression in central collisions observed in the data cannot be quantitatively reproduced.

What carries the argument

The K*/K yield ratio computed in UrQMD as a function of centrality, which registers the net loss of resonances due to rescattering in the hadronic phase after chemical freeze-out.

If this is right

  • The K*/K ratio decreases with increasing centrality, indicating stronger resonance loss in denser collision systems.
  • The calculated time between chemical and kinetic freeze-out grows with system size and matches the order of magnitude extracted from experiment.
  • Standard resonance cross sections already produce the correct qualitative energy dependence of the suppression pattern.
  • The model supplies a baseline expectation against which future measurements in other systems can be compared.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Persistent underestimation of suppression across models would suggest that in-medium modifications to resonance properties or additional hadronic channels are missing from current transport descriptions.
  • Repeating the same centrality scan at higher collider energies could reveal whether the suppression mechanism changes when the hadronic phase becomes shorter.
  • High-statistics measurements in peripheral collisions would help separate initial resonance production from final-state rescattering effects.

Load-bearing premise

The standard UrQMD parameters and resonance interaction cross sections, used without extra tuning, are enough to describe K* production and suppression in Ar+Sc collisions at these SPS energies.

What would settle it

New data or a re-analysis showing that the measured K*/K ratio in central Ar+Sc collisions agrees with the untuned UrQMD prediction within experimental uncertainties would falsify the reported quantitative mismatch.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07568 by Amine Chabane, Jan Steinheimer, Marcus Bleicher, Tom Reichert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: [Color online] Average multiplicity of K∗0 (892) res￾onances as a function of the center-of-mass energy √ sNN for p+p and central (0-10%) Ar+Sc collisions. The dashed line shows UrQMD model calculations for p+p collisions (scaled by a factor of 20), while the solid line represents UrQMD predictions for Ar+Sc collisions. Open circles in￾dicate NA61/SHINE experimental data for p+p collisions (scaled by a fac… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: [Color online] Transverse momentum distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [Color online] Duration of the hadronic stage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the production and suppression of short-lived $K^*(892)$ resonances in p+p and Ar+Sc collisions at CERN-SPS energies ($\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = $ 8.8, 11.9, and 16.8~GeV) using the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics (UrQMD) model. We present multiplicities, rapidity and transverse momentum distributions, and analyze the $K^*/K$ yield ratios as a function of energy and centrality. We further estimate the time interval between chemical and kinetic freeze-out using the experimental method. A detailed comparison with recent NA61/SHINE data demonstrates that the UrQMD model captures the essential features of resonance dynamics, although the very strong resonance suppression in central collisions observed in the data cannot be quantitatively reproduced.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the production and suppression of short-lived K*(892) resonances in p+p and Ar+Sc collisions at CERN-SPS energies (√s_NN = 8.8, 11.9, and 16.8 GeV) using the UrQMD transport model. It reports multiplicities, rapidity and transverse-momentum distributions, and K*/K yield ratios versus energy and centrality, together with an estimate of the chemical-to-kinetic freeze-out time interval obtained via the experimental method. Direct comparison with recent NA61/SHINE data shows that the model reproduces the essential qualitative features of resonance dynamics and suppression trends, while explicitly noting that the very strong quantitative suppression observed in central collisions is not reproduced.

Significance. If the reported qualitative agreement and acknowledged quantitative discrepancy hold, the work supplies a useful benchmark for resonance dynamics in the hadronic phase at SPS energies. The explicit statement that standard UrQMD parameters and cross sections are insufficient for the central suppression is a constructive finding that can guide future refinements of resonance interaction modeling. The direct confrontation with new NA61/SHINE data adds timely experimental context.

major comments (1)
  1. [Results] Results section (comparison with NA61/SHINE data): the central claim that the model 'cannot be quantitatively reproduced' for central suppression is load-bearing for the paper's modest conclusion. The manuscript would be strengthened by reporting the model-to-data ratio (or χ² per degree of freedom) in the most central bins together with statistical and systematic uncertainties, so that the size of the discrepancy can be assessed objectively rather than qualitatively.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the energies as 8.8, 11.9, and 16.8 GeV; a short footnote or sentence clarifying whether these are exact beam energies or mid-rapidity values would remove ambiguity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and legends: ensure that all panels are explicitly labeled with collision system (p+p vs. Ar+Sc), centrality class, and whether the curves include statistical errors or only mean values.
  3. [Methods] The description of the freeze-out time extraction method would benefit from a one-sentence reminder of the underlying experimental formula (e.g., the relation between K*/K and the time interval) for readers who are not specialists in resonance lifetime techniques.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and for the constructive suggestion to strengthen the quantitative comparison with NA61/SHINE data. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section (comparison with NA61/SHINE data): the central claim that the model 'cannot be quantitatively reproduced' for central suppression is load-bearing for the paper's modest conclusion. The manuscript would be strengthened by reporting the model-to-data ratio (or χ² per degree of freedom) in the most central bins together with statistical and systematic uncertainties, so that the size of the discrepancy can be assessed objectively rather than qualitatively.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative measure of the discrepancy would make the central claim more objective and strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version we will add the model-to-data ratios of the K*/K yields for the most central bins at each beam energy, together with the statistical uncertainties obtained from the UrQMD event samples. We will also briefly discuss the limitations in estimating systematic uncertainties within the transport model. This addition will allow a clearer assessment of the under-prediction without altering the paper's overall conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model simulations compared directly to independent data

full rationale

The paper runs the established UrQMD transport model with its standard parameters and resonance cross sections to compute K* multiplicities, rapidity and pT distributions, and K*/K ratios in p+p and Ar+Sc collisions at SPS energies. These outputs are then compared to external NA61/SHINE data, with the authors explicitly noting that the model captures qualitative trends but underpredicts the quantitative suppression in central collisions. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, no self-citations bear the central claim, and the chain consists of standard model evolution followed by falsifiable comparison to independent experimental results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text. The study relies on the standard assumptions built into the UrQMD model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5675 in / 1088 out tokens · 42217 ms · 2026-05-18T18:24:16.056521+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Sorensen, K

    A. Sorensen, K. Agarwal, K. W. Brown, Z. Chajęcki, P. Danielewicz, C. Drischler, S. Gandolfi, J. W. Holt, M. Kaminski and C. M. Ko,et al.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134, 104080 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080 [arXiv:2301.13253 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080 2024

  2. [2]

    Hanbury Brown and R

    R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Phil. Mag. Ser. 7 45, 663-682 (1954) doi:10.1080/14786440708520475

    work page doi:10.1080/14786440708520475 1954

  3. [3]

    Goldhaber, S

    G. Goldhaber, S. Goldhaber, W. Y. Lee and A. Pais, Phys. Rev.120, 300-312 (1960) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.120.300

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.120.300 1960

  4. [4]

    Bauer, C

    W. Bauer, C. K. Gelbke and S. Pratt, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.42, 77-100 (1992) doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.42.120192.000453

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.ns.42.120192.000453 1992

  5. [5]

    Pratt, Phys

    S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. D33, 1314-1327 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.1314

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.33.1314 1986

  6. [6]

    Beam energy dependent two-pion interferometry and the freeze-out eccentricity of pions in heavy ion collisions at STAR

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. C92, no.1, 014904 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.014904 [arXiv:1403.4972 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.014904 2015

  7. [7]

    N. N. Ajitanandet al.[PHENIX], Nucl. Phys. A931, 1082-1087 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.08.054 [arXiv:1404.5291 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.08.054 2014

  8. [8]

    Heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a review of the results from Run 1

    N. Armesto and E. Scomparin, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131, no.3, 52 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2016-16052-4 [arXiv:1511.02151 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjp/i2016-16052-4 2016

  9. [9]

    Adamczewski-Muschet al.[HADES], Eur

    J. Adamczewski-Muschet al.[HADES], Eur. Phys. J. A 56, no.5, 140 (2020) doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00116- w [arXiv:1910.07885 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00116- 2020

  10. [10]

    P. Li, J. Steinheimer, T. Reichert, A. Kittiratpattana, M. Bleicher and Q. Li, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, no.3, 232011 (2023) doi:10.1007/s11433-022-2041-8 [arXiv:2209.01413 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-022-2041-8 2023

  11. [11]

    Torrieri and J

    G. Torrieri and J. Rafelski, Phys. Lett. B509, 239-245 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00492-0 [arXiv:hep- ph/0103149 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)00492-0 2001

  12. [12]

    Strange hadrons and their resonances: a diagnostic tool of QGP freeze-out dynamics

    J. Rafelski, J. Letessier and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C64, 054907 (2001) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C65, 069902 (2002)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.64.054907 [arXiv:nucl-th/0104042 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.64.054907 2001

  13. [13]

    Bleicher and J

    M. Bleicher and J. Aichelin, Phys. Lett. B530, 81-87 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01334-5 [arXiv:hep- ph/0201123 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(02)01334-5 2002

  14. [14]

    Markert, G

    C. Markert, G. Torrieri and J. Rafelski, AIP Conf. Proc. 631, no.1, 533 (2002) doi:10.1063/1.1513698 [arXiv:hep- ph/0206260 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1513698 2002

  15. [15]

    A. G. Knospe [ALICE], J. Phys. Conf. Ser.612, no.1, 012064 (2015) doi:10.1088/1742-6596/612/1/012064 [arXiv:1501.03797 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/612/1/012064 2015

  16. [16]

    A. G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C93, no.1, 014911 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.014911 [arXiv:1509.07895 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.014911 2016

  17. [17]

    $K^{*}$ vector meson resonances dynamics in heavy-ion collisions

    A. Ilner, D. Cabrera, C. Markert and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C95, no.1, 014903 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.014903 [arXiv:1609.02778 6 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.014903 2017

  18. [18]

    Oliinychenko and C

    D. Oliinychenko and C. Shen, [arXiv:2105.07539 [hep- ph]]

    work page arXiv

  19. [19]

    A. K. Sahoo, M. Nasim and S. Singha, Phys. Rev. C108, no.4, 044904 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.044904 [arXiv:2302.08177 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.108.044904 2023

  20. [20]

    A. K. Sahoo, S. Singha and M. Nasim, J. Phys. G 52, no.1, 015101 (2025) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad8768 [arXiv:2307.06661 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad8768 2025

  21. [21]

    Adamset al.[STAR], Phys

    J. Adamset al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. C71, 064902 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.71.064902 [arXiv:nucl- ex/0412019 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.71.064902 2005

  22. [22]

    What do we learn from Resonance Production in Heavy Ion Collisions?

    C. Markert, J. Phys. G31, S169-S178 (2005) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/4/021 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0503013 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/4/021 2005

  23. [23]

    B. I. Abelevet al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. C78, 044906 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.044906 [arXiv:0801.0450 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.78.044906 2008

  24. [24]

    Agakishievet al.[HADES], Eur

    G. Agakishievet al.[HADES], Eur. Phys. J. A49, 34 (2013) doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13034-7

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/i2013-13034-7 2013

  25. [25]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. C99, 024905 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024905 [arXiv:1805.04361 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.024905 2019

  26. [26]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.5, 351 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11475-1 [arXiv:2205.13998 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11475-1 2023

  27. [27]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. C109, no.4, 044902 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044902 [arXiv:2308.16119 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.044902 2024

  28. [28]

    A. G. Knospe, C. Markert, K. Werner, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C104, no.5, 054907 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104.054907 [arXiv:2102.06797 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.054907 2021

  29. [29]

    Chabane, L

    A. Chabane, L. Engel, T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C111, no.3, 034913 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.034913 [arXiv:2409.08639 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.111.034913 2025

  30. [30]

    Neidig, A

    T. Neidig, A. Kittiratpattana, T. Reichert, A. Cha- bane, C. Greiner and M. Bleicher, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139339 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139339 [arXiv:2501.03893 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139339 2025

  31. [31]

    Kozłowski [NA61/SHINE], PoSICHEP2024, 609 (2025) doi:10.22323/1.476.0609 [arXiv:2409.20229 [nucl- ex]]

    B. Kozłowski [NA61/SHINE], PoSICHEP2024, 609 (2025) doi:10.22323/1.476.0609 [arXiv:2409.20229 [nucl- ex]]

    work page doi:10.22323/1.476.0609 2025

  32. [32]

    Abdallahet al.[STAR], Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.[STAR], Phys. Rev. C107, no.3, 034907 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.034907 [arXiv:2210.02909 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.034907 2023

  33. [33]

    S. A. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brandstetter, L. Bravina, C. Ernst, L. Gerland, M. Hofmann, S. Hof- mann and J. Konopka,et al.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41, 255-369 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(98)00058-1 [arXiv:nucl-th/9803035 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(98)00058-1 1998

  34. [34]

    Relativistic Hadron-Hadron Collisions in the Ultra-Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics Model (UrQMD)

    M. Bleicher, E. Zabrodin, C. Spieles, S. A. Bass, C. Ernst, S. Soff, L. Bravina, M. Belkacem, H. Weber and H. Stoecker,et al.J. Phys. G25, 1859-1896 (1999) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909407 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308 1999

  35. [35]

    Bleicher and E

    M. Bleicher and E. Bratkovskaya, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 122, 103920 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103920

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103920 2022

  36. [36]

    Aichelin and H

    J. Aichelin and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett. B176, 14-19 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90916-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90916-0 1986

  37. [37]

    Aichelin, Phys

    J. Aichelin, Phys. Rept.202, 233-360 (1991) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90094-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90094-3 1991

  38. [38]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  39. [39]

    High $p_T$ resonances as a possibility to explore hot and dense nuclear matter

    S. Vogel, J. Aichelin and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C82, 014907 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.014907 [arXiv:0908.3811 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.82.014907 2010

  40. [40]

    Sub-threshold $\phi$ and $\Xi^-$ production by high mass resonances with UrQMD

    J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G43, no.1, 015104 (2016) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/1/015104 [arXiv:1503.07305 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/1/015104 2016

  41. [41]

    Probing the hot and dense nuclear matter with $K^*,\bar{K}^*$ vector mesons

    A. Ilner, J. Blair, D. Cabrera, C. Markert and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C99, no.2, 024914 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024914 [arXiv:1707.00060 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.024914 2019

  42. [42]

    Reichert, P

    T. Reichert, P. Hillmann, A. Limphirat, C. Herold and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G46, no.10, 105107 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab34fa [arXiv:1903.12032 [nucl- th]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab34fa 2019

  43. [43]

    Neidig, K

    T. Neidig, K. Gallmeister, C. Greiner, M. Bleicher and V. Vovchenko, Phys. Lett. B827, 136891 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136891 [arXiv:2108.13151 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136891 2022