Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Study of Particle Production in Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5-200 GeV Using HYDJET++ Framework

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tuned HYDJET++ calculations agree with STAR data for phi mesons across the RHIC beam-energy scan but systematically overproduce Omega baryons, which the authors interpret as incomplete thermalization of the heavier multistrange baryon.

desk verdict The paper is a legitimate HYDJET++ benchmark for phi and Omega at BES energies, but its central claim that the low-energy Omega discrepancy reflects non-equilibrium is not supported because the model uses grand-canonical strangeness at all energies. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15259 v1 pith:CJWI2AKI submitted 2025-08-21 hep-ph

Gauri Devi , Satya Ranjan Nayak , B. K. Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 25.75.-q
keywords strangenessenhancementearlyfreeze-outenergydependenceQCDphasemulti-strangeparticlesphimesonOmegabaryonHYDJET++
topics Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
open problems Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry
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 asks whether the HYDJET++ event generator, with thermal freeze-out parameters tuned to STAR data, can describe multi-strange particle production across the full RHIC Beam Energy Scan (11.5–200 GeV). Comparing simulated transverse-momentum spectra and yield ratios with STAR measurements, it finds that the tuned model tracks the phi meson well at all five energies and centralities, but systematically overproduces the Omega baryon, with the mismatch growing at lower energies and in peripheral collisions. On that basis the authors argue that phi mesons reach thermal resonance equilibrium while Omega baryons do not, because of their larger mass and weaker interaction with non-strange hadrons. If correct, the result isolates a flavor-dependent freeze-out signature: the phi channel can be described by a chemically and thermally equilibrated grand-canonical source, while Omega yields probe incomplete strangeness thermalization, baryon coalescence, or the transition between partonic and hadronic matter near 19.6 GeV. The same comparison also constrains strangeness enhancement and matter–antimatter asymmetry at high baryon chemical potential.

What carries the argument

The central object is HYDJET++, a two-component event generator: a soft thermal part (FAST MC) plus a hard part (PYQUEN-modified jets from PYTHIA 6.4). The load-bearing machinery is a species-dependent re-tuning of the freeze-out parameters - thermal temperature T_th, chemical temperature T_ch, and the strangeness occupancy factor gamma_s - fitted to STAR data within the grand-canonical ensemble. These parameters set the hypersurface from which phi and Omega are emitted and determine how collective radial flow reshapes their pT spectra. Since heavier hadrons require more thermal energy, the tuned T_th values are what make phi appear equilibrated while Omega, emitted from the same source, sta

What would settle it

Rerun the same HYDJET++ setup at 11.5 and 19.6 GeV with strangeness-canonical-ensemble parameters (e.g., extracted with the same thermal-model package) while keeping all other freeze-out parameters fixed, and compare the Omega/phi ratio to STAR. If the overprediction disappears, the paper's incomplete-thermalization reading is falsified; if it persists, the reading is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Phi meson production in Au+Au collisions from 11.5 to 200 GeV, the paper claims, matches HYDJET++'s fully thermalized, grand-canonical soft component with freeze-out parameters tuned to STAR data, while Omega does not. Phi predictions fall inside STAR uncertainties for central collisions at higher energies; Omega is overpredicted everywhere, up to 1.5 times centrally and 4-6 times peripherally at low energy. The authors read this as flavor-dependent thermalization: phi equilibrates; Omega, heavier and more weakly interacting, freezes out early. Yield ratios show strangeness suppression at 11.5 versus 19.6 GeV and growing matter-antimatter asymmetry, pointing to a parton-to-hadron transition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single grand-canonical statistical description - one that treats strangeness as freely produced and conserved on average - is valid at all five beam energies, including 11.5 and 19.6 GeV where strangeness production is sparse; if a strangeness-canonical treatment is required there, the Omega overproduction could be an artifact of the chosen ensemble rather than evidence of incomplete thermalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HYDJET++ can describe phi meson production across the 11.5–200 GeV beam-energy scan with freeze-out parameters tuned to STAR data, so phi is the species whose yield and pT shape are governed by thermal resonance equilibrium.
  • The systematic Omega overproduction is a physics statement, not a tuning artifact: at lower energies the Omega yield is set by incomplete thermalization and weak hadronic interaction, so the model's excess marks where equilibrium assumptions break down.
  • The energy dependence of Omega/phi and baryon-to-meson ratios places the change from parton-dominated to hadron-dominated matter between 11.5 and 19.6 GeV.
  • Antiparticle-to-particle ratios approaching unity at 200 GeV and falling with energy reproduce the expected baryon-rich environment; the model captures the trend.
  • The tuned freeze-out parameters narrow the freedom in parton energy-loss models, adding constraints on the transport properties of hot QCD matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same setup is rerun at 11.5 and 19.6 GeV with a strangeness-canonical ensemble instead of the grand-canonical one, and the Omega overshoot disappears, then the paper's incomplete-thermalization reading would have to be revised; the paper explicitly adopts GCE parameters at all energies.
  • A natural model upgrade would be to add baryon coalescence for multistrange baryons in the soft component; the paper notes coalescence matters more for Omega, so such an addition could reduce the low-pT excess without changing phi.
  • The claimed parton-to-hadron transition near 19.6 GeV is testable at a beam energy just below 19.6 GeV: the model predicts Omega/phi and Omega/pion ratios should keep their steep energy dependence if the transition is real.
  • The comparison between HYDJET++ and Tsallis/blast-wave freeze-out temperatures is partly built into the models - HYDJET++ assumes full thermalization while Tsallis assumes a near-equilibrated system - so the reported temperature differences are not a direct measurement of the system's equilibrium state.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the HYDJET++ event generator, with freeze-out parameters (Tth, rho_max, Tch, mu_B, gamma_s) modified from or adopted from STAR analyses, to compute pT spectra, mean transverse momentum, and particle ratios for phi mesons and Omega^± baryons in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 11.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 200 GeV. Comparisons to STAR data are shown for several centrality classes. The authors report better model-data agreement at higher collision energies, with phi meson spectra described within roughly a factor of 1-2 and Omega baryons overpredicted by factors up to 4-6 at the lowest energies. They interpret this pattern as evidence that phi achieves thermal/chemical equilibrium while Omega does not, because of its larger mass and weaker hadronic interaction.

Significance. If robust, the systematic energy and centrality scan would be a useful test of HYDJET++ in the RHIC Beam Energy Scan region and could constrain the onset of partonic collectivity and strangeness-canonical effects. The paper has two clear strengths: it covers a broad energy range with consistent model settings, and it displays model/data ratio panels (Figures 2-4) that make the deviations transparent. However, the central interpretive claim about Omega thermalization is not yet established. The comparison is partly circular because the soft-sector parameters are tuned to or adopted from STAR data, and the model uses a grand-canonical ensemble for strangeness even at energies where the paper itself acknowledges strangeness-canonical treatment is required. The observed low-energy Omega overprediction may therefore be a model artifact rather than evidence about Omega equilibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. III A] The agreement shown in Figures 2-4 is not an independent prediction. Section II states that Tth, Tch, and gamma_s 'were fitted to experimental data [2] based on the comparison of pT-spectra of charged yields,' and Section III A states that 'we have matched the pT data by simultaneously tuning thermal freeze-out temperature Tth and maximum transverse flow rapidity rho_max.' Thus the good phi description may simply reflect the fit. The conclusion in Sec. IV that phi reaches thermal resonance equilibrium is therefore not tested by these comparisons. Please report the tuned values of Tth, rho_max, Tch, mu_B, and gamma_s (a parameter table is missing), and provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit (e.g., chi2/NDF) for the untuned observables such as the ratios in Figures 7-9.
  2. [Sec. II and Figs. 3-4] The grand-canonical ensemble (GCE) treatment invalidates the Omega thermalization conclusion as presented. Section II explicitly acknowledges that 'SCE is required at lower energies with limited strangeness production' but then adopts GCE 'as the RHIC BES program spans a broad energy range.' In a strangeness-canonical ensemble, a particle with strangeness S is suppressed by a Bessel factor I_S/I_0, which is strong for Omega (|S|=3) in small, low-energy fireballs but absent for phi (S=0). The observed pattern of phi being roughly described while Omega is overpredicted by 4-6x at 11.5-19.6 GeV is exactly what one would expect from using GCE where SCE is required. Therefore the statement in Sec. IV that 'Omega does not achieve equilibrium due to heavier mass with less hadronic interaction' is not supported; the discrepancy may be a canonical-ensemble artifact. The authors should either impl
  3. [Sec. III B and Figs. 2-4] The paper's central claim of 'better agreement at higher energies' rests on visual inspection of the ratio panels without any quantitative metric or uncertainty estimate. No chi-square, mean ratio, or confidence band is provided, and the Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty and the uncertainties on the adopted STAR parameters are not propagated. Given that the model parameters are tuned at least partly to the same data, a quantitative agreement measure is essential to judge whether the systematic energy dependence is significant or is within tuning flexibility.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The Tsallis distribution as printed is missing the power-law exponent 1/(1-q) and has unbalanced parentheses. As written, the equation is not the standard Tsallis form used in the cited literature.
  2. [Sec. I and Sec. III B] The decay notation is erroneous: the phi is a neutral meson and should not be written as 'phi^-'. The decays should read phi -> K+ K-, phi -> K_L^0 K_S^0, etc., not 'phi^- -> pi+ + pi- + pi^0'.
  3. [Sec. II] A table of the adopted/tuned freeze-out parameters (Tth, rho_max, Tch, mu_B, gamma_s) for each energy and centrality is essential for reproducibility. Currently the values are only described qualitatively.
  4. [Fig. 5] The horizontal axis label appears as '>part <N'; the angle brackets are misplaced. It should be \langle N_{\mathrm{part}}\rangle.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. III B] The abstract's claim that 'the default version performs more accurately for lighter, non-strange particles' is not supported by any comparison shown in the paper. Please either add the relevant light-flavor results or remove/soften the claim.
  6. [Abstract] The statement that the results 'provide additional constraints on parton energy loss models' is not supported by the presented observables; no jet-quenching or parton-energy-loss observable is analyzed. This claim should be removed or substantiated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Phi agreement is a tuned fit, and the Omega non-equilibrium conclusion rests on a GCE assumption the paper itself says is invalid at low energies.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (Freeze-out temperatures), Fig. 1; Sec. IV]
    "We have fitted the transverse momentum distribution of φ meson using the Tsallis distribution in figure 1... In this work, we have matched the pT data by simultaneously tuning thermal freeze-out temperature Tth and maximum transverse flow rapidity ρmax. These parameters are similar to the ones used in Blast-wave fit."

    The soft-sector parameters Tth and ρmax are explicitly tuned to reproduce the experimental pT spectra, and the φ spectrum is the illustrative fit shown in Fig. 1. The later Sec. IV sentence 'it also suggests the φ achieves the thermal resonance equilibrium' is therefore a restatement of that tuning, not an independent prediction: after adjusting Tth and ρmax to match the φ pT distribution, agreement with the STAR φ data in Figs. 2 and 5 is guaranteed by construction. Consequently, the reported 'better agreement' for φ at higher energies cannot be used as independent confirmation of thermal equilibrium for the φ.

  2. other [Sec. II (GCE/SCE discussion); Sec. III C; Sec. IV]
    "While GCE is suitable at higher energies with abundant strangeness and SCE is required at lower energies with limited strangeness production. In this work we adopt the GCE approach parameters, as the RHIC BES program spans a broad energy range."

    The paper's evidence for Ω non-equilibrium is the model's 4-6× overprediction of Ω at low energies. But the model deliberately uses GCE, which the paper itself says is not suitable at low energies; in SCE a particle with |S|=3 such as Ω is canonically suppressed relative to GCE, while φ with S=0 is nearly unaffected, producing exactly the observed pattern. Thus the Ω discrepancy is attributable to the adopted ensemble choice, not a derived physical conclusion about Ω thermalization. The Sec. IV statement that Ω 'does not achieve equilibrium due to heavier mass with less hadronic interaction' is therefore not established by this comparison; it is a model-artifact interpretation of the admitted GCE/SCE mismatch.

full rationale

The clearest circular component is explicit: Sec. III A states that Tth and ρmax were tuned to match pT data, with the φ spectrum as the displayed fit, and Sec. IV then uses the resulting φ agreement to conclude that φ achieves thermal resonance equilibrium. This is a fitted input presented as a prediction, justifying a score of 6. The Ω claim is less directly fitted, but it inherits a separate confound that the paper itself flags: GCE is used at all energies although SCE is required at low energies. Because Ω carries |S|=3, SCE would suppress Ω relative to the GCE calculation while leaving φ essentially unchanged, so the observed pattern (φ reasonable, Ω overpredicted) is exactly the expected artifact of the ensemble choice. The non-equilibrium conclusion is therefore not forced by the data. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; HYDJET++ is an external model and STAR parameters are openly adopted. The fitted-parameter admission is the load-bearing circular component, and the GCE choice further undermines the central physical interpretation without making the entire derivation necessarily circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a significant set of fitted or adopted parameters from STAR and from the authors' own earlier work, plus the unvalidated applicability of HYDJET++ and GCE at low BES energies. The paper contributes comparison plots, not a derivation, so its value depends on how much of the agreement is independent of the tuning.

free parameters (5)
  • Tth (thermal freeze-out temperature) = not reported
    Tuned to match pT data and adopted from STAR blast-wave fits [2]; controls momentum distributions of soft hadrons.
  • rho_max (maximum transverse flow rapidity) = not reported
    Tuned together with Tth to match pT spectra; controls radial flow in the FAST MC soft component.
  • Tch (chemical freeze-out temperature) = not reported
    Adopted from STAR THERMUS grand-canonical fits [2]; sets final particle composition.
  • mu_B (baryon chemical potential) = not reported
    Adopted from STAR [2]; controls baryon-antibaryon asymmetry at each beam energy.
  • gamma_s (strangeness phase-space occupancy) = centrality dependent, values not reported
    Adjusted as a centrality-dependent variable per reference [25]; directly affects strange and multi-strange yields.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption HYDJET++ (with FAST MC soft component and PYQUEN hard component) is a valid description of hadron production at RHIC BES energies.
    The paper inherits the model's hydrodynamics and jet energy loss machinery from refs [20-24] without independent validation at lower beam energies; all conclusions depend on this.
  • domain assumption Grand-canonical ensemble (GCE) treatment of strangeness is adequate at all studied energies.
    Section II states SCE is required at lower energies with limited strangeness but GCE parameters are adopted because BES spans a broad range; if this is false, low-energy Omega yields are mis-modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Tuned freeze-out parameters from STAR analyses [2] can be imported into HYDJET++ without additional uncertainty.
    The central comparison depends on values (Tth, Tch, mu_B, gamma_s, rho_max) taken from fits to data; their uncertainties are not propagated into the model predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of Particle Production in Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5-200 GeV Using HYDJET++ Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJWI2AKI

@misc{pith2026250815259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of Particle Production in Au+Au Collisions at $\sqrts_NN =$ 11.5-200 GeV Using HYDJET++ Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJWI2AKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15259}
}
abstract

Using the HYDJET++ model, we study the production of multi-strange particles($\phi$ and $\Omega$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5, 19.6, 27, 39, and 200 GeV as functions of transverse momentum and centrality. The model calculations employ earlier freeze-out hypersurfaces for multi-strange particle production and are compared with STAR experimental data. Results indicate that the HYDJET++ model demonstrates a better agreement with experimental data for multi-strange particles at higher energies, particularly in relation to early thermal freeze-out. Meanwhile, the default version performs more accurately for lighter, non-strange particles at the same energy scales. We also analyze identified particle and mixed particle ratios, providing insights into strangeness enhancement. The results provide additional constraints on parton energy loss models, contributing to a more precise determination of the transport properties of hot and dense QCD matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.15259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The pT spectra of φ meson using Tsallis distribution, Blast-wave, exponential fits and HYDJET++ for central collisions of Au+Au collisions at √ sNN =39 GeV. The markers denote the STAR experimental data [9], while the lines correspond to the results obtained from different methods. Energies (GeV) 11.5 19.6 27 39 200 Centrality (%) hNparti hNcolli hNparti hNcolli hNparti hNcolli hNparti hNcolli hNparti hNcolli 0-10 3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel- The pT spectra of φ-meson as a function of pT in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. The lines represent HYDJET++ results while markers represent STAR experimental data [9, 25, 27]. Lower panel- Ratios of model predictions-to-experimental data for φ meson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel- The pT spectra of Ω−-baryon as a function of pT in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. The lines represent HYDJET++ results while markers represent STAR experimental data [9, 26, 27]. Lower panel- Ratios of model predictions-to-experimental data for Ω−-baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel- pT spectra of Ω + -baryon from Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. The lines represent HYDJET++ results while markers represent STAR experimental data [9, 26, 27]. Lower panel- Ratios of model predictions￾to-experimental data for Ω + -baryon [PITH…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: hpT i as a function of hNparti in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. The Solid markers represent HYDJET++ results while open markers represent STAR experimental data [9, 35] 1 2 3 (GeV/c) T p 0 5 10 15 - (0-10%) (b) Ω 1 2 3 (GeV/c) T p 0 5 10 15 20 + (0-10%) (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Particle yield ratios (in term of energy ratios) as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Particle ratios, N(φ)/N(K−) (represents by Open markers), and N(Ω−)/N(K−) (represents by Solid markers), (b) N(Ω−(Ω + ))/N(φ)) (represents by Solid (Open) markers), as a function of pT in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. essential information about the e…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Baryon-to-meson ratio, N(Ω− + Ω + )/[2N(φ)] as a function of pT in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. The Open markers represent HYDJET++ results and solid markers represent STAR experimental data [27]. 1 2 3 4 (GeV/c) T p −1 0 1 2 - Ω/ + Ω (0-10%) 11.5 19.6 2…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Antiparticle-to-particle ratio, N(Ω + )/N(Ω−) as a function of pT in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 − 200 GeV. The Solid markers represent HYDJET++ results. C. Particle Ratio Figures 6 to 9 present the particle yield ratios (in terms of energy ratios) and different p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) no.4, 044904 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.044904

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.044904 2017

  2. [1]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. [PHENIX], Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005), 184-283 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086

    doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086 2005

  3. [3]

    B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR], Phys. Lett. B 673 (2009), 183-191 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.02.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.02.037 2009

  4. [4]

    Shor, Phys

    A. Shor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985), 1122-1125 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.1122

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.54.1122 1985

  5. [5]

    C. P. Singh, V. K. Tiwari and K. K. Singh, Phys. Lett. B 393 (1997), 188-192 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01632-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(96)01632-2 1997

  6. [6]

    C. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986), 1750 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.1750

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.56.1750 1986

  7. [7]

    Y. J. Ye, J. H. Chen, Y. G. Ma, S. Zhang and C. Zhong, Chin. Phys. C 41 (2017) no.8, 084101 doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/41/8/084101

    doi:10.1088/1674- 2017

  8. [8]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) no.2, 024912 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.024912

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.024912 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) no.3, 034909 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.034909

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. [PHENIX], Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) no.2, 024906 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.024906

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. [PHENIX], Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011), 064903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.064903

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Okubo, Phys

    S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5 (1963), 165-168 doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(63)92548-9

    1963 doi

  5. [13]

    Devi and B

    G. Devi and B. K. Singh, [arXiv:2409.10435 [hep-ph]]

  6. [14]

    G. Devi, A. Singh and B. K. Singh, DAE Symp. Nucl. Phys. 67 (2024), 1059-1060

    2024

  7. [15]

    G. Devi, A. Singh, S. Pandey and B. K. Singh, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138 (2023) no.10, 921 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360- 023-04544-7

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Singh, P

    A. Singh, P. K. Srivastava, G. Devi and B. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) no.2, 024906 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.024906

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    L. V. Bravina, G. K. Eyyubova, V. L. Korotkikh, I. P. Lokhtin, S. V. Petrushanko, A. M. Snigirev and E. E. Zabrodin, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) no.3, 034905 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.034905

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    G. Devi, A. Singh and B. K. Singh, J. Phys. G 51 (2024) no.9, 095203 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ad63c0

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    I. P. Lokhtin, A. V. Belyaev, L. V. Malinina, S. V. Petrushanko, E. P. Rogochaya and A. M. Snigirev, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012), 2045 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 012-2045-7

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    I. P. Lokhtin, L. V. Malinina, S. V. Petrushanko, A. M. Snigirev, I. Arsene and K. Tywoniuk, Nonlin. Phe- nom. Complex Syst. 12 (2009), 348-355

    2009

  13. [21]

    I. P. Lokhtin, L. V. Malinina, S. V. Petrushanko, A. M. Snigirev, I. Arsene and K. Tywoniuk, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009), 779-799

    2009

  14. [22]

    I. P. Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006), 211-217 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3. 11

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    N. S. Amelin, R. Lednicky, T. A. Pocheptsov, I. P. Lokhtin, L. V. Malinina, A. M. Snigirev, I. A. Karpenko and Y. M. Sinyukov, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006), 064901

    2006

  16. [24]

    N. S. Amelin, R. Lednicky, I. P. Lokhtin, L. V. Malinina, A. M. Snigirev, I. A. Karpenko, Y. M. Sinyukov, I. Arsene and L. Bravina, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009), 064903

    2009

  18. [26]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007), 062301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.062301

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 93 (2016) no.2, 021903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.021903

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    L. V. Bravina, I. P. Lokhtin, L. V. Malin- ina, S. V. Petrushanko, A. M. Snigirev and E. E. Zabrodin, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (2017) no.11, 219 doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12420-5

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05 (2006), 026 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Castorina, S

    P. Castorina, S. Plumari and H. Satz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25 (2016) no.08, 1650058 doi:10.1142/S0218301316500580

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Wheaton and J

    S. Wheaton and J. Cleymans, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009), 84-106 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.08.001

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    J. Tao, W. Wu, M. Wang, H. Zheng, W. Zhang, L. Zhu and A. Bonasera, Particles 5 (2022) no.2, 146- 156 doi:10.3390/particles5020013

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993), 2462-2475 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2462

    1993 doi

  26. [34]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013), 014902 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.014902

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    B. I. Abelev et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009), 034909 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034909

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    Waqas and G

    M. Waqas and G. X. Peng, Entropy 23 (2021), 488 doi:10.3390/e23040488

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Aichelin and K

    J. Aichelin and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010), 034906 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.034906

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    Cleymans, I

    J. Cleymans, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006), 034903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.034903

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    S. R. Nayak, S. Pandey and B. K. Singh, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140 (2025) no.5, 375 doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-025- 06298-w

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.