Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 49 references

Asymmetric muon-antimuon emission from $Z^0$ decays: a clear magnetometer in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 The paper predicts that $Z^0$ decays in a strong magnetic field emit dimuon pairs out of the reaction plane with a harder antimuon $p_T$ spectrum, proposing this asymmetry as a magnetometer for the early heavy-ion fireball.

desk verdict A suggestive but under-derived proposal: the Z0 dimuon magnetometer idea deserves referee time, but the headline muon/antimuon pT asymmetry is asserted, not calculated, and the v2 formula is wrong as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11370 v2 pith:V62WEKIB submitted 2025-06-13 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Alejandro Ayala , Ana Julia Mizher , Javier Rendón This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th PACS 25.75.-q13.38.-b12.15.-y
keywords Z-bosondecaydimuonpairsmagneticfieldheavy-ioncollisionslowestLandaulevelellipticflowtransversemomentumasymmetrypre-equilibriummagnetometer
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 claims that $Z^0$ bosons produced early in a heavy-ion collision carry a record of the strong magnetic field present during the pre-equilibrium fireball. In the lowest Landau level description, the decay into dimuon pairs is anisotropic: pairs emerge preferentially along the field, i.e. out of the reaction plane, which shows up as a negative $v_2$. The same spin-momentum correlation makes antimuons harder than muons, with the antimuon peak in $p_T$ shifted above the muon peak. The paper argues that the $Z^0$ mass and width are essentially unchanged, so the signal is an angular and momentum asymmetry, not a spectral distortion. If true, comparing semicentral Pb-Pb collisions with scaled p+p spectra at the $Z^0$ peak gives a direct magnetometer for the early magnetic field.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the current-current correlation function for $q\bar q \to Z^0 \to \mu^+\mu^-$ in a constant magnetic field, evaluated at one loop in the lowest Landau level (LLL) approximation. In the LLL, charged quarks and leptons sit in the lowest transverse oscillator state, so their motion is effectively (1+1)-dimensional along the field; transverse momentum is not conserved and the phase-space factor $(|eB|/2\pi)$ per charged particle appears. From this, Eq. (6) gives the invariant-mass and azimuthal emission rate. The physical link to the $p_T$ asymmetry is the Larmor relaxation time $\tau\sim m_\mu/|eB|$: if this is shorter than the pre-equilibrium stage, the spins flip to the LLL-preferred orientations after the electroweak decay, making the helicity-momentum correlation visible in the laboratory.

What would settle it

In semicentral Pb-Pb data at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV, select dimuon pairs whose invariant mass lies within about $\pm 2$-$3$ GeV of $M_Z$ and compare the muon and antimuon $p_T$ distributions, plus the $v_2$ of the pair azimuth, against scaled p+p data. If the antimuon peak is not displaced above the muon peak and $v_2$ is not negative at a statistically significant level, the claimed signal is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a strong early magnetic field in a semicentral heavy-ion collision leaves an identifiable imprint in $Z^0\to\mu^+\mu^-$ decays. The production rate is computed by contracting a hadron tensor (the imaginary part of the one-loop $Z^0$ polarization tensor in the lowest Landau level) with a lepton tensor built from Ritus wave functions in the same lowest Landau level. Around the $Z^0$ peak, field-induced changes to the spectral function are suppressed by $(m_q/M_Z)^2$, so the mass and width stay essentially unchanged, while the emission rate gains an $e^{-a q_\perp^2/|eB|}$ azimuthal factor and an overall $(|eB|/\pi)^2$ enhancement. The azimuthal average yields a negative $v_2$, meaning pairs preferentially leave the reaction plane, and the preferred longitudinal $Z^0$ polarization combined with left-handed muons and right-handed antimuons correlates spin with decay direction. After a short relaxation time $\tau\sim m_\mu/|eB|$ reorients the spins toward the field, the result is an antimuon spectrum whose peak sits at larger $p_T$ than the muon peak.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that after the $Z^0$ decays, the muon and antimuon spins flip to the field-preferred directions within a time $\tau\sim m_\mu/|eB|$ that is shorter than the pre-equilibrium stage, and that this flip plus the $Z^0$ boost makes antimuons come out with more transverse momentum; the paper asserts this sequence (its Fig. 3) without computing the spin-flip dynamics or the lab-frame $p_T$ spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the $Z^0$ peak in semicentral heavy-ion collisions, the dimuon azimuthal distribution should show a negative $v_2$, meaning pairs preferentially leave the reaction plane, while p+p collisions should show no such anisotropy.
  • The individual lepton spectra should separate: the antimuon $p_T$ peak sits above the muon peak in Pb-Pb, while in p+p the two distributions should track each other.
  • The $Z^0$ spectral function should not show a field-induced shift or broadening, so experimental searches should use $p_T$ and angular asymmetries rather than invariant-mass shapes.
  • Comparing the size of these asymmetries, which grow with field strength, to Pb-Pb data can in principle extract the magnetic field strength during the pre-equilibrium stage.
  • Dimuons are the right channel over dielectrons because transverse emission is suppressed by $(m_l/M_Z)^2$, favoring the heavier lepton, and the signal is still enhanced by $|eB|^2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit in the paper is that the antimuon-to-muon $p_T$ ratio at the $Z^0$ peak is more robust against acceptance corrections than $v_2$, so the ratio may be the most practical first experimental observable.
  • Because the predicted asymmetry relies on $\tau\sim m_\mu/|eB|$ being shorter than the pre-equilibrium stage, a null result would not simply mean the field is weak; it could mean the field decays before the spins reorient, so the signal, if seen, also constrains the lifetime of the early field.
  • A natural cross-check is $\tau^+\tau^-$ pairs from $Z^0$ decay, whose even shorter relaxation time would make the spin-flip argument faster at the price of harder reconstruction, offering an independent test of the same mechanism.
  • The rate formula could be folded with a time-dependent field profile and a background model for p+p-scaled spectra to convert a measured $v_2$ and peak shift into a quantitative field-strength estimate; the authors state they are pursuing this direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that Z0 bosons produced in the early, pre-equilibrium stage of semicentral heavy-ion collisions, and decaying into dimuon pairs in a strong magnetic field, provide a magnetometer for that field. Working with the lowest-Landau-level approximation for the quark propagators and Ritus wave functions for the muons, the authors present a hadron tensor and a lepton tensor and arrive at an invariant-mass rate in Eq. (6). From this rate they claim three signatures: the Z0 spectral function is not significantly distorted by the field, the dimuon azimuthal distribution has a negative v2 (out-of-plane emission), and antimuons have a harder transverse-momentum distribution than muons. The paper closes by describing the analysis as qualitative and calling for a more quantitative and refined treatment.

Significance. The proposed diagnostic is original and, if fully derived, would be an experimentally interesting way to access the early magnetic field. The strongest contained result is the explicit (m_q/M_Z)^2 suppression in Eqs. (2) and (3), which makes the spectral-function non-distortion claim plausible and is parameter-free in the sense that no fitted parameters appear. The suggested comparison of dimuon yields in AA and scaled p+p collisions is falsifiable. However, the two headline observables are not quantitatively established: the v2 integral is evaluated incorrectly, and the harder-antimuon pT spectrum is obtained by an informal helicity and spin-relaxation argument rather than by a calculation. Because these are the advertised signals, the significance of the paper cannot be assessed at the level claimed in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6), derivation of the dimuon rate] The central rate is not derived from the displayed ingredients. Equations (2)-(5) do not show the contraction of the hadron and lepton tensors, the Landau-level phase-space factors, or the step in which q_perp^2 is replaced by |eB| to obtain the exponential e^{-a}. The transition from Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) is asserted rather than computed. In addition, Eq. (2) is written for a single quark flavour, whereas Z0 production in a nuclear collision requires a sum over u, d, s, c, and b quarks with flavour-dependent C_V, C_A, and e_q; omitting this sum affects the normalization, the relative longitudinal/transverse weights, and the claimed dominance of C_A over C_V. The reference for the polarization tensor is missing ("Ref. [?]" after Eq. (1)), so the starting point itself cannot be checked.
  2. [Eq. (6) and the v2 derivation] The printed v2 integral is not reproducible. The text states dN/dphi ~ e^{-a |q|^2/|eB| cos 2phi} and sets |q|^2 ~ |eB|, which gives dN/dphi ~ e^{-a cos 2phi}. The correctly normalized second Fourier coefficient is then (1/2pi) Integral e^{-a cos 2phi} cos 2phi dphi = -I_1(a), not -(e^{-a}/2) I_1(a/2). If the intended angular dependence is e^{-a cos^2 phi}, the prefactor should be e^{-a/2}, not e^{-a}. The sign is negative in either case, but the magnitude is wrong by an a-dependent factor, so the quantitative v2 claim is unsupported. The identification of I_1 as "Bessel function 1 of the second kind" is also incorrect; I_1 is a modified Bessel function of the first kind.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. "Second, Eq. (2) shows..."] The harder-antimuon pT distribution is not derived. Equations (5) and (6) are written at the level of pair variables; there is no helicity-amplitude calculation for Z0 -> mu+ mu-, no Lorentz boost from the Z0 rest frame to the lab frame, and no integration over the Z0 production pT distribution. The mu+/mu- separation is introduced verbally through the longitudinal polarization of the Z0, the massless-limit helicity assignment, and a spin-relaxation time tau ~ m_muon/|eB| whose dynamics is never computed; Fig. 4 is explicitly schematic. Consequently the abstract's central claim that the antimuon pT distribution peaks at a higher transverse momentum than the muon distribution is not a consequence of the calculation shown in Eqs. (1)-(6).
  4. [Introduction, conclusion, and abstract] The manuscript's own conclusion says the analysis "calls for a more quantitative and refined analysis," and the text notes that CMS measured a v2 compatible with zero, albeit with large uncertainties and without a citation. The abstract and title nevertheless assert a "very clear signal" and a "clear magnetometer." The evidence presented in the paper does not support that strength of claim, and the missing citation for the CMS measurement prevents the reader from evaluating the comparison.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5), definition of M] The line defining M = sqrt(q0^2 - q_3^3) contains a typo; the second term should be q_3^2.
  2. [Eq. (6), definition of a] The definition a = (1 + 2|e_q/e|) is ambiguous: clarify whether e_q is the quark charge, what e denotes, and which quark flavour enters the quoted numerical value.
  3. [Abstract, "scaled spectra"] The proposed comparison with "scaled spectra produced in p+p collisions" needs a concrete scaling prescription (e.g., number of binary collisions or centrality scaling) to be a well-defined experimental test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central rate Eq. (6) is computed from the LLL polarization tensor and Ritus lepton wave functions, with no fitted parameters; the muon/antimuon pT asymmetry is asserted through an uncomputed helicity/spin-flip argument, which is a derivational gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained up to Eq. (6): the hadron tensor is obtained from explicit one-loop LLL expressions for the Z0 polarization tensor (Eqs. (2)-(3)) and the lepton tensor from LLL Ritus wave functions (Eq. (5)); the rate contains no fitted parameters and is not constructed to reproduce the claimed observables. The negative v2 and the harder antimuon pT spectrum are not obtained by equating an output with an input. The v2 estimate introduces an azimuthal dependence e^{-a cos 2phi} and then evaluates a Bessel integral; the printed integral is not evaluated correctly, but an incorrect evaluation is a correctness issue, not circularity. The pT asymmetry rests on verbal helicity and spin-relaxation (tau ~ m/|eB|) arguments not present in Eqs. (5)-(6), which are themselves symmetric under mu+ <-> mu-; this is an unsupported or omitted calculation, not a circular fit. The paper's closing statement that it 'calls for a more quantitative and refined analysis' confirms the exploratory character. The unresolved reference '[?]' for the arbitrary-field polarization tensor prevents an independent check of the starting point, but no self-citation is load-bearing and no uniqueness theorem is imported. No step qualifies as circular under the quoted-equation standard.

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

The central calculation imports the LLL polarization tensor from an unidentified reference and assumes a static, uniform magnetic field. The headline pT asymmetry additionally rests on an ad hoc spin-relaxation assumption, and the v2 estimate uses the ad hoc scale |q|^2 ~ |eB|. No parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lowest Landau level approximation for quark propagators in a magnetic field.
    Used to compute the Z0 polarization tensor in Eq. (2); requires |e_q B| much larger than m_q^2, which is assumed without a validity check for each quark flavor.
  • domain assumption Constant, uniform magnetic field along z during Z0 production and decay.
    The rate expressions treat B as static and homogeneous, while the collision field decays rapidly; the time dependence is acknowledged only verbally.
  • standard math Factorization of the hadron and lepton tensors with the optical theorem.
    The calculation follows the standard current-current correlator method, but the step from Eq. (5) to Eq. (6) is not shown in detail.
  • ad hoc to paper q_perp^2 ~ |eB| for the Z0 pair momentum.
    Introduced to evaluate the angular distribution and v2; no derivation connects the LLL transverse scale to the Z0 pair momentum.
  • ad hoc to paper Muon and antimuon spins relax to LLL-preferred orientations on a timescale tau ~ m_muon/|eB|.
    Introduced to reconcile electroweak helicity with LLL spin orientation; this relaxation is central to the pT asymmetry claim and is asserted without calculation.
  • domain assumption The Z0 spectral distortion is negligible because Im and Re Pi are suppressed by (m_q/M_Z)^2.
    The paper argues the suppression analytically, but gives no numerical evaluation of Eq. (3) at M_Z to quantify the shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetric muon-antimuon emission from $Z^0$ decays: a clear magnetometer in relativistic heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V62WEKIB

@misc{pith2026250611370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetric muon-antimuon emission from $Z^0$ decays: a clear magnetometer in relativistic heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V62WEKIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11370}
}
abstract

We show that a very clear signal of the presence of a strong magnetic field during the early stage of a high-energy heavy-ion collision is provided by the decay of the $Z^0$ into dimuon pairs. We find that the process is highly anisotropic, producing pairs mainly out of plane, as signaled by a negative value of $v_2$, and leads to an antimuon transverse momentum distribution which peaks at a higher value of the transverse momentum compared to the peak of the muon transverse momentum distribution. We also show that the process does not produce a significant distortion of the $Z^0$ spectral function. The signal can be identified by comparing the dimuon-invariant mass and the individual muon and antimuon spectra produced in semicentral heavy-ion collisions with the corresponding scaled spectra produced in p+p collisions at the $Z^0$ peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11370 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feynman diagram representing the one-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Schematic representation of the expected N/d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic representation of the time evolution of the into a dimuon pair in a strong magnetic field. 𝑍 0 s are produc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 052302 (2021), arXiv:1910.12400 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    J. D. Brandenburg, W. Zha, and Z. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 299 (2021), arXiv:2103.16623 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    J. D. Brandenburg, J. Seger, Z. Xu, and W. Zha, Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 083901 (2023), arXiv:2208.14943 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Y. Sun, V. Greco, and S. Plumari, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 726 (2021), arXiv:2104.03742 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Y. Sun, S. Plumari, and S. K. Das, Phys. Lett. B843, 138043 (2023), arXiv:2304.12792 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C83, 054911 (2011), arXiv:1103.4239 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    McLerran and V

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

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V. Skokov, Phys. Lett. B710, 171 (2012), arXiv:1111.1949 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Sun and L

    J.-A. Sun and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. C109, 034917 (2024), arXiv:2311.03929 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Danhoni and F

    I. Danhoni and F. S. Navarra, Phys. Rev. C103, 024902 (2021), arXiv:2011.00726 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ayala, C

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, M. Loewe, J. C. Rojas, and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D92, 016006 (2015), arXiv:1504.01308 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Y. Sun, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B816, 136271 (2021), arXiv:2004.09880 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Y. Sun, V. Greco, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B827, 136962 (2022), arXiv:2111.01716 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ayala, S

    A. Ayala, S. Bernal-Langarica, J. Jaber-Urquiza, and J. J. Medina-Serna, Phys. Rev. D110, 076021 (2024), arXiv:2406.18673 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. D. Casta ˜no Yepes, L. A. Hern´andez, A. J. Mizher, M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. C106, 064905 (2022), arXiv:2209.09364 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. D. Casta˜no Yepes, I. Dominguez Jimenez, J. Salinas San Mart´ın, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 53 (2020), arXiv:1904.02938 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. D. Castano-Yepes, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Her- nandez, S. Hernandez-Ortiz, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Rev. D96, 014023 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 96, 119901 (2017)], arXiv:1704.02433 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. D. Casta ˜no Yepes, M. Loewe, E. Mu ˜noz, J. C. Rojas, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D107, 096014 (2023), arXiv:2211.16985 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. D. Casta ˜no Yepes, M. Loewe, E. Mu ˜noz, and J. C. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D108, 116013 (2023), arXiv:2308.12249 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. D. Casta ˜no Yepes and E. Mu ˜noz, Phys. Rev. D109, 056007 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 119903 (2024)], arXiv:2401.12401 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. D. Casta ˜no Yepes and E. Mu ˜noz, Phys. Rev. D110, 056003 (2024), arXiv:2407.04210 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. D. Casta ˜no Yepes and E. Mu ˜noz, Phys. Rev. D111, 076028 (2025), arXiv:2412.14055 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ayala and A

    A. Ayala and A. J. Mizher, Phys. Rev. D110, L111501 (2024), arXiv:2407.09754 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tuchin, Phys

    K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. C91, 014902 (2015), arXiv:1406.5097 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B. G. Zakharov, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 609 (2016), arXiv:1609.04324 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang and I

    X. Wang and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. D106, 036014 (2022), arXiv:2205.00276 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X. Wang, I. A. Shovkovy, L. Yu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 076010 (2020), arXiv:2006.16254 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Buzzegoli, J

    M. Buzzegoli, J. D. Kroth, K. Tuchin, and N. Vijayakumar, Phys. Rev. D108, 096014 (2023), arXiv:2306.03863 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Basar, D

    G. Basar, D. Kharzeev, and V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 202303 (2012), arXiv:1206.1334 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Basar, D

    G. Basar, D. E. Kharzeev, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C90, 014905 (2014), arXiv:1402.2286 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lee, Phys

    C.-Y. Lee, Phys. Lett. B810, 135794 (2020), arXiv:2005.11657 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sun and L

    J.-A. Sun and L. Yan, (2023), arXiv:2302.07696 [nucl-th]. 6

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wei and L

    M. Wei and L. Yan, Phys. Rev. D110, 054024 (2024), arXiv:2406.10041 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gao, X.-Y

    H. Gao, X.-Y. Wu, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, in12th Interna- tional Conference on Hard and Electromagnetic Probes of High-Energy Nuclear Collisions: Hard Probes 2024(2025) arXiv:2505.01764 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nedelko and A

    S. Nedelko and A. Nikolskii, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 70 (2023), arXiv:2208.00842 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    ´Avila, F

    D. ´Avila, F. Nettel, and L. Pati ˜no, Phys. Rev. D107, 066010 (2023), arXiv:2204.00024 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Arciniega, F

    G. Arciniega, F. Nettel, P. Ortega, and L. Pati ˜no, JHEP04, 192 (2014), arXiv:1307.1153 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K. A. Mamo, JHEP08, 083 (2013), arXiv:1210.7428 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wu and D.-L

    S.-Y. Wu and D.-L. Yang, JHEP08, 032 (2013), arXiv:1305.5509 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Huang, Rept

    X.-G. Huang, Rept. Prog. Phys.79, 076302 (2016), arXiv:1509.04073 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Adhikariet al., (2024), arXiv:2412.18632 [nucl-th]

    P. Adhikariet al., (2024), arXiv:2412.18632 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wang and I

    X. Wang and I. Shovkovy, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 901 (2021), arXiv:2106.09029 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sadooghi and F

    N. Sadooghi and F. Taghinavaz, Annals Phys.376, 218 (2017), arXiv:1601.04887 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mondal, N

    R. Mondal, N. Chaudhuri, S. Ghosh, S. Sarkar, and P. Roy, Phys. Rev. D107, 036017 (2023), arXiv:2301.09475 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mondal, N

    R. Mondal, N. Chaudhuri, S. Ghosh, S. Sarkar, and P. Roy, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 287 (2023), arXiv:2311.17632 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gale and J

    C. Gale and J. I. Kapusta, Nucl. Phys. B357, 65 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Ayala and J

    A. Ayala and J. Magnin, Phys. Rev. C68, 014902 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302152

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

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