Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Precise determination of pomeron intercept via scaling entropy analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The slope of the scaling entropy from hadron multiplicities directly measures the Pomeron intercept, with $\lambda = 0.322 \pm 0.007$ from H1 data.

desk verdict A promising but methodologically loose extraction of the Pomeron intercept from multiplicity entropy; the agreement with cross-section scaling is real, but the error bar and hadronization assumptions need work before I'd trust the central value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16348 v1 pith:WQTP7MIZ submitted 2024-12-20 hep-ph

Lucas Soster Moriggi , Magno Valério Trindade Machado This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords geometricscalingentropyPomeroninterceptpartonsaturationnegativebinomialdistributionhadronmultiplicitydeepinelasticscatteringH1data
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 claims that the scaling entropy computed from final-state hadron multiplicity distributions in deep inelastic scattering is, under the scaling hypothesis, equal in slope to the partonic entropy, and that this slope directly gives the Pomeron intercept $\lambda$. Analyzing H1 charged-hadron multiplicities with a negative binomial fit, the authors extract $\lambda_{\rm entropy} = 0.322 \pm 0.007$, which agrees with $\lambda_{\sigma} = 0.329 \pm 0.025$ obtained from the geometric scaling of the inclusive DIS cross section. If true, this makes the Pomeron intercept determinable from multiplicity data alone, without modeling the gluon distribution, and provides a model-independent probe of geometric scaling and parton saturation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the identity connecting partonic scaling entropy to hadron multiplicity entropy. Assuming the scaling form $P(x,k_T^2) \sim x^{\lambda} f(k_T^2/x^{\lambda})$, the Tsallis/Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy of the partonic transverse momentum distribution becomes $S_{\rm parton} = C + \lambda \log(1/x)$, so the slope in $\log(1/x)$ is exactly $\lambda$. Experimentally, the entropy is computed from the negative binomial distribution (NBD) fit to the measured charged-hadron multiplicity: $S_{\rm mult} = -\sum_N P(N) \log P(N)$. Local parton-hadron duality is invoked to assert that hadronization adds only a constant shift, $S_{\rm hadron} = S_{\rm parton} + 2\log(1/\langle z\rangle)$, leaving the slope unchanged. The slope extracted from the linear fit of $S_{\rm mult}$ against $\log(1/x)$ is the reported $\lambda_{\rm entropy}$, and the same $\lambda$ parametrizes the saturation scale $Q_s^2(x) \sim x^{-\lambda}$.

What would settle it

Recompute the entropy $S_{\rm mult} = -\sum_N P(N)\log P(N)$ directly from the binned H1 multiplicity data without the single-component NBD extrapolation to high multiplicities; if the slope of $S_{\rm mult}$ versus $\log(1/x)$ differs from $0.322 \pm 0.007$ outside the quoted uncertainty, the high-multiplicity tail of the fit is carrying the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a direct link between the slope of the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy of final-state hadron multiplicities and the Pomeron intercept. For a probability distribution that satisfies geometric scaling, $P(x,k_T^2) \sim x^{\lambda} f(k_T^2/x^{\lambda})$, the partonic entropy grows as $S = C + \lambda \log(1/x)$; the paper shows that the entropy from the measured multiplicity $P(N)$ follows the same linear behavior in the H1 kinematic range, and fits its slope to obtain $\lambda_{\rm entropy} = 0.322 \pm 0.007$. This value coincides with the $\lambda$ obtained from the scaling of the inclusive $\gamma^* p$ cross section ($\lambda_{\sigma} = 0.329 \pm 0.025$), indicating that the two observables are equivalent probes of the same small-$x$ dynamics. The paper presents this as evidence that scaling entropy is a more efficient and more model-independent way to detect geometric scaling and determine the Pomeron intercept than the traditional cross-section analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that transforming partons into hadrons adds only a constant to the entropy, independent of the momentum fraction $x$; if the average hadron momentum fraction varies with $x$ or $Q^2$, the slope measured from multiplicity data is contaminated and the extracted $\lambda$ is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method is correct, the Pomeron intercept $\lambda$ can be measured from multiplicity distributions alone, bypassing the need to model unintegrated gluon distributions.
  • The same entropy-slope analysis can be applied to $pp$ and $pA$ collisions at LHC energies, where geometric scaling is harder to isolate in cross sections.
  • The agreement between $\lambda_{\rm entropy}$ and $\lambda_{\sigma}$ suggests a universal small-$x$ scaling, providing a target that saturation models must reproduce.
  • Because the entropy slope is extracted from an integrated quantity, it is insensitive to high-$k_T$ details; differential $p_T$ spectra would be needed to expose those, a limitation the paper itself notes.
  • The method can be used to detect geometric scaling in data sets where the scaling variable is not known a priori, by checking for linearity of $S_{\rm mult}$ versus $\log(1/x)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the authors do not pursue is applying the same entropy-slope method to diffractive or exclusive data at a future electron-ion collider, where the scaling hypothesis has different kinematic reach; a deviation in $\lambda$ would reveal where geometric scaling breaks down.
  • The assumption that $\langle z\rangle$ is independent of $x$ could be tested directly with hadronization-aware Monte Carlo generators that include intrinsic transverse momentum or shower effects; if the extracted $\lambda$ shifts when $\langle z\rangle$ varies, the method would require a hadronization correction.
  • A stronger universal claim follows if the result holds: $\lambda \approx 0.32$ is the same in deep inelastic scattering and hadroproduction, so the entropy observable may serve as a cleaner comparator between HERA and LHC than the cross-section scaling used previously.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy of final-state charged-hadron multiplicities in DIS, S_mult = -∑ P(N) log P(N), inherits the geometric scaling of the partonic transverse-momentum distribution, leading to S_mult = C + λ log(1/x). Using single-component NBD fits to H1 multiplicity data in four Q² bins, the authors extract λ_entropy = 0.322 ± 0.007, compare it with λ_σ = 0.329 ± 0.025 from a dipole-model fit to inclusive γ*p cross sections, and argue that scaling entropy is a model-independent way to determine the Pomeron intercept and detect geometric scaling.

Significance. If the identification of S_mult with the partonic scaling entropy can be justified, the result is valuable: it would provide a new observable, accessible from multiplicity measurements alone, that exhibits geometric scaling and yields a Pomeron intercept consistent with inclusive DIS scaling. The paper is careful to compare with existing model-dependent extractions and to place the result in the context of saturation-model predictions. The use of public H1 data and a transparent NBD parametrization makes the analysis easy to follow, although no code or covariance matrices are provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (15) and Fig. 3] The quoted λ_entropy = 0.322 ± 0.007 is presented without an explicit error-propagation formula from the NBD fits in Table I. The slope of S_mult versus log(1/x) is fitted from four y-bins per Q² bin, but no covariance matrix or weighted-average prescription is given, and the low χ²/dof values in Table I (e.g., 0.018) suggest that the NBD parameter uncertainties do not account for bin-to-bin correlations. Please provide the full propagation from the NBD parameters to S_mult and to the final λ, including systematic uncertainties from the α renormalization and from the choice of χ² definition in Eq. (14).
  2. [Section II, Eqs. (8)–(10)] The identification of the multiplicity entropy S_mult with the partonic entropy S_parton is the load-bearing assumption, but it is only justified by local parton-hadron duality and by the statement S_hadron = S_parton + 2 log(1/⟨z⟩) with ⟨z⟩ independent of x. As the paper itself notes, the additive constant 'can have a dependence on Q²'; if ⟨z⟩ depends on x or Q², the slope of S_mult versus log(1/x) is contaminated and the extracted λ is biased. A quantitative hadronization-robustness test is required — for example, repeating the extraction with a modified ⟨z⟩(x) ansatz, with an alternative P(N) parametrization, or with N=0 included — before the claim that Eq. (15) 'directly provides λ' can be accepted.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 1 and Table I] The fits exclude the N=0 bin and renormalize the NBD through α, and the paper acknowledges that one-component NBD deviates for N≳40 at small x. These cuts alter the value of S_mult differently across y-bins, so they can bias the slope λ even if each individual fit is acceptable. Please quantify the sensitivity of λ_entropy to (i) the N=0 exclusion, (ii) the high-N truncation, and (iii) the use of a two-component NBD, and state the resulting systematic error on Eq. (15).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, paragraph after Fig. 2] The phrase 'high-order corrections like log n(1/x)' should be written as log^n(1/x) or explained in words, since the current notation is ambiguous.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The sentence 'The fit for P (N ) versus N is perform for N >1' should read 'is performed for N > 1'.
  3. [Section III, discussion after Fig. 6] The phrase 'Its important to note' should be 'It is important to note'.
  4. [Table I] It would help to list the number of data points and the number of degrees of freedom for each NBD fit, since χ²/dof values below 0.05 are otherwise difficult to interpret.
  5. [Section III, Fig. 5] The three panels use λ=0.29, 0.33, and 0.37, but the text says the minimum is λ_σ = 0.329 ± 0.025; please state explicitly whether λ=0.33 is the central value used in the scaling line and describe how the ratio data/theory was computed, including the normalization and the data selection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: lambda_entropy is a measured slope and the cross-section comparison is an independent cross-check; minor self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is an extraction, not a circular prediction. Equation (9), S = C + lambda log(1/x), follows from the assumed scaling form P(x,kT^2) ~ (1/x^-lambda) f(kT^2/x^-lambda), and the paper then fits the slope of the entropy computed from H1 multiplicity data, reporting lambda_entropy = 0.322 +/- 0.007. That quoted value is a fitted slope, so it is not a quantity predicted by the model from a separate input. The comparison with lambda_sigma = 0.329 +/- 0.025 is a genuine cross-check on a different observable: the inclusive cross-section fit uses a dipole model taken from the authors' earlier work [8], but the text explicitly states lambda is left free in that fit ('We now let lambda be a free parameter in the fit to the model'), so the agreement is not forced by construction. The identification of the multiplicity entropy with the partonic entropy rests on local parton-hadron duality with an assumed x-independent mean hadron momentum fraction; this is a physical assumption and a possible bias, but it is not a circular reduction of the derivation to its own output. External model-independent analyses (PS and GPSS) give compatible values lambda ~ 0.32-0.33, providing independent support outside the authors' own fitted values. The self-citations [8,11] used to support scaling behavior in pp collisions are not the sole load-bearing justification; the scaling hypothesis itself is standard in saturation physics and is also attributed to earlier external work. The caption calling the Eq. (9) lines 'predicted scaling entropy' overstates the case, since those lines are linear fits to the same entropy points, but this is a presentation issue rather than a circularity in the extraction or comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is not a derivation from first principles; it assumes geometric scaling and hadronization preserving the entropy slope, and it produces λ as a fitted slope from data. The main free parameters are the NBD parameters and the slope/intercept of the entropy linear fit. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (Pomeron intercept) = 0.322 +/- 0.007 (entropy); 0.329 +/- 0.025 (cross section)
    The central result: λ is extracted as the slope of the linear fit of entropy vs ln(1/x) (Eq. 9), and independently as the minimum of a χ2 scan of the MPM inclusive cross-section model (Figure 4).
  • NBD parameters <N>, k, alpha per (Q2,y) bin = Table I lists values; e.g., <N>=3.223, k=11.02, alpha=1.050 for Q2=5-10, y=0.0375-0.075
    The NBD parameters are fitted to H1 multiplicity data and determine the entropy via Eq. (10).
  • constant C in Eq. (9) = C approximately -0.82 (parton estimate), C approximately 0.57 (hadron estimate with <z>=0.5)
    C is estimated from a power-like gluon distribution and hadronization shift; it does not affect the slope λ but enters the entropy normalization and is needed to compare the predicted lines with data in Figure 2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Geometric scaling: the gluon distribution and P(x,kT) depend only on kT/Qs(x), not on x and kT separately.
    Central to deriving Eq. (9); invoked in Section II and throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption Local parton-hadron duality: hadronization preserves parton-level entropy up to an x-independent additive constant.
    Stated in Section II: 'provided that scaling survives the hadronization process'.
  • domain assumption A single-component NBD describes the H1 multiplicity distribution for N>=1.
    Used to extrapolate P(N) and compute entropy; the N=0 bin is excluded.
  • standard math Tsallis/BG max-entropy framework: the partonic kT distribution is obtained by maximizing entropy with fixed mean transverse momentum.
    Gives Eqs. (6)-(9); standard statistical mechanics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precise determination of pomeron intercept via scaling entropy analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQTP7MIZ

@misc{pith2026241216348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precise determination of pomeron intercept via scaling entropy analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQTP7MIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16348}
}
abstract

In this work, we confront the geometrical scaling properties of inclusive DIS cross section ($e+p\rightarrow e +X$) with the scaling entropy obtained from event multiplicity. We show that these two quantities are equivalent in the kinematic range probed by H1 Collaboration data. We propose that scaling entropy associated with partonic interactions is a more efficient way to detect scaling in experimental data. We used a combined analysis of the inclusive cross section and entropy obtained from multiplicities $P(N)$ of final-state hadrons to accurately determine the value of the Pomeron intercept. The approach could provide new constraints for future hadron collider experiments and deepen our understanding of parton saturation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The NBD multiplicity fit using Eq. (11) at different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The experimental entropy obtained from H1 data (bars) using the relation (10) with NBD extrapolation to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: The value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Data to theory ratio between the MPM scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014017 (1998), hep-ph/9807513

    arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114023 (1999), hep-ph/9903358

    arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    A. M. Stasto, K. J. Golec-Biernat, and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 596 (2001), hep-ph/0007192

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Levin and K

    E. Levin and K. Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. B573, 833 (2000), hep-ph/9908317

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Iancu, K

    E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A708, 327 (2002), hep-ph/0203137

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    The values extracted from impact parameter depen- dent models IPsat and bCGC are the ones estimated in Ref. [71]. Homogeneous impact parameter models such as GBW [16] and IIM [15] lead to higher values close to the scaling line. However, they all present slower growth than that obtained by entropy scaling analysis. This is in part due to the kinematic ran...

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantitative Study of Geometrical Scaling in Deep Inelastic Scattering at HERA

    M. Praszalowicz and T. Stebel, JHEP 03, 090 (2013), 1211.5305

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Systematics of geometric scaling

    F. Gelis, R. B. Peschanski, G. Soyez, and L. Schoeffel, Phys. Lett. B 647, 376 (2007), hep-ph/0610435

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    L. S. Moriggi, G. M. Peccini, and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. D 102, 034016 (2020), 2005.07760

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Osada and T

    T. Osada and T. Kumaoka, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034906 (2019), 1904.10823

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    McLerran and M

    L. McLerran and M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Lett. B 741, 246 (2015), 1407.6687

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    L. S. Moriggi, G. S. Ramos, and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034005 (2024), 2405.01712

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Osada, Phys

    T. Osada, Phys. Rev. C 103, 024911 (2021), 2011.00456

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Praszalowicz, Phys

    M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Lett. B 727, 461 (2013), 1308.5911

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. H. Rezaeian and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074016 (2013), 1307.0825

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Iancu, K

    E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and S. Munier, Phys. Lett. B 590, 199 (2004), hep-ph/0310338

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Golec-Biernat and S

    K. Golec-Biernat and S. Sapeta, JHEP 03, 102 (2018), 1711.11360

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aid et al., Nucl

    H1, S. Aid et al., Nucl. Phys. B 470, 3 (1996), hep- ex/9603004

    1996

  11. [19]

    Adloff et al., Nucl

    H1, C. Adloff et al., Nucl. Phys. B 497, 3 (1997), hep- ex/9703012

    1997

  12. [20]

    E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 199 (1977), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.72,377(1977)]

    1977

  13. [21]

    I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978), [Yad. Fiz.28,1597(1978)]

    1978

  14. [22]

    R. D. Ball et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 321 (2018), 1710.05935

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Breitweg et al., Phys

    ZEUS, J. Breitweg et al., Phys. Lett. B 487, 53 (2000), hep-ex/0005018

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Abramowicz and A

    H. Abramowicz and A. Levy, (1997), hep-ph/9712415

    1997 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abt et al., Phys

    I. Abt et al., Phys. Rev. D 96, 014001 (2017), 1704.03187

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Adam et al., Nature Phys

    ALICE, J. Adam et al., Nature Phys. 13, 535 (2017), 1606.07424

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Acharya et al., Phys

    ALICE, S. Acharya et al., Phys. Rev. C 99, 024906 (2019), 1807.11321

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Khachatryan et al., Phys

    CMS, V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Lett. B 768, 103 (2017), 1605.06699

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Khachatryan et al., JHEP 09, 091 (2010), 1009.4122

    CMS, V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 09, 091 (2010), 1009.4122

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Khachatryan et al., Phys

    CMS, V. Khachatryan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 172302 (2016), 1510.03068. 8

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 252301 (2012), 1202.6646

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Paatelainen, K

    R. Paatelainen, K. J. Eskola, H. Holopainen, and K. Tuominen, Phys. Rev. C 87, 044904 (2013), 1211.0461

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kurkela and Y

    A. Kurkela and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 182301 (2015), 1506.06647

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Baier, A

    R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff, and D. T. Son, Phys. Lett. B 502, 51 (2001), hep-ph/0009237

    2001 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05, 026 (2006), hep-ph/0603175

    2006 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sj¨ ostrandet al., Comput

    T. Sj¨ ostrandet al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), 1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034906 (2015), 1306.0121

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Acharya et al., Eur

    ALICE, S. Acharya et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 857 (2019), 1905.07208

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Andreev et al., Eur

    H1, V. Andreev et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 212 (2021), 2011.01812

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Deppman, Phys

    A. Deppman, Phys. Rev. D 93, 054001 (2016), 1601.02400

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Peschanski, Phys

    R. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034042 (2013), 1211.6911

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    O. K. Baker and D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054007 (2018), 1712.04558

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    X. Feal, C. Pajares, and R. A. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. C 99, 015205 (2019), 1805.12444

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Han et al., Phys

    C. Han et al., Phys. Lett. B 800, 135066 (2020), 1809.01549

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. Chen, X. Wang, Y. Cai, X. Chen, and Q. Wang, (2024), 2408.03068

    2024

  38. [46]

    Z. Tu, D. E. Kharzeev, and T. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 062001 (2020), 1904.11974

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, Phys. Rev. D 95, 114008 (2017), 1702.03489

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hentschinski and K

    M. Hentschinski and K. Kutak, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 111 (2022), 2110.06156, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 83, 1147 (2023)]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hentschinski, D

    M. Hentschinski, D. E. Kharzeev, K. Kutak, and Z. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 241901 (2023), 2305.03069

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hentschinski, D

    M. Hentschinski, D. E. Kharzeev, K. Kutak, and Z. Tu, (2024), 2408.01259

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gotsman and E

    E. Gotsman and E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074008 (2020), 2006.11793

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Datta, A

    J. Datta, A. Deshpande, D. E. Kharzeev, C. J. Na ¨ ım, and Z. Tu, (2024), 2410.22331

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Tsallis, J

    C. Tsallis, J. Statist. Phys. 52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, V. A. Khoze, S. I. Troian, and A. H. Mueller, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 373 (1988)

    1988

  47. [55]

    C.-Y. Wong, G. Wilk, L. J. L. Cirto, and C. Tsallis, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114027 (2015), 1505.02022

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bhattacharyya, J

    T. Bhattacharyya, J. Cleymans, and S. Mogliacci, Phys. Rev. D 94, 094026 (2016), 1608.08965

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Bhattacharyya et al., Eur

    T. Bhattacharyya et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 222 (2018), 1712.08334

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    B ´ ır´ o, G

    G. B ´ ır´ o, G. G. Barnaf¨ oldi, T. S. Bir´ o, K.¨Urm¨ ossy, and A. Tak´ acs, Entropy19, 88 (2017), 1702.02842

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    B ´ ır´ o, G

    G. B ´ ır´ o, G. G. Barnaf¨ oldi, and T. S. Bir´ o, J. Phys. G 47, 105002 (2020), 2003.03278

    2020 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Akhil and S

    A. Akhil and S. K. Tiwari, J. Phys. G 51, 035002 (2024), 2309.06128

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Li, F.-H

    L.-L. Li, F.-H. Liu, and K. K. Olimov, Entropy 23, 478 (2021), 2006.15333

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Sharma, J

    N. Sharma, J. Cleymans, B. Hippolyte, and M. Paradza, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044914 (2019), 1811.00399

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Khuntia, S

    A. Khuntia, S. Tripathy, R. Sahoo, and J. Cleymans, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 103 (2017), 1702.06885

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. S. Parvan, O. V. Teryaev, and J. Cleymans, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 102 (2017), 1607.01956

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Adam et al., Eur

    ALICE, J. Adam et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 33 (2017), 1509.07541

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Aamodt et al., Eur

    ALICE, K. Aamodt et al., Eur. Phys. J. C68, 345 (2010), 1004.3514

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus and K. Reygers, J. Phys. G 37, 083001 (2010), 0912.0023

    2010 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Giovannini and L

    A. Giovannini and L. Van Hove, Z. Phys. C 30, 391 (1986)

    1986

  61. [69]

    Zborovsk´ y, Eur

    I. Zborovsk´ y, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 816 (2018), 1811.11230

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Gelis, T

    F. Gelis, T. Lappi, and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A 828, 149 (2009), 0905.3234

    2009 arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014003 (2005), hep-ph/0408216

    2005 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Lappi, Eur

    T. Lappi, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1699 (2011), 1104.3725

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Kowalski and D

    H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114005 (2003), hep-ph/0304189

    2003 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Watt and H

    G. Watt and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014016 (2008), 0712.2670

    2008 arXiv

  67. [75]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D 104, L031503 (2021), 2102.09773

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Hentschinski, K

    M. Hentschinski, K. Kutak, and R. Straka, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1147 (2022), 2207.09430

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.