Measurement of $\omega$ meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

ALICE Collaboration

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 35 references

Measurement of $\omega$ meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a measurement of omega meson production in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV that spans 1.6 to 50 GeV/c in transverse momentum and finds a constant omega-to-pi0 ratio of 0.578 above 4 GeV/c.

desk verdict Genuinely new omega spectrum to 50 GeV/c with careful systematics; the single-method high-pT tail and a mildly circular mT-scaling test are the caveats, not blockers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09432 v2 pith:ZE4IPYXT submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ex nucl-ex

ALICE Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-exnucl-ex

keywords omegamesontransversemomentumspectraproton-protoncollisionsat13TeVtoneutralpionratiomassscalingfragmentationfunctionsphotonconversionmethodelectromagneticcalorimeters

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 reports a measurement of omega meson production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV over the transverse-momentum range $1.6 < p_{\rm T} < 50$ GeV/$c$, a reach about three times wider than any previous measurement. The omega meson is reconstructed through its three-pion decay chain, with neutral pions identified by five different photon-detection techniques that are combined into a single spectrum. The paper argues that next-to-leading-order QCD calculations with omega fragmentation functions derived from a broken SU(3) model describe the data across the full range, while the PYTHIA8.2 event generator with the Monash 2013 tune overestimates production by up to 50 percent. The omega-to-pi0 yield ratio is flat at $C^{\omega/\pi^0} = 0.578$ above 4 GeV/$c$ and agrees with lower-energy measurements, giving the most precise constraint to date and supporting the empirical transverse-mass scaling rule used to estimate hadron spectra.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a five-channel reconstruction of the neutral pion: photons from $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ are detected either as conversions to $e^+e^-$ pairs in the inner detector (PCM), as clusters in two calorimeters (PHOS, EMCal), or in hybrid combinations (PCM-PHOS, PCM-EMC). Each channel has its own efficiency, $p_{\rm T}$ reach, and material-budget sensitivity; each is corrected by acceptance times reconstruction efficiency obtained from PYTHIA8.2 events propagated through GEANT3, with the omega three-body decay weighted to reproduce measured phase-space densities. The five corrected spectra are merged with the BLUE algorithm, which assigns $p_{\rm T}$-dependent weights based on statistical and systematic uncertainties and accounts for correlations. The ratio to the pi0 spectrum measured with the same photon techniques then cancels the dominant material-budget uncertainty.

What would settle it

Take the corrected spectra from the pure photon-conversion channel and the pure calorimeter channel and compare their ratio across the overlapping range; if the simulated material distribution is biased, the two channels will disagree by more than their quoted correlated systematic uncertainties. A second test is to recompute the corrections without weighting the omega three-body decay to the measured phase-space density, and check whether the resulting cross section moves outside the quoted systematic band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the inclusive invariant cross section for $p+p\to\omega+X$ at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) and $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV, reconstructed through $\omega\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ with $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$, is now measured from $p_{\rm T}=1.6$ to $50$ GeV/$c$, tripling the transverse-momentum reach of the previous 7 TeV measurement. The combined spectrum has statistical uncertainties as low as 3.1 percent and systematic uncertainties as low as 5.8 percent, excluding a 1.58 percent normalization uncertainty. It agrees with next-to-leading-order QCD calculations that use omega fragmentation functions from a broken SU(3) model over the whole range, while PYTHIA8.2 with the Monash 2013 tune overestimates the data by about 50 percent. The omega-to-pi0 ratio is claimed to be constant above $p_{\rm T}=4$ GeV/$c$ at $C^{\omega/\pi^0}=0.578\pm0.006~\text{(stat.)}\pm0.013~\text{(syst.)}$, the most precise value so far, and this constant, combined with the measured pi0 spectrum, reproduces the omega spectrum via transverse-mass scaling across the full range.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute cross section leans on the assumption that the detector simulation used for acceptance and efficiency corrections matches the real detector, including the material in front of the calorimeters and the way the omega decays into three pions; if that simulated response is wrong, the reported spectrum shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The new spectrum provides direct experimental input for vector-meson fragmentation functions, a sector where data were previously scarce beyond about 17 GeV/c.
The flat omega-to-pi0 ratio above 4 GeV/c validates the use of transverse-mass scaling, normalized to pi0, to estimate omega yields in kinematic regions without data.
The similar high-$p_{\rm T}$ overestimate by PYTHIA8.2 Monash 2013 for omega, pi0, and charged pions points to a common deficiency in the tune's light-meson production at 13 TeV.
With uncertainties roughly halved and $p_{\rm T}$ reach tripled relative to the 7 TeV measurement, the data become a useful benchmark for global next-to-leading-order fits of light-vector-meson fragmentation.

Reading between the lines

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

If the plateau value $C^{\omega/\pi^0}=0.578$ persists at higher energies, omega spectra in other collision systems could be predicted from measured pi0 spectra via transverse-mass scaling, offering a cheap consistency check for heavy-ion measurements.
The measurement sits at the lower edge of lower-energy omega-to-pi0 data; the reduced uncertainties may be revealing a mild energy dependence in vector relative to pseudoscalar meson production, which a 14 TeV measurement could confirm or rule out.
The five-channel combination method could be applied directly to eta and eta-prime mesons, which share the same photon-conversion and calorimeter corrections, extending their reach well beyond current measurements.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — what you should know: this is a genuine new measurement, not a rehash. ALICE reports the omega cross section at 13 TeV from pT 1.6 to 50 GeV/c, using five photon reconstruction paths and combining them with BLUE. That triples the pT reach of the 7 TeV result and roughly halves the uncertainties. It is incremental physics—another light-meson spectrum—but it is exactly the kind of data that fragmentation-function and mT-scaling work need.

The paper is careful. The five methods agree within 1.9 sigma in the overlap region, the systematic budget is broken down by source with ranges, the luminosity and branching-ratio normalization uncertainties are quoted, and the material-budget uncertainty is lower thanks to the data-driven weighting from Ref. [41]. The PYTHIA8.2 Monash overestimate by ~50% is consistent with earlier pi0 and pi+ results, and the NLO broken-SU(3) calculation describes the spectrum. I have no problem with the citation pattern; this is standard experimental practice.

Soft spots, in order. First, the stress-test note is right: the high-pT tail, the part that gives the 'unprecedented reach', rests on the EMC path with EG1/EG2 triggers alone. The other methods run out of statistics by roughly 20–30 GeV/c. In that region the pi0 opening angle is small, so the correction depends on GEANT3's modeling of two-photon cluster merging, the calorimeter energy scale, and the L1 trigger efficiency. The systematics cover selection variations and trigger rejection factors, but there is no independent reconstruction to catch a pT-dependent MC bias. I do not think this kills the result—the high-pT points carry tens-of-percent uncertainties—but the paper should state this single-method dependence explicitly and discuss what constrains the cluster-merging model at high pT.

Second, the mT-scaling test in Sec. 7 is mildly circular: C=0.578 is extracted from the same omega/pi0 ratio and then used to scale the pi0 parametrization, so the normalization agreement is built in. The shape comparison is still meaningful, but the paper overstates it as a validation.

Bottom line: solid, competent experimental paper. It deserves a serious referee, and the referee should push for the high-pT caveat to be written into the text. I would cite it if I worked on light-meson hadronization. Not a must-read for the wider field.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a measurement of the pT-differential inclusive cross section for omega-meson production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV at midrapidity (|y|<0.5), reconstructed via omega -> pi+ pi- pi0 with five different neutral-pion reconstruction methods (PCM, PHOS, EMC, PCM-PHOS, PCM-EMC) and three trigger samples (MB, EG2, EG1), covering 1.6-50 GeV/c. The five methods are combined with the BLUE algorithm after a detailed breakdown of systematic uncertainties (Table 1). The results are compared to PYTHIA8.2 (Monash 2013) and to NLO calculations with broken-SU(3) omega fragmentation functions. The paper also reports the omega/pi0 ratio, which is fit by a constant C=0.578 +/- 0.006 (stat.) +/- 0.013 (syst.) above 4 GeV/c, and uses this value in an mT-scaling test.

Significance. The measurement is a valuable new data set for tuning hadronization models and for global analyses of vector-meson fragmentation functions. Its main strengths are the use of five independent photon-reconstruction paths with a quantified agreement (within 1.9 sigma of a common fit), a systematic table with source-by-source uncertainties, a data-driven material-budget uncertainty assignment, and a BLUE combination of the channels. If the high-pT part is validated, the 13-TeV omega spectrum up to 50 GeV/c would be a substantial improvement over the previous 7-TeV measurement, which reached only about 17 GeV/c, and the omega/pi0 ratio would be the most precise to date. The comparison with NLO calculations and the identification of a PYTHIA8.2 overestimation are also useful constraints for Monte Carlo generators.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 5, Fig. 2; Sec. 7, Fig. 4] The claim of an unprecedented pT range up to 50 GeV/c rests on the EMC method with the EG1 trigger alone: in Fig. 2 the correction factors for the other four methods become statistically unusable above roughly 20-25 GeV/c, and no independent reconstruction method is available to cross-check the EMC path in the 30-50 GeV/c interval. The quoted EMC EG1 systematic uncertainties in Table 1 are derived from selection variations and from data/MC comparisons of the reconstructed omega mass and width; they do not directly constrain a pT-dependent bias in the two-photon cluster-merging simulation, in the GEANT3 energy response, or in the L1 trigger turn-on. I therefore ask the authors to add a quantitative validation of the merged-cluster and trigger modelling in this kinematic regime (for example, a data/MC comparison of the pi0 two-photon separation efficiency or of the EG1 and EG2 trigger response as a function of cluster energy), or to state explicitly as a limitation that the 30-50 GeV/c extension has no independent reconstruction cross-check and is subject to the EMCal Monte Carlo model.
[Sec. 5, Eq. (1)] The acceptance-times-efficiency corrections are entirely Monte Carlo based, and the only data-driven checks discussed are the reconstructed pi0 and omega mass and width comparisons. Because the absolute cross-section scale is set by A x epsilon (Eq. 1), a pT-dependent MC/data disagreement in the trigger efficiency or in the photon-cluster reconstruction efficiency would propagate directly into the spectrum and into the omega/pi0 ratio. I request a closure statement: either a dedicated MC-closure test for the EMCal path at pT above 20 GeV/c, or a quantitative estimate of the systematic uncertainty associated with the PYTHIA decay-kinematics weighting (Refs. [37,38]) and with the EMCal energy-scale and non-linearity tuning used in the simulation.

minor comments (7)

[Table 1] The two-row table header is ambiguous in the submitted text; please indicate explicitly that the columns are PCM (MB), PHOS (MB), EMC (MB), EMC (EG2), EMC (EG1), PCM-PHOS (MB), PCM-EMC (MB), PCM-EMC (EG2), and PCM-EMC (EG1).
[Secs. 6 and 7; Eq. (1)] The pi0 -> gamma gamma branching ratio is written as 98.823% in two places, whereas Section 2 correctly quotes 99.823%; the typo should be corrected.
[Sec. 7, last paragraph] The mT-scaling test is performed with the normalization fixed to the measured C=0.578, so the agreement with the data validates the spectral shape but not the absolute normalization; the text should state this caveat explicitly.
[Sec. 5] The systematic uncertainty associated with the PYTHIA weighting of the omega -> pi+ pi- pi0 phase-space distribution is not discussed; a brief estimate of its effect on the correction factors would be useful.
[Table 2] The units of the Levy-Tsallis parameter C are presented as 'C( x 10^10 pb)', which is ambiguous; write 'C = 3.51 x 10^10 pb' or state that the table gives C/10^10 in pb.
[Sec. 7] The chi-squared per degree of freedom of the constant fit to the omega/pi0 ratio is not quoted; please include it to justify the pT > 4 GeV/c plateau assumption.
[Secs. 1 and 4] Minor typos: 'povided' in Section 1 and 'orignate' in Section 4 should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central cross-section measurement is self-contained; the only construction-forced element is the normalization of the mT-scaled omega 'prediction', a transparent side test.

fitted input called prediction [Section 7, 'Results', mT-scaling test (paragraph after Fig. 5)]
"Finally, the fitted value of C^{ω/π0}=0.578 in the plateau region is used to test the validity of mT-scaling ... an ω cross section prediction is obtained by scaling the fit parametrization of π0 production taken from Ref. [50] with the measured ratio C^{ω/π0}=0.578."

The constant C is obtained earlier in the same section from a constant fit to the measured ω/π0 ratio above pT = 4 GeV/c. Using this same fitted C to scale the π0 parametrization forces the normalization of the resulting 'prediction' to match the measured ratio in the fitted region by construction. Consequently, the stated agreement of the mT-scaled prediction with data is not an independent check of the ω normalization; only the pT-dependent shape test (through the transverse-mass mapping pT,ω^2 + m0,ω^2 = pT,π0^2 + m0,π0^2) carries independent content. The paper labels C as fitted and the comparison is a side test, so this is a minor circular element rather than a flaw in the main measurement.

full rationale

The paper's principal result is a direct measurement of the pT-differential ω production cross section via Eq. 1, with raw yields extracted from invariant-mass peak counting and corrected by acceptance times efficiency from PYTHIA8.2 + GEANT3 simulations. This correction chain does not assume the measured spectrum; the decay-kinematics weighting in PYTHIA is anchored to external experimental phase-space distributions, and the detector simulation is validated against data on reconstructed ω mass and width. The five reconstruction methods are combined with the BLUE algorithm and shown to agree, providing cross-checks rather than circular support. The theoretical comparisons (PYTHIA8.2 Monash, NLO broken-SU(3) fragmentation) are independent external calculations; the NLO model's parameters were fitted to other data, not to this measurement. The use of the companion π0 measurement for the ω/π0 ratio is appropriate and not circular, as the ratio combines two independent spectra. The only reduction-by-construction element is the mT-scaling test in Sec. 7, where the fitted ratio C is used to normalize a 'prediction' and then compared with the same data; this is acknowledged in the text as using the fitted value, and it does not affect the central cross-section claim. Overall, the central measurement is self-contained and the circularity score is low.

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

No invented entities. The paper relies on standard QCD factorization, Monte Carlo detector simulation, and known branching ratios. The only fitted parameters are the Levy-Tsallis parametrization of the measured spectrum and the constant omega/pi0 ratio, both used for presentation or for the mT scaling test.

free parameters (4)

Levy-Tsallis C = 3.51e10 pb
Fit parameter for the parametrization of the measured omega cross section (Table 2). Not used in the central claim.
Levy-Tsallis n = 6.17
Fit parameter for the parametrization of the measured omega cross section (Table 2).
Levy-Tsallis T = 0.194 GeV
Fit parameter for the parametrization of the measured omega cross section (Table 2).
C^omega/pi0 = 0.578
Constant ratio fitted to the measured omega/pi0 data above 4 GeV/c; used as normalization in the mT-scaling test.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption QCD factorization of inclusive hadron production cross sections into PDFs, matrix elements, and fragmentation functions
Invoked in Sec. 1 as the theoretical basis for comparing the measurement with NLO calculations.
domain assumption PYTHIA8.2 and GEANT3 simulate omega production and detector response accurately enough for efficiency corrections
Used in Sec. 5 to derive acceptance-times-efficiency corrections; a mismatch would bias the absolute cross section.
standard math PDG branching ratios for omega->pi+pi-pi0 (89.2%) and pi0->gamma gamma (99.823%)
Used in Eq. 1 to normalize the yield; taken from Ref. [18].
domain assumption mT scaling relation as a testable empirical hypothesis
Used in Sec. 7 to derive an omega prediction from pi0 data, under test in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of $\omega$ meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZE4IPYXT

@misc{pith2026241109432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of $\omega$ meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZE4IPYXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09432}
}

abstract

The $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section of $\omega$ meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 13$ TeV at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) was measured with the ALICE detector at the LHC, covering an unprecedented transverse-momentum range of $1.6 <p_{\rm T}< 50$ GeV/$c$. The meson is reconstructed via the $\omega\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay channel. The results are compared with various theoretical calculations: PYTHIA8.2 with the Monash 2013 tune overestimates the data by up to 50%, whereas good agreement is observed with Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) calculations incorporating $\omega$ fragmentation using a broken SU(3) model. The $\omega/\pi^0$ ratio is presented and compared with theoretical calculations and the available measurements at lower collision energies. The presented data triples the $p_{\rm T}$ ranges of previously available measurements. A constant ratio of $C^{\omega/\pi^0}=0.578\pm0.006~\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.013~\text{(syst.)}$ is found above a transverse momentum of $4$ GeV/$c$, which is in agreement with previous findings at lower collision energies within the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09432 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Invariant mass distributions of π +π −π 0 candidates shown in the vicinity of the nominal ω mass in exemplary pT intervals. Each panel displays a different π 0 reconstruction method, which is indicated in the respective panel and described in the text. A third-order polynomial is used to describe the background, which is subtracted from the distribution and the obtained signal is fitted with a Gaussian with two exp… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Correction factors applied to the raw ω yields according to Eq. 1 for the five π 0 reconstruction methods, as indicated in the legend. The factors include the reconstruction efficiency εrec and the geometrical acceptance A of the involved detectors. triggers allows reaching unprecedented transverse momenta up to 50 GeV/c. For each reconstruction method, the different triggers are appropriately combined on the level … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ratios of the ω production cross section obtained using five different π 0 reconstruction methods with respect to a Levy–Tsallis fit of the combined measurement. The fit parameters are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Invariant cross section of p + p → ω + X production at midrapidity in pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV compared to theoretical predictions. The cross section is parametrized using a Levy–Tsallis function (dashed grey line), where the fit parameters are given in [PITH_FUL…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ratio of ω/π 0 production as a function of transverse momentum for pp collisions at √ s = 13 TeV. The data is compared to various measurements at lower collision energies ranging from √ s = 62 to 7000 GeV [15, 58– 61]. The data is confronted with various theoretical ca…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I”,Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 3633–3652

work page 1973
[2]

Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD”,Adv. Ser . Direct. High Energy Phys.5(1989) 1–91,arXiv:hep-ph/0409313

arXiv 1989
[3]

Parton Distribution and Decay Functions

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, “Parton Distribution and Decay Functions”,Nucl. Phys. B194 (1982) 445–492

work page 1982
[4]

A Parametrization of the Properties of Quark Jets

R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, “A Parametrization of the Properties of Quark Jets”,Nucl. Phys. B 136(1978) 1. [5]ALICECollaboration, B. Abelevet al., “Neutral pion andηmeson production in proton-proton collisions at √s=0.9 TeV and √s=7 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B717(2012) 162–172, arXiv:1205.5724 [hep-ex]. [6]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Production ofπ 0...

arXiv 1978
[8]

Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs

P. Duwentästeret al., “Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 094005,arXiv:2105.09873 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2021
[9]

Parton-to-Pion Fragmentation Reloaded

D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Epele, R. J. Hernández-Pinto, and M. Stratmann, “Parton-to-Pion Fragmentation Reloaded”,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 014035,arXiv:1410.6027 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015
[10]

The hadronization of partons

S. Albino, “The Hadronization of partons”,Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 2489–2556, arXiv:0810.4255 [hep-ph]. [11]NNPDFCollaboration, V . Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland, E. R. Nocera, and J. Rojo, “A determination of the fragmentation functions of pions, kaons, and protons with faithful uncertainties”,Eur . Phys. J. C77(2017) 516,arXiv:1706.07049 [hep-ph]....

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[12]

Vector meson fragmentation using a model with broken SU(3) at the Next-to-Leading Order

H. Saveetha, D. Indumathi, and S. Mitra, “Vector meson fragmentation using a model with broken SU(3) at the Next-to-Leading Order”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29(2014) 1450049,arXiv:1309.2134 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

Show all 35 references

[13]

Fragmentation ofωandφMesons ine +e− andppCollisions at NLO

H. Saveetha and D. Indumathi, “Fragmentation ofωandφMesons ine +e− andppCollisions at NLO”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(2017) 33,arXiv:1705.00214 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[14]

NLO Productions ofωandK 0 S with a global extraction of the jet transport parameter in heavy-ion collisions

G.-Y . Ma, W. Dai, B.-W. Zhang, and E.-K. Wang, “NLO Productions ofωandK 0 S with a global extraction of the jet transport parameter in heavy-ion collisions”,Eur . Phys. J. C79(2019) 518, arXiv:1812.02033 [nucl-th]. [15]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Production ofωmeso...

2019 arXiv
[16]

Applicability of transverse mass scaling in hadronic collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

L. Altenkämper, F. Bock, C. Loizides, and N. Schmidt, “Applicability of transverse mass scaling in hadronic collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Rev. C96 (2017) 064907,arXiv:1710.01933 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[17]

An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

T. Sjöstrandet al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159–177,arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]. [18]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navaset al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D 110(2024) 030001. [19]ALICECollaboration, “ALICE Inner Tracking ...

2015 arXiv
[20]

The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events

J. Almeet al., “The ALICE TPC, a large 3-dimensional tracking device with fast readout for ultra-high multiplicity events”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A622(2010) 316–367,arXiv:1001.1950 [physics.ins-det]. [21]ALICECollaboration, P. Corteseet al., “ALICE Electromagnetic Calorimeter Te...

2010 arXiv
[28]

Calibration of the effective beam height in the ISR

S. van der Meer, “Calibration of the effective beam height in the ISR.” 1968. https://cds.cern.ch/record/296752. CERN-ISR-PO-68-31, ISR-PO-68-31. 17 Measurement ofωmeson production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV ALICE Collaboration

1968
[29]

Notes on van der Meer Scan for Absolute Luminosity Measurement

V . Balagura, “Notes on van der Meer Scan for Absolute Luminosity Measurement”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A654(2011) 634–638,arXiv:1103.1129 [physics.ins-det]. [30]ALICECollaboration, “ALICE 2016-2017-2018 luminosity determination for pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, ALICE-PUBLIC-2021...

2011 arXiv
[34]

Rolandi, W

L. Rolandi, W. Riegler, and W. Blum,Particle Detection with Drift Chambers. Particle Acceleration and Detection. Springer, 2008

2008
[35]

Standalone first level event selection package for the cbm experiment

I. Kisel, I. Kulakov, and M. Zyzak, “Standalone first level event selection package for the cbm experiment”,IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science60(2013) 3703–3708

2013
[36]

III. Analysis of V-events

J. Podolanski and R. Armenteros, “III. Analysis of V-events”,The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science45(1954) 13–30

1954
[37]

Spin and Parity of the omega Meson

M. L. Stevenson, L. W. Alvarez, B. C. Maglic, and A. H. Rosenfeld, “Spin and Parity of the omega Meson”,Phys. Rev.125(1962) 687–690

1962
[38]

Production and decay of eta and omega mesons in the reaction pi+ d —> (p)p pi+ pi- pi0 between 1.1 and 2.4 gev/c

J. S. Danburget al., “Production and decay of eta and omega mesons in the reaction pi+ d —> (p)p pi+ pi- pi0 between 1.1 and 2.4 gev/c”,Phys. Rev. D2(1970) 2564–2588

1970
[39]

GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool

R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, “GEANT Detector Description and Simulation Tool.” 1994. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1082634. W5013, W-5013, CERN-W5013, CERN-W-5013

1994
[40]

Information and treatment of unknown correlations in the combination of measurements using the BLUE method

A. Valassi and R. Chierici, “Information and treatment of unknown correlations in the combination of measurements using the BLUE method”,Eur . Phys. J. C74(2014) 2717, arXiv:1307.4003 [physics.data-an]. [41]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Data-driven precision determina...

2014 arXiv
[45]

Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics

C. Tsallis, “Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics”,J. Statist. Phys.52(1988) 479–487

1988
[46]

Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune

P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune”,Eur . Phys. J. C74(2014) 3024,arXiv:1404.5630 [hep-ph]. 18 Measurement ofωmeson production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV ALICE Collaboration

2014 arXiv
[47]

Where to stick your data points: The treatment of measurements within wide bins

G. D. Lafferty and T. R. Wyatt, “Where to stick your data points: The treatment of measurements within wide bins”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A355(1995) 541–547. [48]NNPDFCollaboration, R. D. Ballet al., “Parton distributions with QED corrections”,Nucl. Phys. B877(2013) 290–320,arXiv...

1995 arXiv
[49]

Light neutral-meson production in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV

B. Andersson,The Lund model, vol. 7. Cambridge University Press, 7, 2005. [50]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Light neutral-meson production in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,arXiv:2411.09560 [hep-ex]. [51]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Production of light-flavor ...

2021
[52]

Interleaved Parton Showers and Tuning Prospects

R. Corke and T. Sjostrand, “Interleaved Parton Showers and Tuning Prospects”,JHEP03(2011) 032,arXiv:1011.1759 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[53]

Numerical solution ofQ 2 evolution equations for fragmentation functions

M. Hirai and S. Kumano, “Numerical solution ofQ 2 evolution equations for fragmentation functions”,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 1002–1013,arXiv:1106.1553 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[54]

New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics

S. Dulatet al., “New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics”,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 033006,arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[55]

Fragmentation functions for pions, kaons, and protons at next-to-leading order

B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and B. Potter, “Fragmentation functions for pions, kaons, and protons at next-to-leading order”,Nucl. Phys. B582(2000) 514–536,arXiv:hep-ph/0010289

2000 arXiv
[56]

AKK Update: Improvements from New Theoretical Input and Experimental Data

S. Albino, B. A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, “AKK Update: Improvements from New Theoretical Input and Experimental Data”,Nucl. Phys. B803(2008) 42–104,arXiv:0803.2768 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[57]

Fragmentation functions from flavor inclusive and flavor tagged e+ e- annihilations

S. Kretzer, “Fragmentation functions from flavor inclusive and flavor tagged e+ e- annihilations”, Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 054001,arXiv:hep-ph/0003177

2000 arXiv
[58]

Inclusive Highp T ω0 andη ′ Production at the ISR

M. Diakonouet al., “Inclusive Highp T ω0 andη ′ Production at the ISR”,Phys. Lett. B89(1980) 432–436. [59]PHENIXCollaboration, A. Adareet al., “Measurement of neutral mesons in p+p collisions at√s= 200 GeV and scaling properties of hadron production”,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 05200...

1980 arXiv
[62]

Origin of the softpT spectra

G. Gatoff and C. Y . Wong, “Origin of the softpT spectra”,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 997–1006

1992
[63]

Meson spectra andmT scaling inp+p,d+Au, and Au + Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV

P. K. Khandai, P. Shukla, and V . Singh, “Meson spectra andmT scaling inp+p,d+Au, and Au + Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. C84(2011) 054904,arXiv:1110.3929 [hep-ph]. 19 Measurement ofωmeson production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV ALICE Collaboration A The ALICE Col...

2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I”,Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 3633–3652

work page 1973

[2] [2]

Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD”,Adv. Ser . Direct. High Energy Phys.5(1989) 1–91,arXiv:hep-ph/0409313

arXiv 1989

[3] [3]

Parton Distribution and Decay Functions

J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, “Parton Distribution and Decay Functions”,Nucl. Phys. B194 (1982) 445–492

work page 1982

[4] [4]

A Parametrization of the Properties of Quark Jets

R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, “A Parametrization of the Properties of Quark Jets”,Nucl. Phys. B 136(1978) 1. [5]ALICECollaboration, B. Abelevet al., “Neutral pion andηmeson production in proton-proton collisions at √s=0.9 TeV and √s=7 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B717(2012) 162–172, arXiv:1205.5724 [hep-ex]. [6]ALICECollaboration, S. Acharyaet al., “Production ofπ 0...

arXiv 1978

[5] [8]

Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs

P. Duwentästeret al., “Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 094005,arXiv:2105.09873 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2021

[6] [9]

Parton-to-Pion Fragmentation Reloaded

D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Epele, R. J. Hernández-Pinto, and M. Stratmann, “Parton-to-Pion Fragmentation Reloaded”,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 014035,arXiv:1410.6027 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2015

[7] [10]

The hadronization of partons

S. Albino, “The Hadronization of partons”,Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 2489–2556, arXiv:0810.4255 [hep-ph]. [11]NNPDFCollaboration, V . Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland, E. R. Nocera, and J. Rojo, “A determination of the fragmentation functions of pions, kaons, and protons with faithful uncertainties”,Eur . Phys. J. C77(2017) 516,arXiv:1706.07049 [hep-ph]....

work page Pith review arXiv 2010

[8] [12]

Vector meson fragmentation using a model with broken SU(3) at the Next-to-Leading Order

H. Saveetha, D. Indumathi, and S. Mitra, “Vector meson fragmentation using a model with broken SU(3) at the Next-to-Leading Order”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29(2014) 1450049,arXiv:1309.2134 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014