On the precise determination of the sallis parameters in proton - proton collisions at LHC energies. Bhattacharyya, J. Cleymans, L. Marques 2, S. Mogliacci, M. W. Paradza,3 arxiv:709.07376v3 [hep-ph] 22 Oct 207 UC-CERN Research Centre and Department of Physics, University of Cape own, Rondebosch 770, South Africa 2 Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo-IFUSP, Rua do Matão, ravessa R87, 05508-900 São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 3 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of he Western Cape, Bellville 7535, South Africa Abstract A detailed analysis is presented about the precise values of the sallis parameters obtained in p p collisions for identified particles, pions, kaons and protons at the LHC at three beam energies s = 0.9, 2.76 and 7 ev. Interpolated data at s = 5.02 ev have also been included. It is shown that the sallis formula provides very good fits to the p distributions in p p collisions at the LHC using three parameters dn/dy, and q. However, the parameters and q depend on tume particle species and are different for pions, kaons and protons. As a consequence there is no m scaling and also no universality of the parameters for different particle species exists. PACS Indices:2.38.Aw, 3.60.Le, 4.40.Lb, 4.40Nd Introduction It is well accepted that the transverse momentum distributions in high energy p p collisions are described by a power law distribution at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) [, 2, 3] as well as at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. In this paper we investigate in detail one particular form of power law distribution which has been used extensively in the literature [9, 0,, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 2, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27] given by [28] [ f(e) + (q ) E ] /(q ), () where q and are two parameters to be determined. It is referred to as the sallis distribution [28] and forms the basis for non-extensive statistical thermodynamics. It has been shown [29, 30] that the corresponding pressure, the particle number and energy densities obey the usual thermodynamic email: trambak.bhattacharyya@uct.ac.za email: jean.cleymans@uct.ac.za email: lmarques.if@gmail.com email: sylvain.mogliacci@uct.ac.za email: mwparadza@gmail.com
consistency relations and the parameter is related to the entropy via = S E, (2) V,N albeit that the entropy S is the sallis entropy and not the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs one. herefore we refer to the parameter as temperature. he physical interpretation of the parameter q and the connection between the sallis temperature and the Boltzmann-Gibbs one were first elucidated in [3]. A few years ago it was suggested that the parameters appearing in the sallis distribution are the same for a wide range of identified hadrons [29, 30] at s = 900 GeV in p-p collisions. Subsequently several analyses have appeared which do not support this conclusion. Due to the size of the errors and the uncertainties on some of the parameters it was not completely possible to eliminate this option at s = 900 GeV. Further analyses at higher energies are not in support of the original ansatz and led to the proposal of having sequential freeze-outs depending on the particle type [32, 33, 34, 35]. In this paper we determine the parameters appearing in the sallis distribution as precisely as possible at beam energies of s = 0.9, 2.76 and 7 ev. We have also included the interpolated data at 5.02 ev [36]. he conclusion we reach is that for the π s, K s and protons the parameters are different and no universality in the parameters exists. At the beam energy of s = 0.9 ev the interval in transverse momentum is fairly narrow and the uncertainty on the parameters is large so that the original analysis [29, 30] made such a scenario possible. hus, even though the sallis distribution provides a very good description of the transverse momenta distributions, it has to be concluded that the parameters are clearly different. As a consequence, one basic property of the sallis distribution, namely scaling in the transverse mass m is not obeyed because the relevant parameters change for different hadrons. In this paper we do not add radial flow to the sallis distribution. his has been considered with some success recently in the literature [0, 26, 37] but questions about the specific form chosen for the flow remain unsolved in our opinion. We intend to come back to this in a future publication. he results presented here do not lead themselves to universal values of the parameters, these are sometimes combined with mass dependent flow velocities [0] so we consider this as an interesting possibility but no clear final answer has been reached yet here. Our results show that the temperature is comparable for kaons and for protons which does not have a natural explanation in the radial flow scenario. Another open question concerns the effect of feed-down decays from resonances. his has been considered in e + e annihilation in [38]. he calculations are however much more involved and at the moment it does not look feasible to repeat such an analysis in the energy range of the LHC. 2 sallis Distribution he following form is used for the transverse momentum distribution of hadrons produced at LHC energies [29, 30] d 2 N = gv m [ p dp dy y=0 (2π) 2 + (q ) m ] q/(q ), (3) where p and m are the transverse momentum and transverse mass respectively, y being the rapidity. g is the degeneracy factor, i.e. g = for π +, π, K +, K and g = 2 for protons and antiprotons. V is the volume of the system. Since particles and anti-particles are produced equally abundantly at 2
LHC energies there is no need for the introduction of chemical potentials. At lower energies it is of course necessary to take this into account. he resulting values of q and are for a system at kinetic freeze-out. he fact that the right-hand side of Eq. (3) only depends on m is known as m scaling. As noted in [39], Eq. (3) can be integrated over the transverse momentum, leading to dn dy = gv [ y=0 (2π) 2 p dp m + (q ) m 0 [ (2 q)m 2 0 + 2m 0 + 2 2 ][ = gv (2π) 2 where m 0 is the mass of the considered particle. (2 q)(3 2q) ] q q + (q ) m 0 From Eq. (4), we can express the volume in terms of dn/dy and the parameters q and V = dn dy (2π) 2 [ y=0 g (2 q)(3 2q) (2 q)m 2 0 + 2m 0 + 2 2 ][ + (q ) m 0 hus, replacing the volume in Eq. (3) by the more accessible dn/dy it can be rewritten as p d 2 N dp dy = dn [ m (2 q)(3 2q) y=0 dy y=0 (2 q)m 2 0 + 2m 0 + 2 2 [ + (q ) m + (q ) m 0 ] q, (4) ] q. (5) ] q ] q q. (6) It has to be noted that, in order to have a positive number of particles, q must be less than the value 3/2. A similar consideration for a positive energy density leads to an even stronger constraint, namely q <4/3 [40, 4]. It is also worth mentioning that the parameterization given in Eq. (6) is close to the one used for fitting the data taken at RHIC and LHC experiments [, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 42], which is given by d 2 [ N dn dp dy = p (n )(n 2) y=0 dy + m ] m n 0, (7) y=0 nc(nc + m 0 (n 2)) nc where n, C and m 0 are fit parameters. here is no justification in calling the parameter C a temperature. Notice that Eq. (7) shows the same dependence on the transverse momentum as Eq. (3) except for an additional factor m which is present in Eq. (6) but not in Eq. (7). Omission of this additional factor of m would lead to values of which are clearly larger, approximately double the values presented in this paper. 3 Analysis of the transverse momentum spectra 3. Fits to transverse momentum spectra at the beam energy of 900 GeV he sallis parameters were determined by fitting the experimental results published by the ALICE collaboration [4] to Eq. (6). Of all the beam energies considered in this analysis, the one at 900 GeV 3
00 d 2 N/dp dy (GeV/c) - d 2 N/2πp dp dy (GeV/c) -2 00 0 0 0. π + K + p π + + π - K + +K - p + p 0.0 0.00 0.000 0. e-05 e-06 0.0 e-07 Data/Fit pp @ 0.9 ev.6.4.2 0.8 0.6 0 0.5.5 2 2.5 p (GeV/c) e-08 pp @ 2.76 ev.6.4.2 0.8 0.6 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 20 p (GeV/c) Figure : Fits to the transverse momentum distributions, using the sallis distribution given by Eq. (6), of π + (blue), K + (red) and protons (black) at 900 GeV [4] in the left pane. In the right pane fits corresponding to π + + π (blue), K + + K (red), protons and antiprotons (black) as measured by the ALICE collaboration at 2.76 ev [43] are shown. has the smallest range in p, namely about an order of magnitude less than the ones at 2.76 and 7 ev. his leads to a large uncertainty in the parameters which is discussed in detail below, e.g. the central points for the temperature differ by a factor of two between protons and antiprotons. he transverse momentum distributions are shown in Figures and 2 where it can be seen that both the protons and the antiprotons fits describe the data very well. However, the resulting parameters have large errors and are quite different: for protons is 7 ± 29 MeV with q being.58± 0.028; for antiprotons the value of is 52 ± 33 while q is.32 ± 0.028. he central values of thus differ by a factor of more than two between protons and antiprotons. Especially, the values for deviate clearly from those obtained for π ± and K ±. An earlier analysis gave consistent values, however, with large error bars [29]. he resulting values for the beam energy of s = 900 GeV are shown in able. his difference in the sallis parameters comes as a surprise since the integrated proton and antiproton yields are equal within the uncertainties. Our interpretation is that within the measured range of transverse momenta, it is not possible to determine precisely the values of the sallis parameters. o emphasize this we show in Figure 3 the contour of -σ uncertainties in the q plane. he proposed 4
00 0 0. d 2 N/2πp dp dy (GeV/c) -2 0.0 0.00 0.000 e-05 π + +π - K + +K - p + p π + +π - K + +K - p + p e-06 e-07 e-08 Data/Fit pp @ 5.02 ev.6.4.2 0.8 0.6 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 p (GeV/c) pp @ 7 ev 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 20 p (GeV/c) Figure 2: Fits to the transverse momentum distributions, using the sallis formula given in Eq. (6), of π + + π (blue), K + + K (red), protons and antiprotons (black) as given by the ALICE collaboration at 5.02 ev [36], by interpolating between the measured 7 ev [44] (shown in the right pane) data and the measured 2.76 ev data. 5
.8.6 p.4 p q.2..08.06 ALICE pp @ 900 GeV 0.0 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0. (GeV) Figure 3: Contours in the q plane showing lines with -σ deviation from the minimum χ 2 values as well as the values of the parameters q and (corresponding to the minimum χ 2 ) with error bars. Values for protons are in black while those for antiprotons are given in red. Note the large difference of more than a factor of two between the central temperature values. 6
Particle dn/dy q (GeV) χ 2 / NDF π +.488 ± 0.09.48 ± 0.005 0.070 ± 0.002 3.656 / 30 π.480 ± 0.08.45 ± 0.005 0.072 ± 0.002 2.76 / 30 K + 0.84 ± 0.004.75 ± 0.06 0.057 ± 0.02 5.32 / 24 K 0.82 ± 0.004.6 ± 0.05 0.064 ± 0.02 3.376 / 24 p 0.083 ± 0.002.60 ± 0.025 0.07 ± 0.029 7.43 / 2 p 0.079 ± 0.002.32 ± 0.025 0.052 ± 0.033 7.640 / 2 able : Fit results at s = 900 GeV, using data from the ALICE [4] collaboration. Note the very large errors on the values of for protons and antiprotons. universality of the sallis parameters at s = 900 GeV can therefore not be established. here is no ambiguity in determining the parameters for the pion distributions. he transverse momentum distributions are shown in Figures and 2. Possible differences only become apparent at very large (or very small) values of p and to get a better determination of the parameters one needs further measurements at higher values of p. 3.2 Fits to transverse momentum spectra at the beam energy of 2.76 ev he transverse momentum spectra at s = 2.76 ev have been measured in a range extending up to about 20 GeV/c. he fit is shown in Figure 2 and the resulting values of the parameters are listed in able 2. It can be seen that the values of q and are much more constrained than in the previous case of s = 900 GeV. If the possibility of common values could not be entirely excluded in the previous case, there is no doubt here that the values are different. he resulting values for the beam energy of s = 2.76 ev are shown in able 2. Particle dn/dy q (GeV) χ 2 / NDF π + + π 3.968 ± 0.083.49 ± 0.002 0.077 ± 0.00 20.64 / 60 K + + K 0.463 ± 0.00.44 ± 0.002 0.096 ± 0.003 2.553 / 55 p + p 0.209 ± 0.004.2 ± 0.005 0.086 ± 0.008 3.685 / 46 able 2: Fit results at s = 2.76 ev, using data from the ALICE collaboration [43]. 3.3 Fits to transverse momentum spectra for the interpolated data at 5.02 ev For the transverse momentum spectra at s = 5.02 ev we have used the results presented by the ALICE collaboration [36] (in a range extending up to about 20 GeV/c) by interpolating their data at 2.76 ev and 7 ev. he fit is shown in Figure 2. he resulting values of the parameters are given in able 3. Again the values of q and are much more constrained than for s = 900 GeV. As in the previous case, no common values of the parameters and q can be found. We would like to emphasize that all these results will have to be confirmed by the final analysis of the 5.02 ev data. 7
Particle dn/dy q (GeV) χ 2 / NDF π + + π 4.452 ± 0.095.55 ± 0.002 0.076 ± 0.002 20.4 / 55 K + + K 0.530 ± 0.0.50 ± 0.005 0.099 ± 0.006.56 / 48 p + p 0.234 ± 0.004.26 ± 0.005 0.090 ± 0.008 3.006 / 46 able 3: Fit results at s = 5.02 ev, using the interpolated data as given by the ALICE collaboration [36]. 3.4 Fits to transverse momentum spectra at the beam energy of 7 ev he transverse momentum spectra at s = 7 ev in p p collisions have also been measured [44] in a range extending up to about 20 GeV/c. he fit is shown in Figure 2 and the resulting values of the parameters are given in able 4. he resulting values for beam energy of s = 7 ev are shown in able 4. Particle dn/dy q (GeV) χ 2 / NDF π + + π 4.778 ± 0.0.58 ± 0.002 0.076 ± 0.002 23.37 / 55 K + + K 0.573 ± 0.0.55 ± 0.005 0.0 ± 0.006 2.376 / 48 p + p 0.249 ± 0.005.30 ± 0.005 0.093 ± 0.008 3.359 / 46 able 4: Fit results at s = 7 ev, using data from the ALICE collaboration [36, 44]. 4 Analysis of the results In Figure 4 we show contours in the q plane. he ellipses correspond to fixed values of deviations from the minimum χ 2 values, -σ uncertainties on the fit parameters are shown in red, 2-σ uncertainties are shown in blue, while those with 3-σ uncertainties are shown in black. At s = 0.9 ev (upper left-hand pane in Figure 4) it can be seen that while the pions and kaons do overlap in a small region, this is not the case for the protons, albeit there is a wide range of possible values for the latter so that an eventual complete overlap for all three particles π +, K +, p cannot really be excluded. A wider range in p or a more precise measurement of the very low p region is necessary to really exclude this eventuality. At 2.76 ev (upper right-hand pane in Figure 4), it can be seen that the values of q and are much more constrained than in the previous case of 0.9 ev. If the possibility of common values could not be discarded in the case of 0.9 ev, there is no doubt here that the values are different. he same goes for the 7 ev results (lower right-hand pane in Figure 4), and no common values of the parameters and q can be found, nor any strict m scaling because the parameters are different for each species. We notice that the 7 ev case has been discussed previously [, 3, 9], within the framework of the sallis distribution. he authors from [, 3] use a different form of the sallis distribution, not having a factor m on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) and hence they obtain higher values for the parameter (recalling that this is no longer a temperature in the thermodynamic sense). 8
Within the framework considered here, the values for q and obtained from the ALICE collaboration data are close to those of the CMS collaboration [45], as shown in the contour plot presented in Figure. 4. he CMS contours are indeed being situated as roughly equidistant from each of the ALICE ones for pions, kaons and protons. his comes as a surprise since at those large values of the transverse momentum p, hard scattering processes are presumed to be dominant. In Figure 5 we show the transverse mass distributions for pions, kaons and protons at different beam energies. It is clearly seen that there is no m scaling because of the differences for each particle type. Overall, the outcome we reach is that for the π s, K s, and protons the parameters are different and no universality exists. hus, even though the sallis distribution provides a very good description of the transverse momenta distributions, it has to be accepted that the parameters are in fact different. As a consequence, one basic property of the sallis distribution, namely scaling in the transverse mass m is not obeyed, because the relevant parameters change for different hadrons. In Figure 6 we summarize some of the results separately for protons (upper pane), kaons (middle pane) and pions (lower pane). We notice here that our results clearly show that the fitted temperature is often comparable for kaons and for protons, which does not have a natural explanation in the radial flow scenario. In addition, the fitted q parameter is also often comparable for pions and kaons. As a consequence, different groups of nearly m scaling appear (see Figure 5), groups whose characteristic allowing for differentiating them could well be the mass range of the given particles. We also notice that the resulting values for dn/dy at mid-rapidity are fully compatible (if not identical) to the values quoted by the ALICE collaboration using a slightly different parameterization for the transverse momentum distribution. Finally there is also a clear beam energy dependence in the values of the parameters. he results obtained at 0.9 ev are out of line, presumably because of the limited range in p at this beam energy. Discarding for the moment the results at 0.9 ev, one can see a clear shift for the pions towards lower temperatures but higher values for q. For protons the opposite result is seen, namely a shift towards higher temperatures but the values for q are almost independent on the beam energy. For kaons the pattern is different again, namely an almost constant value for the temperature but a clear increase in the value of q. 5 Large ransverse Momenta In order to get a feeling for the limit of applicability of the sallis distribution given in Eq. 3 we applied the results obtained above to the highest transverse momenta measured by the CMS collaboration [46] for charged particles up to 200 GeV/c in p p collisions at a beam energy of 7 ev. o achieve this we simply added π + + π, K + + K, p + p using the parameters listed in able 4. here are more charged particles than those used here but it is close to a good approximation of the total number of charged particles. he result is shown in Figure 7 and the description of the data is quite appropriate. he lower pan of the figure shows the ratio of experimental data over fit values. here are indications that the description using the sallis distribution deviates from measurements for higher values of p but this is also the region where the uncertainty is largest. It is to be concluded that the sallis distribution provides a good description up to the highest measured values of p. he oscillations seen in previous fits [47, 48, 49] are due to a simplified use of the sallis distribution which does not distinguish between 9
.2 q.5 π + K + π + +π K + +K -. p+p.05 pp \/s = 0.9 ev p pp \/s = 2.76 ev.2.5 π+ +π K+ +K - CMS charged π + +π K + +K - q p+p. p+p.05 pp \/s = 5.02 ev 0.05 0. (GeV) pp \/s = 7 ev 0.05 0. (GeV) Figure 4: Contours in he q plane showing lines of -σ deviation from the minimum χ 2 in red. 2-σ deviations are shown in blue. hose for 3-σ deviation from the minimum χ 2 are shown in black. he upper left pane is for data at s = 0.9 ev [4]; the upper right pane is for 2.76 ev [43]. he lower left pane is for 5.02 ev [36] while the lower right pane is for 7 ev [44]. For comparison the contours are also shown for results from the CMS collaboration [46] for charged particles at 7 ev. 0
d 2 N/2πm dm dy (GeV -2 ) 00 0 0. 0.0 0.5.5 2 π + K + p ALICE pp @ 0.9 ev 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 π + + π - K + + K - p + p ALICE pp @ 2.76 ev 00 0 0. 0.0 0.00 0.000 e-05 e-06 e-07 e-08 e-09 e-0 d 2 N/2πm dm dy (GeV -2 ) 0 0. 0.0 0.00 0.000 e-05 e-06 π + + π - K + + K - p + p π + + π - K + + K - p + p 0 0. 0.0 0.00 0.000 e-05 e-06 e-07 e-07 e-08 ALICE pp @ 5.02 ev ALICE pp @ 7 ev e-08 e-09 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 m -m 0 (GeV) 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 m - m 0 (GeV) e-09 Figure 5: ransverse mass distributions for π +, K + and protons at 900 GeV (top left) [4]. Also shown are π + + π, K + + K and p + p at 2.76 ev (top right) [43] 5.02 ev (bottom left) [36] and 7 ev (bottom right) [44]. he data shown at 5.02 ev are interpolated data.
.8 Protons q.6.4.2 7 ev 5.02 ev 2.76 ev..8 Kaons.6 7 ev q.4 2.76 ev 5.02 ev.2 0.9 ev..8 Pions q.6.4.2 7 ev 0.9 ev 5.02 ev 2.76 ev. 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0. 0. 0.2 (GeV) Figure 6: Contours at fixed χ 2 values corresponding to σ uncertainties, for protons (top), kaons (middle) and pions (bottom). Notice that for the 0.9 ev contours, pions and kaons respectively mean π + and K +, and that the 0.9 ev proton contour is simply out of range. he beam energies are displayed in the figure, and our results are obtained using results from the ALICE collaboration [4, 43, 36, 44]. 2
pions, kaons and protons. 6 Conclusions In this paper we have thoroughly investigated one particular form of power tail distribution which is based on non-extensive statistical thermodynamics and has the property of having consistent thermodynamic relations for the particle number, the energy, the pressure and the entropy. We have determined the parameters appearing in the sallis distribution as precisely as possible at beam energies of s = 0.9, 2.76 and 7 ev. he conclusion we reach is that for the π s, K s and protons the parameters are different and no universality in the parameters exist. At the beam energy of s = 0.9 ev, the interval in transverse momentum is fairly narrow and the uncertainty on the parameters is large so that the original analysis [29, 30] made such a scenario possible. he suggestion, made a few years ago, that the parameters appearing in this distribution are the same for a wide range of identified hadrons [29, 30] at s = 900 GeV in p-p collisions is therefore not supported by the analysis presented here. hus, even though the sallis distribution provides a very good description of the transverse momenta distributions, it has to be concluded that the parameters are clearly different. As a consequence, one basic property of the sallis distribution, namely scaling in the transverse mass m is not obeyed because the relevant parameters change for different hadrons. At last, our conclusions are as follows: he sallis formula provides very good fits to the p distributions in p p collisions at the LHC using three parameters dn/dy, and q. he parameters and q depend on the particle species and are different for pions, kaons and protons. No universal behavior has been found. As a consequence of this, there is no m scaling. Acknowledgments. B. would like to acknowledge the University Research Committee, University of Cape own, South Africa for its financial support. S. M. would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Claude Leon Foundation. he work of J.C. is based on research supported by the national Research Foundation. References [] B. I. Abelev, et al., Phys. Rev. C75, 06490 (2007). [2] A. Adare, et al., Phys. Rev. D83, 052004 (20). [3] A. Adare, et al., Phys. Rev. C83, 064903 (20). 3
/2πp d 2 N/dp dy (Gev/c) -2 0 0. e-2 e-3 e-4 e-5 e-6 e-7 e-8 e-9 e-0 e- e-2 e-3 e-4 CMS pp 7 ev Data/Fit.2 0.8 0.4 0 00 p (GeV/c) Figure 7: Results from the CMS collaboration [46] showing the transverse momentum distribution for charged particles up to 200 GeV/c. he fit is obtained by adding the contributions of π + + π, K + + K, p + p as obtained at a beam energy of 7 ev in p p collisions using the sallis distributions with the parameters obtained from fitted ALICE data going only up to about 20 GeV/c as listed in able 4. he lower pane of the figure shows the ratio of data over the fit values. 4
[4] K. Aamodt, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C7, 655 (20). [5] V. Khachatryan, et al., JHEP 02, 04 (200). [6] V. Khachatryan, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 05, 022002 (200). [7] G. Aad, et al., New J. Phys. 3, 053033 (20). [8] B. B. Abelev, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2662 (203). [9] V. Cirigliano, G. M. Fuller, A. Vlasenko, Phys. Lett. B747, 27 (205). [0] S. Grigoryan, Phys. Rev. D95, 05602 (207). [] C.-Y. Wong, G. Wilk, L. J. L. Cirto, C. sallis, Phys. Rev. D9, 4027 (205). [2] O. Ristea, C. Ristea, A. Jipa, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 9 (207). [3] G. Bíró, G. G. Barnaföldi,. S. Biró, K. Ürmössy, Á. akács, Entropy 9, 88 (207). [4] A. S. Parvan, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 53 (207). [5] A. S. Parvan, O. V. eryaev, J. Cleymans, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 02 (207). [6] S. ripathy, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 289 (206). [7] H. Zheng, L. Zhu, Adv. High Energy Phys. 206, 963226 (206). [8] L. Marques, J. Cleymans, A. Deppman, Phys. Rev. D9, 054025 (205). [9] M. D. Azmi, J. Cleymans, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 430 (205). [20] J. Cleymans, et al., Phys. Lett. B723, 35 (203). [2] I. Sena, A. Deppman, Eur. Phys. J. A49, 7 (203). [22] M. D. Azmi, J. Cleymans, J. Phys. G4, 06500 (204). [23]. S. Biro, A. Jakovac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 32302 (2005). [24] A. Khuntia, S. ripathy, R. Sahoo, J. Cleymans, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 03 (207). [25] P. K. Khandai, P. Sett, P. Shukla, V. Singh, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 350066 (203). [26] H. Zheng, L. Zhu, A. Bonasera, Phys. Rev. D92, 074009 (205). [27] B. De, Eur. Phys. J. A50, 38 (204). [28] C. sallis, J. Statist. Phys. 52, 479 (988). [29] J. Cleymans, D. Worku, J. Phys. G39, 025006 (202). [30] J. Cleymans, D. Worku, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 60 (202). [3] G. Wilk, Z. Wlodarczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2770 (2000). 5
[32] D. hakur, S. ripathy, P. Garg, R. Sahoo, J. Cleymans, Adv. High Energy Phys. 206, 449352 (206). [33] H.-L. Lao, F.-H. Liu, B.-C. Li, M.-Y. Duan (207). ArXiv:703.04944. [34] H.-L. Lao, F.-H. Liu, R. A. Lacey, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 44 (207). [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. A53, no. 6, 43 (207)]. [35] D. hakur, S. ripathy, P. Garg, R. Sahoo, J. Cleymans, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 9, 329 (206). [36] J. Adam, et al., Phys. Lett. B760, 720 (206). [37] K. Jiang, et al., Phys. Rev. C9, 02490 (205). [38] L. Ferroni, F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C7, 824 (20). [39] M. Rybczynski, Z. Wlodarczyk, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2785 (204). [40] M. Ishihara, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25, 650066 (206). [4]. Bhattacharyya, J. Cleymans, S. Mogliacci, Phys. Rev. D94, 094026 (206). [42] K. Aamodt, et al., Phys. Lett. B693, 53 (200). [43] B. B. Abelev, et al., Phys. Lett. B736, 96 (204). [44] J. Adam, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 226 (205). [45] S. Chatrchyan, et al., Eur. Phys. J. C72, 264 (202). [46] S. Chatrchyan, et al., JHEP 08, 086 (20). [47] G. Wilk, Z. Wlodarczyk, Acta Phys. Polon. B46, 03 (205). [48] G. Wilk, Z. Wlodarczyk, Chaos Solitons Fractals 8, 487 (205). [49] G. Wilk, Z. Wlodarczyk, Physica 486, 579 (207). 6