Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Hyperon global polarization in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extracts the first second-order azimuthal coefficient of Lambda global polarization in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions, finding in-plane enhanced polarization at 2.4 sigma, and reports a positive Xi polarization at 2.9 sigma.

desk verdict First isobar-collision hyperon polarization and first Py,c2 extraction, both at modest significance — worth refereeing once Eqs. (5)-(12) show the event-plane resolution treatment. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05046 v2 pith:MFWU6I2O submitted 2025-05-08 nucl-ex

The STAR Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Ld24.70.+s
keywords globalpolarizationhyperonvorticityLambdaXiisobarcollisionseventplaneshear-induced
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 precision hyperon spin measurements from 1.8 billion Ru+Ru and 2.0 billion Zr+Zr collisions at 200 GeV, and its new results concern how that spin tracks the collision geometry. Its headline finding is a first extraction of the second-order azimuthal coefficient of Lambda polarization, $P_{y,c2}=0.138\pm0.038\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.058\,(\mathrm{syst})$ percent for 20-50% centrality, meaning hyperons emitted in the reaction plane are more polarized than out-of-plane ones at 2.4$\sigma$. It also reports a positive Xi plus anti-Xi polarization, $P_{\Xi^-+\bar{\Xi}^+}=0.61\pm0.21\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.04\,(\mathrm{syst})$ percent at 2.9$\sigma$, obtained through the polarization-transfer method. These measurements matter because the azimuthal modulation is predicted to differ between purely vortical and shear-influenced hydrodynamics, so they offer a new way to identify the mechanism that polarizes quarks in the quark-gluon plasma. The broader pattern is consistent with earlier gold-gold data: polarization rises toward peripheral collisions, shows no particle-antiparticle splitting, and no obvious system-size dependence.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the hyperon decay asymmetry: because $\Lambda \to p \pi^-$ violates parity, the mean of $\sin(\Psi_1-\phi^*_B)$ in the hyperon rest frame measures polarization along the system angular momentum, with the first-order event plane $\Psi_1$ from spectator-neutron deflection fixing the reaction-plane direction. To reach the azimuthal dependence, the paper expands $P_H(\phi_H-\Psi_{\rm RP})$ as a cosine series, keeps the first two terms, and solves a pair of coupled equations that fold in the Lambda elliptic flow $v_2$ and acceptance integrals $A_0,A_2$ (or their tilted variants $\tilde{A}_0,\tilde{A}_2$), using the main tracking detector's second-order event plane as a proxy for the reaction plane. For the Xi, the cascade decay allows polarization transfer from $\Xi$ to the daughter $\Lambda$ with coefficient $C_{\Xi\Lambda}=+0.944$, a more sensitive extraction than the direct $\alpha_{\Xi}$ method.

What would settle it

Recompute $P_{y,c2}$ after applying the second-order event-plane resolution correction $1/\mathrm{Res}(\Psi_2)$ or a scalar-product estimator; if the corrected value moves by more than the quoted 0.058 percent systematic uncertainty or its significance falls below roughly 2$\sigma$, the in-plane enhancement claim fails. A second decisive check is to repeat the extraction using $\Psi_2$ from each sub-event separately and compare the two results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that hyperon spin polarization is not only a global average but carries a measurable second-order pattern tied to the elliptic geometry of the fireball. Decomposing the Lambda polarization as $P_H(\phi_H-\Psi_{\rm RP}) = P_{y,c0} + 2P_{y,c2}\cos[2(\phi_H-\Psi_{\rm RP})]$ and solving with the measured elliptic flow and data-derived acceptance factors, the paper finds $P_{y,c2}=0.138\pm0.038\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.058\,(\mathrm{syst})$ percent in 20-50% centrality, a positive in-plane enhancement at 2.4$\sigma$. In the same data, the polarization-transfer analysis of the cascade decay $\Xi \to \Lambda \pi$ yields $P_{\Xi^-+\bar{\Xi}^+}=0.61\pm0.21\,(\mathrm{stat})\pm0.04\,(\mathrm{syst})$ percent at 2.9$\sigma$, a hint of a strange-baryon hierarchy $P_{\Xi}>P_{\Lambda}$. The azimuthally integrated Lambda polarization is $0.310\pm0.048\pm0.036$ percent for $\Lambda$ and $0.270\pm0.053\pm0.030$ percent for $\bar{\Lambda}$, consistent with no spin-magnetic coupling contribution within the current precision.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the measured second-order event plane from charged tracks faithfully represents the true reaction plane, with any resolution smearing either negligible or already absorbed into the measured $v_2$ and acceptance factors; if that resolution is not fully accounted for, the size and significance of the 2.4$\sigma$ in-plane polarization could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive $P_{y,c2}$ means in-plane-emitted Lambdas carry more spin than out-of-plane ones; at full significance it would discriminate between models that include thermal shear and models that include only thermal vorticity.
  • The positive Xi polarization at 2.9$\sigma$ strengthens the picture that multi-strange baryons inherit polarization from an earlier, more vortical stage, with a possible hierarchy $P_{\Xi}>P_{\Lambda}$ consistent with feed-down expectations.
  • Consistency between Lambda and anti-Lambda polarization in both isobar species constrains a late-stage magnetic-field contribution to spin, despite the roughly 15% larger squared magnetic field expected in Ru+Ru than in Zr+Zr.
  • The similarity to Au+Au at the same energy implies no obvious system-size dependence in global polarization, and the apparent scaling with participant number $\langle N_{\rm part}\rangle$ supports vorticity as the common driver.
  • No significant $p_T$ or pseudorapidity dependence within $|\eta|<1$ leaves the rapidity-dependent vorticity predictions untested in the forward region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a resolution-corrected reanalysis of $P_{y,c2}$, applying $1/\mathrm{Res}(\Psi_2)$ or a scalar-product estimator, is the sharpest single check; the paper's equations do not display such a correction, so the systematic uncertainty on the 2.4$\sigma$ signal deserves re-examination.
  • Beyond the paper: the roughly 2$\sigma$ gap between the direct Xi polarization ($-0.32\pm0.39\pm0.08$ percent) and the polarization-transfer value ($0.61\pm0.21\pm0.04$ percent) is a natural target for a blinded re-measurement with tighter background and feed-down modeling.
  • Beyond the paper: comparing $P_{y,c2}$ across collision energies and system sizes in existing data sets would test whether the in-plane enhancement grows with elliptic flow or with vorticity gradients, a separation this single-energy measurement cannot make.
  • Beyond the paper: combining this isobar sample with higher-statistics future data could push the Lambda-anti-Lambda splitting difference between Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr below the current $\pm0.14$ percent precision, testing magnetic-field effects at the few-percent level.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 reports measurements of the global polarization of Λ, ¯Λ, Ξ−, and ¯Ξ+ hyperons in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV using STAR data. The analysis uses standard invariant-mass and event-plane methods, with signal extraction cross-checked by three techniques, and reports statistical and systematic uncertainties. The main results are: a Λ+¯Λ polarization of about 0.31% in 20–50% centrality that rises toward peripheral collisions and is consistent with Au+Au results; no significant Λ–¯Λ splitting; no significant pT or η dependence; a first extraction of the second-order azimuthal coefficient of the polarization, Py,c2 = 0.138 ± 0.038 (stat) ± 0.058 (syst) in 20–50% centrality, interpreted as enhanced in-plane polarization at the 2.4σ level; and a positive Ξ−+¯Ξ+ polarization of 0.61 ± 0.21 (stat) ± 0.04 (syst) in 20–50% centrality from the polarization-transfer method. The manuscript concludes that the data are qualitatively consistent with hydrodynamic calculations including shear-induced polarization and show no obvious system-size dependence relative to Au+Au.

Significance. If the central results hold, this is the first measurement of the second-order azimuthal modulation of the global polarization in isobar collisions, providing a new observable that can discriminate between thermal-vorticity and shear-induced contributions in spin-hydrodynamic models. The data set is large (1.8–2.0 billion events per system), the analysis uses well-established methods, and the paper includes useful cross-checks: three signal-extraction techniques, an explicit comparison with Au+Au results, and comparisons with AMPT+MUSIC calculations under two spin-relaxation scenarios. The paper also reports feed-down caveats and does not overstate the Λ–¯Λ splitting. However, the headline claims rest on modest significances (2.4σ and 2.9σ), and there are unresolved internal tensions, most notably the missing documentation of the second-order event-plane resolution correction and a ~2σ discrepancy between the two Ξ polarization methods. These issues must be addressed before the results can be considered quantitatively reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (5)–(12) and Section 3.5] The equations for extracting Py,c0 and Py,c2 do not display a resolution correction for the second-order event plane. Eq. (1) explicitly divides by Res(Ψ1), but Eqs. (5)–(12) use Ψ2 as a proxy for ΨRP with no analogous factor. Since Res(Ψ2) ≈ 0.60 in 20–50% centrality (Fig. 2), the moment ⟨sin(Ψ1−ϕ*_B) cos[2(ϕ_H−Ψ2)]⟩ is attenuated by the Ψ2 resolution; omitting this factor changes the extracted Py,c2 by roughly 40%, directly affecting the size and significance of the in-plane polarization claim. The statement in Section 3.5 that the event-plane-resolution systematic is below 0.1% is hard to reconcile with this unless the moments are already resolution-corrected and the equations simply omit the factor, which would make the analysis non-reproducible as written. Please state explicitly whether the left-hand sides of Eqs. (5)–(12) are corrected for Res(Ψ1) and/or Res(Ψ2), show the correction factors used, and explain the 0.1% systematic estimate in light of a ∼40% uncorrected effect.
  2. [Section 4.2, Fig. 8] The quoted 2.4σ significance for Py,c2 = 0.138 ± 0.038 (stat) ± 0.058 (syst) does not follow from the stated uncertainties. Combining the two uncertainties in quadrature gives sqrt(0.038² + 0.058²) ≈ 0.069, so the significance is approximately 2.0σ; the value 0.138/0.058 ≈ 2.4 corresponds to the systematic uncertainty alone. Please specify how the significance level was computed and quote the combined-statistical-plus-systematic significance, since the current presentation appears to overstate the result.
  3. [Section 4.3, Fig. 9] The two methods used to measure Ξ polarization give results that differ by about 2σ in the 20–50% centrality bin: PΞ = 0.61 ± 0.21 (stat) ± 0.04 (syst) via polarization transfer versus PΞ = −0.32 ± 0.39 (stat) ± 0.08 (syst) via direct measurement of the daughter Λ distribution. Because both methods are expected to measure the same physical quantity, presenting the polarization-transfer result as a 2.9σ positive observation without resolving this discrepancy is problematic. The authors should either provide a combined estimate, investigate possible sources of the difference (e.g., background treatment or feed-down), or temper the claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues, including inconsistent spacing in "Ru +Ru", "Zr+Zr", "di fference", and occasionally missing √ before sNN in the text and figure captions. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3)] The notation Py,c(2n) is not defined; the reader must infer that it refers to the coefficient of cos[2n(ϕH−ΨRP)]. Please define it explicitly.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The text states that A0 and A2 are extracted directly from the data, but it does not describe how the acceptance function A(pH, p*) is estimated. A brief description of this extraction would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section 3.3] The definition of Res(Ψn) = ⟨cos[n(Ψobs_n − Ψn)]⟩ uses the true event-plane angle Ψn, but this quantity is not directly accessible in data; the sentence could clarify that it is estimated using the two-sub-event method.
  5. [References] Reference [62] cites a private communication; if the calculation details are not publicly available, the authors should ensure that the quoted model predictions can be verified by interested readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central results are direct extractions from measured moments using external decay parameters and independent model comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—Λ/Λbar global polarization and its centrality, pT and eta dependence, the first extraction of Py,c2, and the Xi polarization—are direct experimental measurements. Equation (1) uses the standard relation between the observed sine moment and polarization, with an external decay parameter and a measured event-plane resolution. Equations (5)-(12) are two independent measured moments solved for Py,c0 and Py,c2, using acceptance integrals and hyperon v2 as inputs; no parameter is fitted to force the reported coefficients, and Py,c2 is not defined as one of the measured moments by construction. The Py,c0 result is cross-checked against the azimuthally integrated PH from Eq. (1), rather than being imposed to agree. The hydrodynamic curves (AMPT+MUSIC with the 'Lambda equilibrium' and 's-quark memory' scenarios) are external calculations from refs. [62,63], compared after the fact and not fitted to the isobar data. Comparisons with Au+Au results [10] and previous Xi measurements [8] use independent published data. Self-citations in the paper refer to earlier STAR methodology or measurements; none is invoked as an unverified premise that forces the present result. The absence of an explicit Res(Psi2) correction in Eqs. (6)/(10) is a reproducibility and potential bias concern, not a circularity: it concerns whether an attenuation correction is missing, not whether an output is identical to an input by definition or by fitted construction. No circular step is therefore established.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new entities. It relies on external decay parameters, event-plane proxies, and model-dependent feed-down assumptions; the listed domain assumptions are the main unverified premises. The second-order event-plane resolution treatment is the least documented.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CP symmetry is assumed for the decay parameters: alpha_Lambda = -alpha_Lambdabar = 0.732 +/- 0.014 and alpha_Xi = -alpha_Xibar = -0.401 +/- 0.058.
    Used in Eq. (1) through the factor 8/(pi alpha_H); violations would directly rescale all polarization values.
  • domain assumption The first-order event plane from ZDC-SMD spectator neutrons estimates the initial impact parameter direction, and dividing by Res(Psi1) fully corrects for its dispersion.
    Eq. (1) defines the global polarization axis; the paper states the related systematic uncertainty is below 0.1%.
  • domain assumption The measured second-order event plane Psi2 can be used as the reaction-plane proxy in Eqs. (5)-(12), with the effect of its resolution accounted for via the measured v2 and acceptance factors.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the headline Py,c2 result; the paper does not show an explicit Res(Psi2) factor.
  • domain assumption Feed-down corrections are not applied, and the measured inclusive Lambda and Xi polarizations are compared with primary-particle hydrodynamic calculations without correcting for the model-dependent 10-15% dilution of Lambda and 25% enhancement of Xi.
    The paper states this explicitly in Section 3.5 and uses it when comparing to MUSIC+AMPT curves and the P_Xi greater than P_Lambda hierarchy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperon global polarization in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFWU6I2O

@misc{pith2026250505046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperon global polarization in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at $\sqrts_NN$ = 200 GeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFWU6I2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05046}
}
abstract

The polarization of Lambda, Anti-Lambda, Xi, and Anti-Xi hyperons along the angular momentum of the system has been measured in isobar collisions of Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV with the STAR detector at RHIC. The polarization dependence on collision centrality is explored and found to show an increasing trend in more peripheral collisions. Dependencies on transverse momentum and pseudorapidity are investigated for Lambda and Anti-Lambda hyperons, but no significant dependence has been observed. The polarization measurements for Lambda and Anti-Lambda are consistent with each other, indicating little contribution of the spin-magnetic coupling in the observed polarization. The results for Lambda hyperons measurements are qualitatively consistent with hydrodynamic calculations incorporating effects from shear-induced polarization and thermal vorticity, and show no obvious system size dependence in comparison with previous results in Au+Au collisions. For the first time, the dependence of the polarization on the hyperon's emission azimuthal angle with respect to the second harmonic event plane is extracted and shows stronger polarization for the in-plane emitted hyperons at the level of 2.4$\sigma$ significance in 20-50% centrality. The measurements of Xi hyperons polarization via the polarization transfer analysis exhibit a finite positive polarization, 2.9$\sigma$ significance in 20-50% centrality, slightly enhanced compared to the inclusive Lambda polarization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Invariant mass distributions for Λ and Λ¯ (left) and for Ξ − and Ξ¯ + (right) for 20-50% centrality in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. 3.3. Event plane determination In order to reconstruct the direction of the initial orbital an￾gular momentum of the system, one needs to determine the az￾imuthal angle of the impact parameter vector, which is defined as a vector connecting the centers of the two nucle… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Resolution of the first-order event plane from ZDC-SMDs (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Global polarization of Λ and Λ¯ and their difference as a function of centrality in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV in the left panel. Right panel shows results for 20-50% centrality window. Shaded boxes and vertical lines represent systematic and statistical uncertainties. The data points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for visibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Global polarization of Λ+Λ¯ as a function of pT for 20%-60% central￾ity in combined Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV, comparing with results for Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV [10]. Shaded boxes and vertical lines show systematic and statistical uncer…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Global polarization of Λ+Λ¯ as a function of η for 20%-60% central￾ity in combined Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV, comparing with results for Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV [10]. Shaded boxes and vertical lines show systematic and statistical uncert…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global polarization of Λ+Λ¯ as a function of centrality in combined Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV (left panel) and results av￾eraged over 20-50% centrality (right panel). Results for Λ+Λ¯ measurements in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV [10] are show…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The polarization coefficients Py,c2 of Λ +Λ¯ obtained from the two methods as a function of centrality in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. The data points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for visibility. thermal vorticity predict larg…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The polarization coefficients Py,c0 of Λ +Λ¯ obtained as a function of centrality (left panel) and for 20-50% centrality (right panel) in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV, from the two methods (see texts). Azimuthally integrated results of the PH ar…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Global polarization of Ξ −+Ξ¯ + as a function of centrality in combined Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. Results for the inclusive Λ+Λ¯ measurements are shown for comparison. The data points are slightly shifted along the horizontal axis for visibility. T…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Nonlinear causality and stability of perfect spin hydrodynamics and its nonperturbative character

    hep-ph 2025-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    All four studied formulations of perfect spin hydrodynamics satisfy divergence-type structure and are nonlinearly causal and stable when exact, nonperturbative distribution functions are used.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [65]

    J. G. Russo, M. Tierz, Quantum phase transition in many-flavor super- symmetric QED 3, Phys. Rev. D 95 (3) (2017) 031901. arXiv:1610. 08527, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.031901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.031901 2017

  2. [1]

    Liang, X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang, X.-N. Wang, Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 102301, [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)]. arXiv:nucl-th/0410079, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.102301

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    S. A. V oloshin, Polarized secondary particles in unpolarized high energy hadron-hadron collisions? arXiv:nucl-th/0410089

    arXiv

  4. [3]

    Liang, X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang, X.-N. Wang, Spin alignment of vector mesons in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Lett. B 629 (2005) 20–26. arXiv:nucl-th/ 0411101, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.060. 7

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.060 2005

  5. [4]

    Becattini, F

    F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, J. Rizzo, Angular momentum conservation in heavy ion collisions at very high energy, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 024906. arXiv:0711.1253, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.024906

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Gao, S.-W

    J.-H. Gao, S.-W. Chen, W.-T. Deng, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, X.-N. Wang, Global quark polarization in non-central A +A collisions, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 044902. arXiv:0710.2943, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77. 044902

    arXiv 2008

  7. [6]

    Adamczyk, et al., Global Λ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid, Nature 548 (2017) 62–65

    L. Adamczyk, et al., Global Λ hyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid, Nature 548 (2017) 62–65. arXiv: 1701.06657, doi:10.1038/nature23004

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    M. S. Abdallah, et al., Pattern of global spin alignment of ϕ and K∗0 mesons in heavy-ion collisions, Nature 614 (7947) (2023) 244–248. arXiv:2204.02302, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05557-5

    arXiv 2023

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    Adam, et al., Global Polarization of Ξ and Ω Hyperons in Au+Au Col- lisions at √sNN = 200 GeV, Phys

    J. Adam, et al., Global Polarization of Ξ and Ω Hyperons in Au+Au Col- lisions at √sNN = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (16) (2021) 162301. arXiv:2012.13601, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.162301

    2021

  2. [9]

    B. I. Abelev, et al., Global polarization measurement in Au +Au colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 024915, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 039906 (2017)]. arXiv:0705.1691, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.024915

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Adam, et al., Global polarization of Λ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at√sNN = 200 GeV, Phys

    J. Adam, et al., Global polarization of Λ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at√sNN = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 014910. arXiv:1805.04400, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.014910

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Acharya, et al., Global polarization of Λ ¯Λ hyperons in Pb-Pb colli- sions at√sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, Phys

    S. Acharya, et al., Global polarization of Λ ¯Λ hyperons in Pb-Pb colli- sions at√sNN = 2.76 and 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 101 (4) (2020) 044611, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)]. arXiv:1909.01281, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044611

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M. S. Abdallah, et al., Global Λ-hyperon polarization in Au +Au colli- sions at √sNN =3 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 104 (6) (2021) L061901. arXiv: 2108.00044, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104.L061901

    2021

  6. [13]

    M. I. Abdulhamid, et al., Global polarization of Λ and Λ¯ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at sNN=19.6 and 27 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 108 (1) (2023) 014910. arXiv:2305.08705, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014910

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Abou Yassine, et al., Measurement of global polarization of Λ hyper- ons in few-GeV heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    R. Abou Yassine, et al., Measurement of global polarization of Λ hyper- ons in few-GeV heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 835 (2022) 137506. arXiv:2207.05160, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137506

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, V orticity in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. C 93 (6) (2016) 064907. arXiv:1603.06117, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.93.064907

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Wei, W.-T

    D.-X. Wei, W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, Thermal vorticity and spin po- larization in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 99 (1) (2019) 014905. arXiv:1810.00151, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014905

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Y . Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, H. Zhang, Hyperon polarization from the vortical fluid in low-energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 104 (4) (2021) L041902. arXiv:2105.13481, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104. L041902

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bozek, I

    P. Bozek, I. Wyskiel, Directed flow in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion col- lisions, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 054902. arXiv:1002.4999, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054902

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Y . B. Ivanov, A. A. Soldatov, V ortex rings in fragmentation regions in heavy-ion collisions at √sNN = 39 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 97 (4) (2018) 044915. arXiv:1803.01525, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.044915

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Wu, L.-G

    H.-Z. Wu, L.-G. Pang, X.-G. Huang, Q. Wang, Local spin polarization in high energy heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Research. 1 (2019) 033058. arXiv:1906.09385, doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033058

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Y . B. Ivanov, V . D. Toneev, A. A. Soldatov, Estimates of hyperon po- larization in heavy-ion collisions at collision energies √sNN = 4–40 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 100 (1) (2019) 014908. arXiv:1903.05455, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.100.014908

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Y . B. Ivanov, A. A. Soldatov, Correlation between global polarization, an- gular momentum, and flow in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2) (2020) 024916. arXiv:2004.05166, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102. 024916

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Liang, J

    Z.-T. Liang, J. Song, I. Upsal, Q. Wang, Z.-B. Xu, Rapidity dependence of global polarization in heavy ion collisions, Chin. Phys. C 45 (1) (2021) 014102. arXiv:1912.10223, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abc065

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    Y . Jiang, Z.-W. Lin, J. Liao, Rotating quark-gluon plasma in relativis- tic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 94 (4) (2016) 044910, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 049904 (2017)]. arXiv:1602.06580, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.94.044910

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    McLerran, V

    L. McLerran, V . Skokov, Comments About the Electromagnetic Field in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 929 (2014) 184–190.arXiv:1305. 0774, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2014.05.008

    2014 doi

  19. [26]

    Becattini, I

    F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal, S. V oloshin, Global hyperon polarization at local thermodynamic equilibrium with vorticity, magnetic field and feed-down, Phys. Rev. C 95 (5) (2017) 054902. arXiv:1610. 02506, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.054902

    2017 doi

  20. [27]

    M ¨uller, A

    B. M ¨uller, A. Sch¨afer, Chiral magnetic effect and an experimental bound on the late time magnetic field strength, Phys. Rev. D 98 (7) (2018) 071902. arXiv:1806.10907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.071902

    2018 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Y . Xie, D. Wang, L. P. Csernai, Fluid dynamics study of theΛ polarization for Au + Au collisions at√sNN = 200 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (1) (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    S. Shi, K. Li, J. Liao, Searching for the Subatomic Swirls in the CuCu and CuAu Collisions, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 409–413. arXiv:1712. 00878, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.066

    2019 doi

  23. [30]

    Alzhrani, S

    S. Alzhrani, S. Ryu, C. Shen, Λ spin polarization in event-by-event relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 106 (1) (2022) 014905. arXiv:2203.15718, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.014905

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Adam, et al., Polarization of Λ ( ¯Λ) hyperons along the beam direc- tion in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV, Phys

    J. Adam, et al., Polarization of Λ ( ¯Λ) hyperons along the beam direc- tion in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (13) (2019) 132301. arXiv:1905.11917, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 123.132301

    2019

  25. [32]

    Acharya, et al., Polarization of Λ and ¯Λ Hyperons along the Beam Di- rection in Pb-Pb Collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys

    S. Acharya, et al., Polarization of Λ and ¯Λ Hyperons along the Beam Di- rection in Pb-Pb Collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (17) (2022) 172005. arXiv:2107.11183, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 128.172005

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Abdulhamid, et al., Hyperon Polarization along the Beam Direc- tion Relative to the Second and Third Harmonic Event Planes in Isobar Collisions at sNN =200 GeV, Phys

    M. Abdulhamid, et al., Hyperon Polarization along the Beam Direc- tion Relative to the Second and Third Harmonic Event Planes in Isobar Collisions at sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (20) (2023) 202301. arXiv:2303.09074, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.202301

    2023

  27. [34]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. A. Lisa, Polarization and V orticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 395–423. arXiv:2003. 03640, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-021920-095245

    2020 doi

  28. [35]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, Q. Wang, Spin polarization in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33 (06) (2024) 2430006. arXiv:2402.04540, doi:10.1142/ S0218301324300066

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Niida, S

    T. Niida, S. A. V oloshin, Polarization phenomenon in heavy-ion colli- sions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33 (09) (2024) 2430010.arXiv:2404.11042, doi:10.1142/S0218301324300108

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Chen, et al., Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl

    J. Chen, et al., Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35 (12) (2024) 214. arXiv:2407.02935, doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01591-2

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Abdallah, et al., Search for the chiral magnetic e ffect with isobar collisions at √sNN =200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys

    M. Abdallah, et al., Search for the chiral magnetic e ffect with isobar collisions at √sNN =200 GeV by the STAR Collaboration at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 105 (1) (2022) 014901. arXiv:2109.00131, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014901

    2022

  32. [39]

    arXiv:1907.00773, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7576-8

    1907 arXiv

  33. [40]

    S. A. V oloshin, Testing the Chiral Magnetic E ffect with Central U +U collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 172301. arXiv:1006.1020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.172301

    2010 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, G. Wang, Test the chiral magnetic effect with isobaric collisions, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 041901. arXiv: 1607.04697, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.041901

    2016 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Anderson, et al., The Star time projection chamber: A Unique tool for studying high multiplicity events at RHIC, Nucl

    M. Anderson, et al., The Star time projection chamber: A Unique tool for studying high multiplicity events at RHIC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 499 (2003) 659–678. arXiv:nucl-ex/0301015, doi:10.1016/ S0168-9002(02)01964-2

    2003 arXiv

  36. [43]

    W. J. Llope, Multigap RPCs in the STAR experiment at RHIC, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A 661 (2012) S110–S113. doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010. 07.086

    2012 doi

  37. [44]

    Adler, H

    C. Adler, H. Strobele, A. Denisov, E. Garcia, M. Murray, S. White, The RHIC zero-degree calorimeters, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 461 (2001) 337–

    2001

  38. [45]

    STAR Techincal Note SN0448 (2003), Proposed Addition of a Shower Max Detector to the STAR Zero Degree Calorimeters, https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/starnotes/public/sn0448

    2003

  39. [46]

    W. J. Llope, et al., The STAR Vertex Position Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 759 (2014) 23–28. arXiv:1403.6855, doi:10.1016/j. nima.2014.04.080

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Gorbunov, On-line reconstruction algorithms for the CBM and AL- ICE experiments, Ph.D

    S. Gorbunov, On-line reconstruction algorithms for the CBM and AL- ICE experiments, Ph.D. thesis, Goethe U., Frankfurt (main), Frankfurt U. (2013)

    2013

  41. [48]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, P. Steinberg, Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 8 205–243. arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl. 57.090506.123020

    2007 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Kisel, Event Topology Reconstruction in the CBM Experiment, J

    I. Kisel, Event Topology Reconstruction in the CBM Experiment, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1070 (1) (2018) 012015. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1070/ 1/012015

    2018 doi

  43. [50]

    Zyzak, Online selection of short-lived particles on many-core com- puter architectures in the CBM experiment at FAIR, Ph.D

    M. Zyzak, Online selection of short-lived particles on many-core com- puter architectures in the CBM experiment at FAIR, Ph.D. thesis, Goethe U., Frankfurt (main), Frankfurt U. (2016)

    2016

  44. [51]

    A. M. Poskanzer, S. A. V oloshin, Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1671–1678. arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671

    1998 arXiv

  45. [52]

    S. A. V oloshin, T. Niida, Ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions: Direction of spectator flow, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2016) 021901(R).arXiv:1604.04597, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.021901

    2016 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Adamczyk, et al., Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au +Au col- lisions at √sNN = 7.7-62.4 GeV, Phys

    L. Adamczyk, et al., Elliptic flow of identified hadrons in Au +Au col- lisions at √sNN = 7.7-62.4 GeV, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 014902. arXiv:1301.2348, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.014902

    2013 arXiv

  47. [54]

    R. L. Workman, et al., Review of Particle Physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptac097

    2022 doi

  48. [55]

    Karpenko, F

    I. Karpenko, F. Becattini, Study of Λ polarization in relativistic nuclear collisions at √sNN = 7.7 –200 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (4) (2017) 213. arXiv:1610.04717, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4765-1

    2017 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Borghini, J

    N. Borghini, J. Y . Ollitrault, Azimuthally sensitive correlations in nucleus-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 064905. arXiv: nucl-th/0407041, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.70.064905

    2004 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Becattini, G

    F. Becattini, G. Cao, E. Speranza, Polarization transfer in hyperon decays and its e ffect in relativistic nuclear collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (9) (2019) 741. arXiv:1905.03123, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-019-7213-6

    2019 arXiv

  51. [58]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, X.-G. Huang, H. Z. Huang, Feed-down e ffect on Λ spin polarization, Phys. Rev. C 100 (1) (2019) 014913. arXiv:1905.03120, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.014913

    2019 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Fang, L.-G

    R.-H. Fang, L.-G. Pang, Q. Wang, X.-N. Wang, Polarization of massive fermions in a vortical fluid, Phys. Rev. C 94 (2) (2016) 024904. arXiv: 1604.04036, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024904

    2016 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Li, X.-L

    H. Li, X.-L. Xia, X.-G. Huang, H. Z. Huang, Global spin polarization of multistrange hyperons and feed-down e ffect in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 136971. arXiv:2106.09443, doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2022.136971

    2022 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Vitiuk, L

    O. Vitiuk, L. V . Bravina, E. E. Zabrodin, Is di fferent Λ and ¯Λ polariza- tion caused by different spatio-temporal freeze-out picture?, Phys. Lett. B 803 (2020) 135298. arXiv:1910.06292, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2020.135298

    2020 arXiv

  55. [62]

    L. P. Csernai, J. I. Kapusta, T. Welle, Λ and ¯Λ spin interaction with meson fields generated by the baryon current in high energy nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2) (2019) 021901. arXiv:1807.11521, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.021901

    2019 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, A. Palermo, Lo- cal Polarization and Isothermal Local Equilibrium in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (27) (2021) 272302. arXiv:2103. 14621, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.272302

    2021 doi

  57. [64]

    B. Fu, S. Y . F. Liu, L. Pang, H. Song, Y . Yin, Shear-Induced Spin Polarization in Heavy-Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (14) (2021) 142301, private communication. arXiv:2103.10403, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.142301

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Becattini, G

    F. Becattini, G. Inghirami, V . Rolando, A. Beraudo, L. Del Zanna, A. De Pace, M. Nardi, G. Pagliara, V . Chandra, A study of vorticity for- mation in high energy nuclear collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (9) (2015) 406, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 354 (2018)]. arXiv:1501.04468, d...

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    C. Yi, S. Pu, D.-L. Yang, Reexamination of local spin polarization beyond global equilibrium in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 104 (6) (2021) 064901. arXiv:2106.00238, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.104.064901

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    B. Fu, K. Xu, X.-G. Huang, H. Song, Hydrodynamic study of hyperon spin polarization in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2) (2021) 024903. arXiv:2011.03740, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103. 024903

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Palermo, E

    A. Palermo, E. Grossi, I. Karpenko, F. Becattini, Λ polarization in very high energy heavy ion collisions as a probe of the quark–gluon plasma formation and properties, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (9) (2024) 920. arXiv: 2404.14295, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13229-z . 9

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    STAR, Elliptic flow of strange and multi-strange hadrons in isobar colli- sions at√sNN = 200 GeV at RHIC, to be submitted

  63. [340]

    doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(00)01238-9

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.