pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.18214 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ⚛️ nucl-ex · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Collision Energy Dependence of Hypertriton Production in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC

The STAR Collaboration
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex hep-ex
keywords hypertritonhypernucleicoalescenceheavy-ion collisionsyield ratiosAu+Au collisionsformation probabilityRHIC
0
0 comments X

The pith

The double ratio of hypertriton to triton production stays constant at 0.4 across RHIC collision energies from 3 to 27 GeV.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The STAR Collaboration measured hypertriton yields and spectra in gold-gold collisions at eleven energies. Yields rise as collision energy falls but remain roughly half the values predicted by thermal models assuming chemical equilibrium. The mean transverse momentum also falls below expectations from a Blast-Wave parametrization fitted to ordinary light hadrons. The central observation is that the double ratio of hypertriton over lambda divided by triton over proton holds steady near 0.4 at all energies. In a coalescence picture this constancy shows that the hypertriton forms with substantially lower probability than the triton because its binding depends on a weaker hyperon-nucleon force.

Core claim

Measurements show that the pT-integrated hypertriton yields and the hypertriton-to-lambda ratio increase strongly with decreasing collision energy yet remain a factor of about two below thermal-model expectations. The mean transverse momentum of hypertritons lies below the value expected from a Blast-Wave fit to lighter hadrons. Most notably, the double ratio (³_ΛH/Λ) divided by (t/p) holds steady near 0.4 across the full energy range. Within the coalescence framework this flat value directly signals that the formation probability of the weakly bound hypertriton is suppressed relative to the triton because of the weaker hyperon-nucleon interaction compared with the nucleon-nucleon force.

What carries the argument

The double ratio ((³_ΛH/Λ)/(t/p)) inside the coalescence framework, which isolates the relative formation probability fixed by hyperon-nucleon versus nucleon-nucleon interaction strength.

If this is right

  • Hypertriton formation probability is suppressed by a factor of roughly 0.4 relative to triton production at every energy studied.
  • Thermal models assuming full chemical equilibrium overpredict hypertriton yields by a factor of two throughout the measured range.
  • Hypertriton source conditions at chemical freeze-out differ from those of light hadrons, as shown by the lower mean transverse momentum.
  • The suppression factor is independent of collision energy, indicating that binding properties dominate over evolving medium effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same double-ratio method could be applied to other weakly bound hypernuclei to separate intrinsic interaction strength from formation dynamics.
  • The constant suppression provides a direct experimental anchor for low-energy hyperon-nucleon potentials used in hypernuclear structure calculations.
  • If the ratio remains flat at still lower energies, it would imply that hypertriton production near threshold is governed by the same interaction-limited coalescence probability.

Load-bearing premise

The coalescence framework cleanly extracts the formation probability from the double ratio without significant contamination from other production channels, final-state interactions, or energy-dependent changes in source size and density.

What would settle it

A measurement of the same double ratio at energies below 3 GeV or in a different collision system that deviates significantly from 0.4 would show that the constant value is not set solely by the fixed interaction strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18214 by The STAR Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Transverse momentum spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The collision energy dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The transverse momentum spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Collision energy dependence of the double ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The STAR Collaboration reports measurements of the collision energy dependence of hypertriton (${}^{3}_{\Lambda}$H) transverse momentum spectra and $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yields at mid-rapidity ($|y|<$0.5) in Au+Au collisions at 11 collision energies between 3.2 and 27\,GeV. The measured ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}$H yields and ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}$H/$\Lambda$ yields ratio in central collisions increase strongly with decreasing collision energy, and are a factor of $\sim$2 lower than thermal model predictions at this energy range. The mean $p_{\rm T}$ of ${}^{3}_{\Lambda}$H is lower than the Blast-Wave expectation using the freeze-out parameters from light hadrons. Furthermore, the observed double ratio $({}^{3}_{\Lambda}{\rm{H}}/\Lambda)/(t/p)$ maintains a constant value of $\sim$0.4 across the measured energy range. Within the coalescence framework, this ratio directly reflects the significantly suppressed formation probability of the weakly-bound hypertriton relative to the triton, which results from the weaker hyperon-nucleon interaction compared with the nucleon-nucleon interaction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The STAR Collaboration reports measurements of hypertriton (³_ΛH) transverse momentum spectra and p_T-integrated yields at mid-rapidity (|y|<0.5) in Au+Au collisions at 11 energies from 3.2 to 27 GeV. The ³_ΛH yields and ³_ΛH/Λ ratio in central collisions increase strongly with decreasing energy and lie a factor of ~2 below thermal model predictions. The mean p_T of ³_ΛH is lower than Blast-Wave expectations based on light-hadron freeze-out parameters. The double ratio ((³_ΛH/Λ)/(t/p)) remains constant at ~0.4 across the energy range; within the coalescence framework this is interpreted as direct evidence for suppressed hypertriton formation probability arising from the weaker hyperon-nucleon interaction relative to nucleon-nucleon.

Significance. The work supplies new, direct experimental ratios for light hypernuclei production over a broad energy range from a major collaboration. The reported constancy of the double ratio, if robust against source-size variations, supplies a clean observable for testing coalescence models and constraining YN interaction strengths. The discrepancy with thermal models is also noted as a useful benchmark. These strengths are tempered by the need to demonstrate that energy-dependent freeze-out volume and density changes do not mimic or mask the claimed interaction effect.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] Abstract and Discussion: The claim that the constant ~0.4 value of ((³_ΛH/Λ)/(t/p)) directly isolates the suppressed formation probability due to weaker YN vs. NN interaction assumes coalescence probabilities are insensitive to all other factors. Because the hypertriton is weakly bound, its wave-function overlap is far more sensitive to source radius and density profile than the triton. Collision energy changes both the freeze-out volume and the density at which light nuclei form; the manuscript provides no quantitative estimate, hydrodynamic simulation, or coalescence-model scan showing that these effects remain sub-dominant or perfectly correlated across 3.2–27 GeV. This assumption is load-bearing for the interaction-strength interpretation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The double-ratio notation in the abstract would benefit from explicit parentheses or a short equation to prevent misreading.
  2. [Results] Tables or figures showing the double ratio should list both statistical and systematic uncertainties for each energy point.
  3. [Introduction] The introduction could usefully reference prior coalescence calculations for hypertriton in smaller systems to place the present energy-scan results in context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the major comment below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the discussion of the double-ratio interpretation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The claim that the constant ~0.4 value of ((³_ΛH/Λ)/(t/p)) directly isolates the suppressed formation probability due to weaker YN vs. NN interaction assumes coalescence probabilities are insensitive to all other factors. Because the hypertriton is weakly bound, its wave-function overlap is far more sensitive to source radius and density profile than the triton. Collision energy changes both the freeze-out volume and the density at which light nuclei form; the manuscript provides no quantitative estimate, hydrodynamic simulation, or coalescence-model scan showing that these effects remain sub-dominant or perfectly correlated across 3.2–27 GeV. This assumption is load-bearing for the interaction-strength interpretation.

    Authors: We agree that the interpretation of the constant double ratio relies on the assumption that variations in source size and density do not dominate the observed behavior. The manuscript presents the constancy of ((³_ΛH/Λ)/(t/p)) ~ 0.4 across 3.2–27 GeV as evidence, within the coalescence framework, for a suppressed hypertriton formation probability driven by the weaker YN interaction relative to NN. The broad energy range corresponds to substantial changes in freeze-out volume (as established by HBT measurements in similar systems), yet the ratio remains flat; this provides supporting evidence that source-size effects are either sub-dominant or correlated between the hypertriton and triton channels. We acknowledge, however, that the manuscript does not contain a dedicated coalescence-model scan or hydrodynamic simulation quantifying the residual sensitivity. In the revised version we will (i) moderate the abstract language from “directly reflects” to “is consistent with” the suppressed formation probability, (ii) add a paragraph in the discussion section that references existing coalescence calculations for light nuclei and notes the expected source-size dependence, and (iii) explicitly state that a full quantitative assessment lies beyond the scope of the present experimental paper. These changes preserve the central observation while making the assumptions transparent. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental ratios interpreted via standard external framework

full rationale

The paper reports measured hypertriton yields, pT spectra, and the double ratio ((³_ΛH/Λ)/(t/p)) as a function of collision energy from Au+Au data. The constancy of this ratio at ~0.4 is presented as an experimental result. The coalescence interpretation linking the ratio to suppressed formation probability from weaker YN vs NN interactions is an application of an established external model after the measurements, not a derivation that reduces by the paper's own equations or self-citations to its inputs. No load-bearing self-citation chains, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-definitional steps are present. The central claims rest on direct data extraction and are self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental measurement paper. The reported yields and ratios are obtained from data using established detector corrections and analysis techniques. No new free parameters, axioms, or postulated entities are introduced by the authors themselves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5510 in / 1307 out tokens · 74240 ms · 2026-05-10T03:26:15.760269+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (GeV/c-πHe3M( 30 40 50 3 10×) 2 (/2MeV/c310×CountsCounts ) 2M (GeV/c2.97 2.98 2.99 3 3.01 3.02 )

  2. [2]

    (GeV/c-πHe3M( 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 3 10×) 2 (/1 MeV/c310×Counts = 19.6 GeV NNs|y|<0.5 <4 GeV/c T1.5<pCOL (b) 2.98 3 3.02 )

  3. [3]

    (GeV/c-πHe3M( 0 0.1 0.2 3 10×) 2 (/1 MeV/c310×CountsCounts ) 2M (GeV/cData Rot. Bg Rot. Bg −Data FIG. 1. Combinatorial background subtracted invariant mass distributions of 3 ΛH→ 3Heπ− candidates in 0-10% central Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 3.2 (top) and 19.6 GeV (bot- tom), with un-subtracted distributions inset. They are fitted with a Gaussian plus a lin...

  4. [4]

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035004 (2016), arXiv:1605.00557 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Tolos and L

    L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.112, 103770 (2020), arXiv:2002.09223 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 092301 (2015), arXiv:1407.4448 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Gerstung, N

    D. Gerstung, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 175 (2020), arXiv:2001.10563 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Andronicet al., Phys

    A. Andronicet al., Phys. Lett. B697, 203 (2011), arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Steinheimer, K

    J. Steinheimer, K. Gudima, A. Botvina, I. Mishustin, M. Bleicher, and H. Stocker, Phys. Lett. B714, 85 (2012), arXiv:1203.2547 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Gl¨ aßel, V

    S. Gl¨ aßel, V. Kireyeu, V. Voronyuk, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, V. Kolesnikov, and M. Winn, Phys. Rev. C105, 014908 (2022), arXiv:2106.14839 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  12. [13]

    Braun-Munzinger, K

    P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Parti- cle production in heavy ion collisions, inQuark–Gluon Plasma 3(2003) pp. 491–599, arXiv:nucl-th/0304013

    work page arXiv 2003

  13. [14]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  14. [17]

    J. Chen, X. Dong, Y.-G. Ma, and Z. Xu, Sci. Bull.68, 3252 (2023), arXiv:2311.09877 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [18]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Nature Phys.16, 409 (2020), arXiv:1904.10520 [hep-ex]

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Nature Phys.16, 409 (2020), arXiv:1904.10520 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  16. [19]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 102302 (2023), arXiv:2209.07360 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [20]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202301 (2022), arXiv:2110.09513 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [21]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B797, 134905 (2019), arXiv:1907.06906 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  19. [22]

    Ji (STAR), EPJ Web Conf.276, 04003 (2023)

    Y. Ji (STAR), EPJ Web Conf.276, 04003 (2023)

    2023

  20. [23]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C97, 054909 (2018), arXiv:1710.00436 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2018

  21. [24]

    Rappoldet al.(HypHI), Physics Letters B747, 129 (2015)

    C. Rappoldet al.(HypHI), Physics Letters B747, 129 (2015)

    2015

  22. [25]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Science328, 58 (2010), arXiv:1003.2030 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2010

  23. [26]

    Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Nature632, 1026 (2024), arXiv:2310.12674 [nucl-ex]

    M. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Nature632, 1026 (2024), arXiv:2310.12674 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [27]

    Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B754, 360 (2016), arXiv:1506.08453 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2016

  25. [28]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 252003 (2022), arXiv:2107.10627 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [29]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 162301 (2014), arXiv:1401.3043 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2014

  27. [30]

    Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys

    B. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 212301 (2023), arXiv:2211.16981 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [31]

    Herrmann (CBM), EPJ Web Conf.259, 09001 (2022)

    N. Herrmann (CBM), EPJ Web Conf.259, 09001 (2022)

    2022

  29. [32]

    Syresinet al.(NICA), in10th International Particle Accelerator Conference(2019) p

    E. Syresinet al.(NICA), in10th International Particle Accelerator Conference(2019) p. MOPMP014

    2019

  30. [33]

    Aokiet al., Extension of the J-PARC Hadron Experimental Facility: Third White Paper (2021), arXiv:2110.04462 [nucl-ex]

    K. Aokiet al., Extension of the J-PARC Hadron Experimental Facility: Third White Paper (2021), arXiv:2110.04462 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [34]

    Zhou and J

    X. Zhou and J. Yang (HIAF project Team), AAPPS Bull. 32, 35 (2022)

    2022

  32. [35]

    Yang (STAR), Nucl

    Q. Yang (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A982, 951 (2019)

    2019

  33. [36]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Lett. B827, 137003 (2022), arXiv:2108.00908 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [37]

    The STAR Time Projection Chamber: A Unique Tool for Studying High Multiplicity Events at RHIC

    M. Andersonet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 659 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0301015

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  35. [38]

    X. Wang, F. Shen, S. Wang, C. Feng, C. Li, P. Lu, J. Thomas, Q. Xu, and C. Zhu, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A859, 90 (2017)

    2017

  36. [39]

    E. G. Juddet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A902, 228 (2018)

    2018

  37. [40]

    Xu, J.-H

    Y.-F. Xu, J.-H. Chen, Y.-G. Ma, A.-H. Tang, Z.-B. Xu, and Y.-H. Zhu, Nucl. Sci. Tech.27, 126 (2016)

    2016

  38. [41]

    W. J. Llopeet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A759, 23 (2014), arXiv:1403.6855 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2014

  39. [42]

    C. A. Whitten (STAR), AIP Conf. Proc.980, 390 (2008)

    2008

  40. [43]

    Bonner, H

    B. Bonner, H. Chen, G. Eppley, F. Geurts, J. Lamas- Valverde, C. Li, W. Llope, T. Nussbaum, E. Platner, and J. Roberts, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A508, 181 (2003), proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Re- sistive Plate Chambers and Related Detectors

    2003

  41. [44]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl- ex/0701025

    work page arXiv 2007

  42. [45]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C81, 024911 (2010), arXiv:0909.4131 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2010

  43. [46]

    Zyzak,Online selection of short-lived particles on many-core computer architectures in the CBM experi- ment at F AIR, Ph.D

    M. Zyzak,Online selection of short-lived particles on many-core computer architectures in the CBM experi- ment at F AIR, Ph.D. thesis, Frankfurt U. (2016)

    2016

  44. [47]

    Juet al., Nucl

    X.-Y. Juet al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.34, 158 (2023)

    2023

  45. [49]

    Brunet al.,GEANT3, Tech

    R. Brunet al.,GEANT3, Tech. Rep. (1987)

    1987

  46. [50]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Lett. B831, 137152 (2022), arXiv:2108.00924 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  47. [52]

    Barlow, inConference on Advanced Statistical Tech- niques in Particle Physics(2002) pp

    R. Barlow, inConference on Advanced Statistical Tech- niques in Particle Physics(2002) pp. 134–144, arXiv:hep- ex/0207026

    work page arXiv 2002

  48. [54]

    Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 202301 (2023), arXiv:2209.08058 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [58]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C99, 064905 (2019), arXiv:1903.11778 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [59]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. C107, 064904 (2023), arXiv:2211.14015 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [60]

    K.-J. Sun, R. Wang, C. M. Ko, Y.-G. Ma, and C. Shen, Nature Commun.15, 1074 (2024), arXiv:2207.12532 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [61]

    S. A. Basset al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41, 255 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9803035

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  53. [62]

    Bleicheret al., J

    M. Bleicheret al., J. Phys. G25, 1859 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9909407

    work page arXiv 1999

  54. [63]

    Z.-J. Dong, G. Chen, Q.-Y. Wang, Z.-L. She, Y.-L. Yan, F.-X. Liu, D.-M. Zhou, and B.-H. Sa, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 144 (2018), arXiv:1803.01547 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  55. [64]

    K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, and B. D¨ onigus, Phys. Lett. B792, 132 (2019), arXiv:1812.05175 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  56. [65]

    Bellini, K

    F. Bellini, K. Blum, A. P. Kalweit, and M. Puccio, Phys. Rev. C103, 014907 (2021), arXiv:2007.01750 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [66]

    Mahlein, B

    M. Mahlein, B. Singh, M. Viviani, F. Bellini, L. Fabbietti, A. Kievsky, and L. E. Marcucci, ToMCCA-3: A realistic 3-body coalescence model (2025), arXiv:2504.02491 [hep- ph]. End Matter: Collision Energy Dependence of Hypertriton Production in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC The STAR Collaboration (Dated: April 21, 2026) CENTRALITY DEPENDENCE OF HYPER TRITON PRO...

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [67]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  59. [68]

    Vovchenko, V

    V. Vovchenko, V. V. Begun, and M. I. Gorenstein, Phys. Rev. C93, 064906 (2016), arXiv:1512.08025 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  60. [69]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), JHEP10, 139, arXiv:2407.10110 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv

  61. [70]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C107, 014912 (2023), arXiv:2210.11876 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [71]

    Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Scan Program

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C96, 044904 (2017), arXiv:1701.07065 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  63. [72]

    Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C110, 054911 (2024), arXiv:2311.11020 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [73]

    Adam et al

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C102, 034909 (2020), arXiv:1906.03732 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  65. [74]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C48, 2462 (1993), arXiv:nucl-th/9307020

    work page arXiv 1993

  66. [75]

    Ahleet al.(E802), Phys

    L. Ahleet al.(E802), Phys. Rev. C60, 064901 (1999)

    1999

  67. [76]

    Kamada, J

    H. Kamada, J. Golak, K. Miyagawa, H. Witala, and W. Gloeckle, Phys. Rev. C57, 1595 (1998), arXiv:nucl- th/9709035

    work page arXiv 1998

  68. [77]

    Eckertet al., Rev

    P. Eckertet al., Rev. Mex. Fis. Suppl.3, 0308069 (2022), arXiv:2201.02368 [physics.data-an]

    work page arXiv 2022

  69. [78]

    Gazda, A

    D. Gazda, A. P´ erez-Obiol, E. Friedman, and A. Gal (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C109, 024001 (2024), arXiv:2310.03087 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [79]

    Golak, K

    J. Golak, K. Miyagawa, H. Kamada, H. Witala, W. Gloeckle, A. Parreno, A. Ramos, and C. Bennhold, Phys. Rev. C55, 2196 (1997), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 56, 2892–2892 (1997)], arXiv:nucl-th/9612065

    work page arXiv 1997

  71. [80]

    Vovchenko, B

    V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus, B. Kardan, M. Lorenz, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett.B, 135746 (2020), arXiv:2004.04411 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020