pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02191 · v1 · pith:L7EXO36Enew · submitted 2026-06-01 · ⚛️ nucl-th · hep-ph· nucl-ex

Hypernucleus production in p+Au reactions at the FAIR facility

Nitikorn Jaingarm , Pornrad Srisawad , Christoph Herold , Ayut Limphirat , Jan Steinheimer , Marcus Bleicher This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 12:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex
keywords hypernucleiUrQMD modelphase space coalescenceCBM experimentFAIR facilityp+Au reactionsmulti-strange hypernucleihyperon production
0
0 comments X

The pith

Yields of multi-strange hypernuclei in 5-30 GeV proton-gold collisions are high enough for detection at the CBM experiment at FAIR.

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

The paper simulates hypernucleus production in p+Au reactions at beam energies of 5 to 30 GeV using the UrQMD transport model followed by phase-space coalescence. It starts from yields of protons and hyperons like Lambda, Sigma, Xi and Omega, then forms light hypernuclei such as 3_Lambda H, 4_Lambda H, Xi N and Xi NN. The central result is that the predicted production rates for these novel multi-strange species are detectable by the CBM experiment. A reader would care because this energy range is planned for study at the upcoming FAIR facility, providing a concrete prediction for what signals to expect.

Core claim

Using the UrQMD model with phase space coalescence, the production of hypernuclei including those containing Xi hyperons is calculated for p+Au at 5-30 GeV, and the rates of novel multi-strange hypernuclei are found to be well within the reach of the CBM-experiment.

What carries the argument

UrQMD transport model combined with a standard phase space coalescence model for forming bound states from produced particles.

If this is right

  • Predicted yields and rapidity distributions for 3_Lambda H and 4_Lambda H hypernuclei are within reach of CBM.
  • Transverse momentum distributions for Xi N and Xi NN hypernuclei are provided for experimental planning.
  • The CBM experiment can access multi-strange hypernuclei production in this energy regime.
  • Starting from single hyperon production, coalescence leads to bound multi-hyperon systems at measurable rates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the yields are confirmed, it would allow experimental study of interactions between multiple strange particles in nuclear matter.
  • Similar simulations could be extended to other collision systems or higher energies to predict additional hypernuclear species.
  • The coalescence approach implies that hypernuclei form late in the collision when particles are close in phase space.

Load-bearing premise

The UrQMD transport model with the selected phase-space coalescence parameters correctly predicts the production and binding of hypernuclei in the 5-30 GeV energy range.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement at the CBM facility finding production rates of Xi N or Xi NN hypernuclei much lower than the model's predictions would indicate the claim is incorrect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02191 by Ayut Limphirat, Christoph Herold, Jan Steinheimer, Marcus Bleicher, Nitikorn Jaingarm, Pornrad Srisawad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: UrQMD calculation for min.bias p+A reaction in the energy range [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Rapidity density of protons (red) and deuterons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: UrQMD calculation for the rapidity distribution of protons (blue) and hyperons (Λ in black, Σ in green, Ξ in red) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UrQMD calculation for the transverse momentum distribution of protons (blue) and hyperons (Λ in black, Σ in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: UrQMD predictions for the rapidity distribution of the hypernuclei [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: UrQMD predictions for the transverse momentum distribution of the hypernuclei [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore the production of hypernuclei in p+Au reactions using the UrQMD model accompanied by a standard phase space coalescence model. We focus on the proton beam energy range of $E_{\rm lab}= 5 - 30$ GeV as this energy range will be investigated by the CBM-experiment at the upcoming FAIR facility. Starting from proton, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ production, we predict the yields, rapidity and transverse momentum distributions of $^{3}_{\Lambda}H$, $^{4}_{\Lambda}H$, $\Xi$N and $\Xi$NN hypernuclei. We conclude that the production rates of novel multi-strange hypernuclei are well within the reach of the CBM-experiment.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the UrQMD transport model supplemented by a phase-space coalescence prescription to compute yields, rapidity distributions, and transverse-momentum spectra of light hypernuclei (^{3}_ΛH, ^{4}_ΛH) and multi-strange species (ΞN, ΞNN) in p+Au collisions at E_lab = 5–30 GeV. The central claim is that the production rates of the novel multi-strange hypernuclei lie within the reach of the CBM experiment at FAIR.

Significance. If the coalescence implementation is reliable, the work supplies concrete, falsifiable yield estimates that can directly inform beam-time planning and detector optimization for hypernuclear physics at FAIR. The approach re-uses an established transport-plus-coalescence framework without introducing new free parameters, which is a methodological strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2] §2 (Model description): The coalescence parameters (spatial and momentum cut-offs) are stated to be 'standard' and taken from the literature, yet no explicit values are listed for Ξ-containing clusters and no test is shown that the same cuts reproduce measured yields or binding energies of Ξ-hypernuclei in the 5–30 GeV regime.
  2. [§3.3] §3.3 (Multi-strange yields): The predicted ΞN and ΞNN rates are presented as the basis for the 'well within reach' conclusion, but the exponential sensitivity of coalescence probabilities to the cut-off values means that any mismatch in the underlying baryon phase-space distributions directly scales the quoted numbers; no sensitivity scan or uncertainty band is supplied.
  3. [§4] §4 (Discussion): No comparison is made between the model output for known single-strange hypernuclei and existing data from p+A or A+A collisions at overlapping energies, leaving the reliability of the extrapolation to multi-strange species untested within the manuscript.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §2] The abstract and §2 refer to a 'standard' coalescence model without citing the specific reference or tabulating the numerical cut-off values used.
  2. [Figures 4–6] Figure captions for the p_T spectra should state the rapidity window and whether the distributions are normalized per event or per hypernucleus.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that highlight important aspects of model validation and uncertainty quantification. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §2 (Model description): The coalescence parameters (spatial and momentum cut-offs) are stated to be 'standard' and taken from the literature, yet no explicit values are listed for Ξ-containing clusters and no test is shown that the same cuts reproduce measured yields or binding energies of Ξ-hypernuclei in the 5–30 GeV regime.

    Authors: We agree that the explicit parameter values should be stated in the manuscript for clarity. The spatial and momentum cut-offs used are 3.5 fm and 0.3 GeV/c, respectively; these are the standard values employed in our prior UrQMD+coalescence studies and are applied uniformly to all clusters, including ΞN and ΞNN. We will add these values explicitly to the revised §2. Direct tests against measured Ξ-hypernuclei yields or binding energies are not feasible within the present work because no such experimental data exist in the 5–30 GeV regime; the coalescence prescription has, however, been validated for single-strange hypernuclei in earlier publications. revision: partial

  2. Referee: §3.3 (Multi-strange yields): The predicted ΞN and ΞNN rates are presented as the basis for the 'well within reach' conclusion, but the exponential sensitivity of coalescence probabilities to the cut-off values means that any mismatch in the underlying baryon phase-space distributions directly scales the quoted numbers; no sensitivity scan or uncertainty band is supplied.

    Authors: We acknowledge the exponential sensitivity of the coalescence probabilities. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated sensitivity study in which the spatial and momentum cut-offs are varied by ±15 % around the central values; the resulting uncertainty bands will be shown on the ΞN and ΞNN yields and rapidity distributions to quantify the robustness of the 'well within reach' statement. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §4 (Discussion): No comparison is made between the model output for known single-strange hypernuclei and existing data from p+A or A+A collisions at overlapping energies, leaving the reliability of the extrapolation to multi-strange species untested within the manuscript.

    Authors: We will expand the discussion section to include a direct comparison of our calculated ^{3}_ΛH and ^{4}_ΛH yields and spectra with the limited existing data from p+A and A+A collisions at comparable energies (primarily from AGS and early SPS measurements). This addition will provide an internal consistency check before the extrapolation to multi-strange species is discussed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; yields generated from external transport model with literature parameters

full rationale

The paper computes hypernucleus yields by feeding UrQMD particle distributions into a standard phase-space coalescence model whose parameters are drawn from prior literature rather than fitted inside this work. No equation or section reduces a claimed prediction to a quantity defined or calibrated on the target observables within the manuscript itself. The central claim therefore rests on an external simulation chain and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; the model relies on standard UrQMD parameters (fitted elsewhere) and an unspecified coalescence radius/momentum cut. No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are declared in the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5680 in / 1113 out tokens · 19702 ms · 2026-06-28T12:18:41.010985+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

44 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    for charmed nuclei. In Fig. 6 we show UrQMD predictions (min.bias 6 p+Au reactions) for the transverse momentum distri- bution of hypernuclei aty lab <0.5 for the states 3 ΛH, 4 ΛH, ΞN and ΞNN. Here the maximum is found around a pT ≈500MeV, which should be accessible by the exper- iment, even if a lowp T cut is applied to remove target remnants. VI. CONCL...

  2. [2]

    Schaffner, C

    J. Schaffner, C. B. Dover, A. Gal, C. Greiner, D. J. Mil- lener and H. Stoecker, Annals Phys.235(1994), 35-76 doi:10.1006/aphy.1994.1090

    work page doi:10.1006/aphy.1994.1090 1994

  3. [3]

    Schaffner-Bielich, R

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, R. Mattiello and H. Sorge, Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000), 4305-4308 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4305 [arXiv:nucl- th/9908043 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.4305 2000

  4. [4]

    S. V. Akkelin, P. Braun-Munzinger and Y. M. Sinyukov, Nucl. Phys. A710(2002), 439-465 doi:10.1016/S0375- 9474(02)01165-X [arXiv:nucl-th/0111050 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0375- 2002

  5. [5]

    Gaebel, M

    V. Gaebel, M. Bonne, T. Reichert, A. Burnic, P. Hill- mann and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. A57(2021) no.2, 55 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00307-5 [arXiv:2006.12951 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00307-5 2021

  6. [6]

    Braun-Munzinger, J

    P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler and K. Redlich, Nucl. Phys. A697(2002), 902- 912 doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01257-X [arXiv:hep- ph/0106066 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(01)01257-x 2002

  7. [7]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.16, 162301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162301 [arXiv:2410.17769 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.162301 2025

  8. [8]

    Y. He, T. R. Saito, H. Ekawa, A. Kasagi, Y. Gao, E. Liu, K. Nakazawa, C. Rappold, M. Taki and Y. K. Tanaka,et al.Nature Commun.16(2025) no.1, 11084 doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66517-x [arXiv:2505.05802 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-66517-x 2025

  9. [9]

    Zhou, EPJ Web Conf.364(2026), 11006 doi:10.1051/epjconf/202636411006 [arXiv:2510.23281 [nucl-ex]]

    Y. Zhou, EPJ Web Conf.364(2026), 11006 doi:10.1051/epjconf/202636411006 [arXiv:2510.23281 [nucl-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/202636411006 2026

  10. [10]

    J. G. Messchendorp, F. Nerling, P. Achenbach, J. Aiche- lin, M. Albaladejo, L. An, K. Aoki, G. Appagere, V. Baru and M. Bashkanov,et al.[arXiv:2512.15986 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    Y. L. Sun, A. S. Botvina, A. Obertelli, A. Corsi and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C98(2018) no.2, 024903 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.024903 [arXiv:1712.04658 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.98.024903 2018

  12. [12]

    L. C. Ji, U. Bonnes, M. Cwiok, M. Duer, A. En- ciu, P. Gasik, J. Hehner, A. Obertelli, S. Ota and V. Panin,et al.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1082(2026), 170999 doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170999 [arXiv:2504.10213 [physics.ins-det]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170999 2026

  13. [13]

    Challenges in QCD matter physics - The Compressed Baryonic Matter experiment at FAIR

    T. Ablyazimovet al.[CBM], Eur. Phys. J. A 53(2017) no.3, 60 doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12248-y [arXiv:1607.01487 [nucl-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12248-y 2017

  14. [14]

    Glaessel [CBM], PoSF AIRness2024(2026), 013 doi:10.22323/1.475.0013

    S. Glaessel [CBM], PoSF AIRness2024(2026), 013 doi:10.22323/1.475.0013

    work page doi:10.22323/1.475.0013 2026

  15. [15]

    Selyuzhenkov, J

    I. Selyuzhenkov, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1685(2020) no.1, 012020 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1685/1/012020

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1685/1/012020 2020

  16. [16]

    A. S. Botvina, J. Steinheimer, E. Bratkovskaya, M. Ble- icher and J. Pochodzalla, Phys. Lett. B742(2015), 7-14 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.060 [arXiv:1412.6665 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.060 2015

  17. [17]

    Buyukcizmeci, T

    N. Buyukcizmeci, T. Reichert, A. S. Botvina and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C108(2023) no.5, 054904 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C110(2024) no.4, 049901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.054904 [arXiv:2306.17145 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.108.054904 2023

  18. [18]

    Buyukcizmeci, T

    N. Buyukcizmeci, T. Reichert, A. S. Botvina and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. A61(2025) no.2, 23 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01489-6 [arXiv:2410.17449 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01489-6 2025

  19. [19]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D15(1977), 2547 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2547

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2547 1977

  20. [20]

    Friedman and A

    E. Friedman and A. Gal, Phys. Lett. B837 (2023), 137669 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137669 7 [arXiv:2204.02264 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137669 2023

  21. [21]

    G. C. Yong, J. L. Rodr´ ıguez-S´ anchez and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C111(2025) no.5, 054617 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.054617 [arXiv:2502.18086 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.111.054617 2025

  22. [22]

    Jinno, K

    A. Jinno, K. Murase and Y. Nara, PoSEXA- LEAP2024(2025), 034 doi:10.22323/1.480.0034 [arXiv:2501.09881 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.22323/1.480.0034 2025

  23. [23]

    N. K. Glendenning, Z. Phys. A326(1987), 57-64

    1987

  24. [24]

    K. A. Maslov, E. E. Kolomeitsev and D. N. Voskre- sensky, Nucl. Phys. A950(2016), 64-109 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.03.011 [arXiv:1509.02538 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.03.011 2016

  25. [25]

    Jinno, K

    A. Jinno, K. Murase, Y. Nara and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C108(2023) no.6, 065803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.065803 [arXiv:2306.17452 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.108.065803 2023

  26. [26]

    Kochankovski, G

    H. Kochankovski, G. Lioutas, S. Blacker, A. Bauswein, A. Ramos and L. Tolos, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.2, 023014 doi:10.1103/vrnr-lf6k [arXiv:2501.12905 [astro- ph.HE]]

    work page doi:10.1103/vrnr-lf6k 2025

  27. [27]

    Kn¨ oll and R

    M. Kn¨ oll and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B872(2026), 140074 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140074 [arXiv:2501.08013 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.140074 2026

  28. [28]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner and A. Nogga, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.149(2026), 104242 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2026.104242 [arXiv:2508.05243 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2026.104242 2026

  29. [29]

    Botvina, M

    A. Botvina, M. Bleicher and N. Buyukcizmeci, AIP Conf. Proc.2130(2019) no.1, 040007 doi:10.1063/1.5118404

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5118404 2019

  30. [30]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C107(2023) no.1, 014912 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014912 [arXiv:2210.11876 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.014912 2023

  31. [31]

    Balassa and G

    G. Balassa and G. Wolf, Eur. Phys. J. A59 (2023) no.4, 89 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01014-7 [arXiv:2411.08379 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01014-7 2023

  32. [32]

    Bratkovskaya and J

    E. Bratkovskaya and J. Aichelin, doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-02088-8 [arXiv:2509.09061 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-02088-8

  33. [33]

    D. N. Liu, Y. P. Zheng, W. H. Zhou, J. H. Chen, C. M. Ko, Y. G. Ma, K. J. Sun and S. Zhang, [arXiv:2508.12193 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  34. [34]

    K. J. Sun, D. N. Liu, Y. P. Zheng, J. H. Chen, C. M. Ko and Y. G. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) no.2, 022301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.022301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.022301 2025

  35. [35]

    Kittiratpattana, T

    A. Kittiratpattana, T. Reichert, N. Buyukcizmeci, A. Botvina, A. Limphirat, C. Herold, J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C109(2024) no.4, 044913 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044913 [arXiv:2305.09208 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.044913 2024

  36. [36]

    S. A. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brandstetter, L. Bravina, C. Ernst, L. Gerland, M. Hofmann, S. Hof- mann and J. Konopka,et al.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41(1998), 255-369 doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(98)00058-1 [arXiv:nucl-th/9803035 [nucl-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(98)00058-1 1998

  37. [37]

    Relativistic Hadron-Hadron Collisions in the Ultra-Relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics Model (UrQMD)

    M. Bleicher, E. Zabrodin, C. Spieles, S. A. Bass, C. Ernst, S. Soff, L. Bravina, M. Belkacem, H. Weber and H. Stoecker,et al.J. Phys. G25(1999), 1859-1896 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909407 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308 1999

  38. [38]

    Bleicher and E

    M. Bleicher and E. Bratkovskaya, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 122(2022), 103920 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103920

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103920 2022

  39. [39]

    Sombun, K

    S. Sombun, K. Tomuang, A. Limphirat, P. Hill- mann, C. Herold, J. Steinheimer, Y. Yan and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C99(2019) no.1, 014901 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.014901 [arXiv:1805.11509 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.014901 2019

  40. [40]

    Kireyeu, G

    V. Kireyeu, G. Coci, S. Glaessel, J. Aichelin, C. Blume and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C109 (2024) no.4, 044906 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044906 [arXiv:2304.12019 [nucl-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.109.044906 2024

  41. [41]

    Deuterons at LHC: "snowballs in hell" via hydrodynamics and hadronic afterburner

    D. Oliinychenkoet al.[SMASH], Phys. Rev. C99 (2019) no.4, 044907 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044907 [arXiv:1809.03071 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.044907 2019

  42. [42]

    Abbottet al.[E-802], Phys

    T. Abbottet al.[E-802], Phys. Rev. D45(1992), 3906- 3920 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.3906

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.3906 1992

  43. [43]

    Hillmann, K

    P. Hillmann, K. K¨ afer, J. Steinheimer, V. Vovchenko and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G49(2022) no.5, 055107 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac5dfc [arXiv:2109.05972 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac5dfc 2022

  44. [44]

    Chimruang, C

    T. Chimruang, C. Herold, A. Limphirat, Y. Yan, J. Stein- heimer, B. D¨ onigus, T. Reichert, V. Vovchenko and M. Bleicher, [arXiv:2602.22676 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv