pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.10341 · v1 · pith:DOUGKBRCnew · submitted 2026-06-09 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Global polarization of Λ, Xi⁻, and Ω⁻ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC BES-II energies

Gen-Hui Li , Cong Yi , Xiang-Yu Wu , Shi Pu , Guang-You Qin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 11:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords global polarizationhyperonsAu+Au collisionsRHIC BESthermal vorticitychemical potential gradientviscous hydrodynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Global polarization of Ω− hyperons exceeds that of Λ and Ξ− due to larger spin but remains below STAR central values in RHIC BES-II collisions.

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

The paper computes global spin polarization for Λ, Ξ−, and Ω− hyperons in Au+Au collisions from 7.7 to 27 GeV using a (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamic model with SMASH initial conditions. Polarization is obtained from a modified Cooper-Frye formula that adds contributions from thermal vorticity, thermal shear tensor, and the baryon chemical potential gradient. Results indicate Ω− polarization is systematically higher than the spin-1/2 species because of its spin-3/2 quantum number, yet still falls short of recent STAR measurements. The difference between hyperons and anti-hyperons widens at lower collision energies and is driven mainly by the chemical-potential term.

Core claim

Using the modified Cooper-Frye formula that includes thermal vorticity, the thermal shear tensor, and the gradient of the baryon chemical potential, together with (3+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamics, the global polarizations of Λ, Ξ−, and Ω− are calculated in Au+Au collisions from 7.7 to 27 GeV. The polarization of Ω− is found to be systematically larger than that of Λ and Ξ− owing to its larger spin quantum number, yet remains below the central value of STAR measurements, pointing to possible additional mechanisms such as spin correlations among strange quarks. The hyperon-anti-hyperon polarization splitting increases toward lower energies and is dominated by the chemical-potential-grad

What carries the argument

Modified Cooper-Frye formula incorporating thermal vorticity, thermal shear tensor, and baryon chemical potential gradient to extract spin polarization from hydrodynamic fields.

If this is right

  • Ω− polarization is larger than Λ and Ξ− polarization at every energy and centrality because of the difference in spin quantum number.
  • The splitting between hyperon and anti-hyperon polarization grows as collision energy decreases.
  • The chemical-potential-gradient term supplies the main contribution to the hyperon-anti-hyperon splitting.
  • Global polarization values decrease with rising collision energy across the BES-II range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If spin correlations among strange quarks are required to close the gap with STAR data for Ω−, similar internal correlations may affect polarization observables in other multi-strange systems or in lower-energy collisions.
  • The systematic underprediction at low energies could point to missing non-equilibrium spin dynamics or limitations of the hydrodynamic description near the QCD critical region.
  • Higher-statistics measurements of Ω− polarization versus centrality or rapidity could isolate whether the discrepancy is energy-dependent or tied to strangeness content.

Load-bearing premise

The modified Cooper-Frye formula without explicit internal spin-correlation terms inside the hyperons captures the dominant contributions to global polarization.

What would settle it

A measurement of Ω− global polarization that matches the hydrodynamic calculation without requiring extra quark-spin-correlation terms inside the particle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10341 by Cong Yi, Gen-Hui Li, Guang-You Qin, Shi Pu, Xiang-Yu Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Global polarization PH and (b) global-polarization splitting ∆PH of Λ, Ξ −, and Ω − hyperons in 20–50% central Au+Au collisions as functions of collision energy. The rapidity and transverse-momentum ranges are set to |Y | < 1.5 and 0.5 < pT < 6 GeV/c, respectively. Red filled squares, blue filled triangles, and green filled stars represent the experimental data points for the global polarization of Λ, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Global polarization PH of (a) Λ, (b) Ξ −, and (c) Ω − hyperons in Au+Au collisions as a function of centrality at different collision energies. The rapidity and transverse-momentum ranges are set to |Y | < 1.5 and 0.5 < pT < 6 GeV/c, respectively. The blue filled triangles and purple filled circles represent the experimental data points for the global polarization of Λ at 19.6 and 27.0 GeV extracted from R… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Global polarization PH of (a) Λ, (b) Ξ −, and (c) Ω − hyperons in 20–50% central Au+Au collisions as a function of transverse momentum pT at different collision energies. The rapidity is set to |Y | < 1.5. The blue filled triangles and purple filled circles represent the experimental data points for the global polarization of Λ at 19.6 and 27.0 GeV extracted from Ref. [8], respectively. Lines with differen… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Global polarization PH of (a) Λ, (b) Ξ −, and (c) Ω − hyperons in 20–50% central Au+Au collisions as a function of rapidity Y at different collision energies. The transverse-momentum ranges are set to 0.5 < pT < 6 GeV/c. The blue filled triangles and purple filled circles represent the experimental data points for the global polarization of Λ at 19.6 and 27.0 GeV extracted from Ref. [8], respectively. Line… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the global spin polarization of $\Lambda$ hyperons and the multi-strange hyperons $\Xi^{-}$ and $\Omega^{-}$ in Au+Au collisions across the RHIC Beam Energy Scan II (BES-II) energy range, $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=7.7$--$27$ GeV. The polarization is computed using the modified Cooper--Frye formula, which includes contributions from thermal vorticity, the thermal shear tensor, and the gradient of the baryon chemical potential, combined with the (3+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic framework CLVisc with SMASH initial conditions. We present the global polarization as a function of collision energy, centrality, transverse momentum, and rapidity. We find that the global polarization of $\Omega^{-}$ is systematically larger than those of $\Lambda$ and $\Xi^{-}$ because of its larger spin quantum number, but it remains below the central value of the recent STAR measurement. This discrepancy may suggest that additional mechanisms, such as spin correlations among strange quarks inside the $\Omega^{-}$, could contribute to the observed $\Omega^{-}$ polarization. We also find that the global-polarization splitting between hyperons and anti-hyperons increases toward lower collision energies and is dominated by the chemical-potential-gradient contribution.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the global polarization of Λ, Ξ−, and Ω− hyperons in Au+Au collisions at √s_NN = 7.7–27 GeV within the CLVisc (3+1)D viscous hydrodynamic framework using SMASH initial conditions. Polarization is obtained from a modified Cooper-Frye formula that incorporates thermal vorticity, the thermal shear tensor, and the baryon chemical potential gradient. The central results are that Ω− polarization exceeds that of Λ and Ξ− owing to its larger spin, yet lies below the STAR central value (suggesting possible strange-quark spin correlations inside Ω−), and that the hyperon–anti-hyperon splitting grows toward lower energies and is dominated by the μ_B-gradient term.

Significance. If robust, the study supplies a systematic energy, centrality, p_T, and rapidity dependence for multi-strange hyperon polarization at BES-II energies and isolates the relative size of the three polarization sources. The explicit use of a viscous hydrodynamic code with documented initial conditions strengthens reproducibility within the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Polarization formula section] Polarization formula section (derivation of the modified Cooper-Frye expression): the same functional form is applied to the spin-3/2 Ω− as to the spin-1/2 species, with the difference attributed solely to the spin quantum number. For s = 3/2 the underlying spin-dependent distribution function and the definition of the observable polarization generally involve distinct prefactors multiplying the vorticity, shear, and ∇μ_B terms; without an explicit re-derivation or justification, the predicted ordering P_Ω > P_Λ, Ξ and the size of the discrepancy with STAR data rest on an unverified assumption.
  2. [Results section] Results section (comparison with STAR data): the statement that the calculated Ω− polarization “remains below the central value of the recent STAR measurement” is presented without reported statistical or systematic uncertainties on the theoretical values, nor any sensitivity scan over hydrodynamic parameters (viscosity, freeze-out temperature, initial conditions). This renders the quantitative discrepancy and the inference that additional mechanisms are required difficult to assess.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the polarization observable (global vs. local) and the precise definition of “global polarization” for s = 3/2 should be stated explicitly once in the methods to avoid ambiguity when comparing to experimental definitions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Polarization formula section] Polarization formula section (derivation of the modified Cooper-Frye expression): the same functional form is applied to the spin-3/2 Ω− as to the spin-1/2 species, with the difference attributed solely to the spin quantum number. For s = 3/2 the underlying spin-dependent distribution function and the definition of the observable polarization generally involve distinct prefactors multiplying the vorticity, shear, and ∇μ_B terms; without an explicit re-derivation or justification, the predicted ordering P_Ω > P_Λ, Ξ and the size of the discrepancy with STAR data rest on an unverified assumption.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this subtlety in the polarization formula for different spin values. Our implementation follows the modified Cooper-Frye prescription as extended in prior studies on hyperon polarization, where the spin dependence enters through the overall factor related to the spin quantum number s. Nevertheless, we recognize the value of an explicit justification for s=3/2. In the revised manuscript, we will add a short section or footnote providing the reasoning for the generalization, including how the prefactors are handled for the thermal vorticity, shear, and chemical potential gradient terms. This will strengthen the foundation for the observed ordering P_Ω > P_Λ, Ξ. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results section (comparison with STAR data): the statement that the calculated Ω− polarization “remains below the central value of the recent STAR measurement” is presented without reported statistical or systematic uncertainties on the theoretical values, nor any sensitivity scan over hydrodynamic parameters (viscosity, freeze-out temperature, initial conditions). This renders the quantitative discrepancy and the inference that additional mechanisms are required difficult to assess.

    Authors: We agree that including uncertainties and sensitivity studies is important for a robust comparison with experimental data. In the updated manuscript, we will report the statistical uncertainties associated with our hydrodynamic calculations and perform additional checks on the sensitivity to variations in the shear viscosity coefficient, the freeze-out temperature, and the choice of initial conditions. These additions will help quantify the significance of the discrepancy with the STAR central value and support our discussion on possible additional mechanisms such as strange-quark spin correlations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; polarization ordering follows directly from spin factor in standard modified Cooper-Frye formula applied to independent hydro evolution

full rationale

The derivation computes global polarization via the modified Cooper-Frye expression (thermal vorticity + shear + ∇μ_B) on top of CLVisc hydrodynamics with SMASH initial conditions. The result that P_Ω exceeds P_Λ and P_Ξ solely due to the larger spin quantum number (3/2 vs 1/2) is a direct algebraic consequence of the spin-dependent prefactor in that formula, not a fit to the STAR data or a self-referential definition. No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present in the provided text; the discrepancy with measurement is reported as an external observation rather than an input. The chain is self-contained against external hydrodynamic and freeze-out benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable. The approach relies on standard assumptions of viscous hydrodynamics and the Cooper-Frye freeze-out prescription.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5776 in / 1182 out tokens · 27517 ms · 2026-06-27T11:45:54.972493+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

109 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    thermal”, “th-shear

    or quantum kinetic theory [11], the mean spin- polarization vector of spin-sfermions, normalized by the particle number and the spin quantum number, is given by P µ(p) = (s+ 1) R dΣ·pJ µ 5 (p, x) 3mf R dΣ·p f eq ,(1) wherem f is the fermion mass entering the normaliza- tion of the Pauli–Lubanski pseudovector,pµ is the on- shell four-momentum of the fermio...

  2. [2]

    In this work, we neglect bulk viscosity and set the baryon-diffusion coefficient toCB = 0for simplicity

    Their subsequent evolution is described by the (3+1)-dimensional hydrodynamic framework CLVisc through the coupled energy-momentum and particle con- servation equations. In this work, we neglect bulk viscosity and set the baryon-diffusion coefficient toCB = 0for simplicity. We treat the specific shear viscosityCηv as a free parameter. These parameters are...

    2021

  3. [3]

    Adamczyket al., Nature548, 62 (2017), 1701.06657

    STAR, L. Adamczyket al., Nature548, 62 (2017), 1701.06657

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 102301 (2005), nucl-th/0410079, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B629, 20 (2005), nucl-th/0411101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    STAR, B. I. Abelevet al., Phys. Rev. C76, 024915 (2007), 0705.1691, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 039906 (2017)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    STAR, M. S. Abdallahet al., Phys. Rev. C104, L061901 (2021), 2108.00044

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Acharyaet al., Phys

    ALICE, S. Acharyaet al., Phys. Rev. C101, 044611 (2020), 1909.01281, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)]

    arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Adamet al., Phys

    STAR, J. Adamet al., Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), 1805.04400

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    STAR, M. I. Abdulhamidet al., Phys. Rev. C108, 014910 (2023), 2305.08705

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    STAR, B. E. Aboonaet al., Phys. Lett. B870, 139891 (2025), 2505.05046

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Becattini, V

    F. Becattini, V. Chandra, L. Del Zanna, and E. Grossi, Annals Phys.338, 32 (2013), 1303.3431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    R.-h.Fang, L.-g.Pang, Q.Wang, andX.-n.Wang, Phys. Rev. C94, 024904 (2016), 1604.04036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Becattini and F

    F. Becattini and F. Piccinini, Annals Phys.323, 2452 (2008), 0710.5694

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    B. Betz, M. Gyulassy, and G. Torrieri, Phys. Rev. C 76, 044901 (2007), 0708.0035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    Becattini, L

    F. Becattini, L. Csernai, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 88, 034905 (2013), 1304.4427, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 93, 069901 (2016)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Csernai, V

    L. Csernai, V. Magas, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. C87, 034906 (2013), 1302.5310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Karpenko and F

    I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 213 (2017), 1610.04717

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Y. Xie, D. Wang, and L. P. Csernai, Phys. Rev. C95, 031901 (2017), 1703.03770

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Li, L.-G

    H. Li, L.-G. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-L. Xia, Phys. Rev. C96, 054908 (2017), 1704.01507

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Sun and C

    Y. Sun and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev.C96, 024906 (2017), 1706.09467

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    S. Shi, K. Li, and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B788, 409 (2019), 1712.00878

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, Z.-B. Tang, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C98, 024905 (2018), 1803.00867

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    S. Shi, H. Zhang, D. Hou, and J. Liao, (2019), 1910.14010

    arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    B. Fu, K. Xu, X.-G. Huang, and H. Song, Phys. Rev. C103, 024903 (2021), 2011.03740

    arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    A. Lei, D. Wang, D.-M. zhou, B.-H. Sa, and L. P. Cser- nai, Phys. Rev. C104, 054903 (2021), 2110.13485

    arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    V. E. Ambrus and M. N. Chernodub, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 61 (2022), 2010.05831

    arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Vitiuk, L

    O. Vitiuk, L. V. Bravina, and E. E. Zabrodin, Phys. Lett. B803, 135298 (2020), 1910.06292

    arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Gao, G.-L

    J.-H. Gao, G.-L. Ma, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.31, 90 (2020), 2005.10432

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    X.-Y. Wu, C. Yi, G.-Y. Qin, and S. Pu, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064909 (2022), 2204.02218

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Becattiniet al., (2024), 2402.04540

    F. Becattiniet al., (2024), 2402.04540

    arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Abou Yassineet al., Phys

    HADES, R. Abou Yassineet al., Phys. Lett. B835, 137506 (2022), 2207.05160

    arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Deng, X.-G

    X.-G. Deng, X.-G. Huang, Y.-G. Ma, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C101, 064908 (2020), 2001.01371

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Y. B. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. C103, L031903 (2021), 2012.07597

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Deng, X.-G

    X.-G. Deng, X.-G. Huang, and Y.-G. Ma, Phys. Lett. B835, 137560 (2022), 2109.09956

    arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    C. Yi, S. Pu, L.-G. Pang, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, (2026), 2603.27521

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Sunet al., Phys

    K.-J. Sunet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 022301 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    Liuet al., (2025), 2508.12193

    D.-N. Liuet al., (2025), 2508.12193

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Zhenget al., (2025), 2509.15286

    Y.-P. Zhenget al., (2025), 2509.15286

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Xu, (2026), 2602.23793

    J. Xu, (2026), 2602.23793

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Hidaka, S

    Y. Hidaka, S. Pu, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev.D97, 016004 (2018), 1710.00278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    S. Y. F. Liu and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. D104, 054043 (2021), 2006.12421

    arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, and A. Palermo, Phys. Lett. B820, 136519 (2021), 2103.10917

    arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    S. Y. F. Liu and Y. Yin, JHEP07, 188 (2021), 2103.09200. 7

    arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    B. Fu, S. Y. F. Liu, L. Pang, H. Song, and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 142301 (2021), 2103.10403

    arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, and A. Palermo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 272302 (2021), 2103.14621

    arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    C. Yi, S. Pu, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. C104, 064901 (2021), 2106.00238

    arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    S. Ryu, V. Jupic, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C104, 054908 (2021), 2106.08125

    arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Florkowski, A

    W. Florkowski, A. Kumar, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Ry- blewski, Phys. Rev. C105, 064901 (2022), 2112.02799

    arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Buzzegoli, F

    M. Buzzegoli, F. Becattini, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, and A. Palermo, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16, 39 (2023), 2208.04449

    arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Becattini, Rept

    F. Becattini, Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 122301 (2022), 2204.01144

    arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Palermo, E

    A. Palermo, E. Grossi, I. Karpenko, and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 920 (2024), 2404.14295

    arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Adamet al., Phys

    STAR, J. Adamet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 132301 (2019), 1905.11917

    arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Abdulhamidet al., Phys

    STAR, M. Abdulhamidet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 202301 (2023), 2303.09074

    arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Acharyaet al., Phys

    ALICE, S. Acharyaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 172005 (2022), 2107.11183

    arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    S. A. Voloshin, EPJ Web Conf.171, 07002 (2018), 1710.08934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    S. Y. F. Liu, Y. Sun, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 062301 (2020), 1910.06774

    arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Wu, L.-G

    H.-Z. Wu, L.-G. Pang, X.-G. Huang, and Q. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121831 (2021), 2002.03360

    arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Wu, L.-G

    H.-Z. Wu, L.-G. Pang, X.-G. Huang, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033058 (2019), 1906.09385

    arXiv 2019

  60. [60]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, X.-G. Huang, and H. Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C100, 014913 (2019), 1905.03120

    arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Becattini, G

    F. Becattini, G. Cao, and E. Speranza, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 741 (2019), 1905.03123

    arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Li, X.-L

    H. Li, X.-L. Xia, X.-G. Huang, and H. Z. Huang, Global hyperon polarization and effects of decay feeddown, in 19th International Conference on Strangeness in Quark Matter, 2021, 2108.04111

    arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Y. B. Ivanov, V. D. Toneev, and A. A. Soldatov, Phys. Rev. C100, 014908 (2019), 1903.05455

    arXiv 2019

  64. [64]

    Y. Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C104, L041902 (2021), 2105.13481

    arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Domínguez, I. Maldonado, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Rev. C105, 034907 (2022), 2106.14379

    arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    Adamet al., Phys

    STAR, J. Adamet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 162301 (2021), 2012.13601, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 089901 (2023)]

    arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D109, 036004 (2024), 2206.05868

    arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Lv, Z.-h

    J.-p. Lv, Z.-h. Yu, X.-w. Li, and Z.-t. Liang, (2026), 2603.15135

    arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Zhang, J.-p

    Z. Zhang, J.-p. Lv, Z.-h. Yu, and Z.-t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D110, 074019 (2024), 2406.03840

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Yang, R.-H

    Y.-G. Yang, R.-H. Fang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev.C97, 034917 (2018), 1711.06008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101, 096005 (2020), 1910.13684, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 099903 (2022)]

    arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    X.-L. Xia, H. Li, X.-G. Huang, and H. Zhong Huang, Phys. Lett. B817, 136325 (2021), 2010.01474

    arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Wagner, N

    D. Wagner, N. Weickgenannt, and E. Speranza, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013187 (2023), 2207.01111

    arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Sheng, S.-Y

    X.-L. Sheng, S.-Y. Yang, Y.-L. Zou, and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 299 (2024), 2209.01872

    arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Müller and D.-L

    B. Müller and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D105, L011901 (2022), 2110.15630, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 039904 (2022)]

    arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Lv, Z.-h

    J.-p. Lv, Z.-h. Yu, Z.-t. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D109, 114003 (2024), 2402.13721

    arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Wei and M

    M. Wei and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C47, 104105 (2023), 2303.01897

    arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Dong, Y.-L

    W.-B. Dong, Y.-L. Yin, X.-L. Sheng, S.-Z. Yang, and Q.Wang, Phys.Rev.D109, 056025(2024), 2311.18400

    arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Müller, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 016020 (2023), 2304.04181

    arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Sheng, S

    X.-L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C108, 054902 (2023), 2308.14038

    arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.