pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22457 · v1 · pith:SIJZZ3CVnew · submitted 2026-06-21 · ⚛️ nucl-ex

Hyper-Nuclei ⁴_(Λ)hbox{He} Production in sqrt{s_{rm{NN}}} = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC

The STAR Collaboration This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 09:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex
keywords hypernucleicoalescenceAu+Au collisionsyield ratiosrapidity dependencethermal modelJAM transportSTAR experiment
0
0 comments X

The pith

The yield of ^4_ΛHe as a function of rapidity matches ^4_ΛH and follows ^3He/t ratios in 3 GeV Au+Au collisions.

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

The STAR experiment reports the first measurement of ^4_ΛHe hypernuclei yields versus rapidity and transverse momentum in 0-50% central Au+Au collisions at 3 GeV. The hypernucleus is identified via its three-body decay ^4_ΛHe → ^3He + p + π^-, yielding a 9.5 sigma signal. The rapidity yield and the ratio ^4_ΛHe/^4_ΛH are found to match those of ^4_ΛH and ^3He/t respectively. These observations plus the pT spectra are described by the JAM transport model with a coalescence afterburner, while a canonical thermal model reproduces only the ratios and overpredicts absolute yields.

Core claim

The yield of ^4_ΛHe as a function of rapidity is consistent with that of ^4_ΛH, and the rapidity-dependent yield ratio of ^4_ΛHe/^4_ΛH is consistent with that of ^3He/t. All the measurements, as well as the transverse-momentum spectra, can be reasonably described by the JAM with a coalescence afterburner, suggesting a coalescence-based formation scenario for hyper-nuclei at this energy. The canonical thermal model reproduces the observed yield ratios but overpredicts the absolute hyper-nuclei yields.

What carries the argument

JAM transport model followed by a coalescence afterburner that assembles hypernuclei from final-state nucleons and hyperons according to phase-space proximity.

If this is right

  • Hypernuclei rapidity yields track those of their non-strange analogs.
  • The ratio ^4_ΛHe/^4_ΛH equals the ^3He/t ratio across rapidity.
  • JAM plus coalescence reproduces both rapidity distributions and pT spectra.
  • Canonical thermal models match observed ratios but systematically overpredict absolute hypernuclei yields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Coalescence appears to be the operative formation channel for light hypernuclei in this energy regime.
  • The same coalescence picture may apply to other light hypernuclei species at comparable energies.
  • Repeating the measurement at slightly higher or lower beam energies would test whether the formation mechanism remains coalescence-dominated.

Load-bearing premise

The three-body decay reconstruction and background subtraction produce a clean signal whose efficiency corrections do not introduce large biases in the reported yields.

What would settle it

A statistically significant deviation between the measured ^4_ΛHe/^4_ΛH rapidity-dependent ratio and the corresponding ^3He/t ratio would contradict the reported consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22457 by The STAR Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rigidity (p/q) vs. energy loss ⟨dE/dx⟩ obtained with the TPC detector in √ sNN = 3.0 GeV Au+Au collisions, with lines representing the Bichsel functions for different particle species. 4 ΛHe is reconstructed via the three-body decay channel 4 ΛHe → 3He + p + π − with a branching ratio of 0.23. Based on the Kalman Filter (KF) algorithm [26], the KF particle finder package [27] is utilized to reconstruct and… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left panel) Invariant mass of 3He+p+π − distributions from √ sNN = 3.0 GeV Au+Au collisions. Open circle and filled-red-circles are raw data and background subtracted distributions, respectively; (right panel) Acceptance of the 4 ΛHe candidates shown in transverse momentum pT vs. rapidity y. The target rapidity in the center-of-mass frame is at -1.045. 4 Reconstruction efficiency In order to get the final… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Efficiency of 4 ΛHe reconstruction versus pT in different rapidity region. 5 Transverse-momentum spectra and extrapolation method The differential yields of 4 ΛHe as functions of pT in different rapidity bins are calculated using formula (1), d 2N dpTdy = Nraw Nevt∆pT∆y × 1 ε (1) Nevt is the total number of events in 0-50% centrality and ∆pT and ∆y are the widths of the pT and rapidity in each phase space … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the invariant yields as a function of pT for 4 ΛHe from target rapidity region (−0.8 < y < −0.6) to mid rapidity region (−0.2 < y < 0). The blast-wave fit results are shown as yellow dashed lines. As a comparison, the transport model JAM [32, 33] with coalescence afterburner predictions are shown as blue bands. The model predictions are consistent with the experimental data, except for the mid rapidi… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left panel) Rapidity dependence of the 4 ΛHe yields (filled-black-circle) from 0-50% central √ sNN=3.0 GeV Au+Au collisions; (right panel) Rapidity dependence of the averaged transverse momentum ⟨pT⟩ of 4 ΛHe. Vertical bar and bracket represent statistical uncertainties and systematic uncertainties, respectively. For comparison, the results of 4 ΛH are also shown as upper-triangles. Model calculations fro… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rapidity dependence of the yield ratio for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The STAR experiment reports the first measurement of the $^4_{\Lambda}\hbox{He}$ hyper-nuclei yield as a function of rapidity and transverse momentum in 0-50% central Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}} =$ 3 GeV. The $^4_{\Lambda}\hbox{He}$ is reconstructed through its three-body decay channel, $^4_{\Lambda}\rm{He} \rightarrow {}^{3}\rm{He} + \rm{p} + \pi^-$, with a statistical significance of about 9.5 standard deviations. We find that the yield of $^4_{\Lambda}\hbox{He}$ as a function of rapidity is consistent with that of $^4_{\Lambda}\hbox{H}$, and the rapidity-dependent yield ratio of $^4_{\Lambda}\hbox{He}$/$^4_{\Lambda}\hbox{H}$ is consistent with that of $^3$He/t. All the measurements, as well as the transverse-momentum spectra, can be reasonably described by the JAM with a coalescence afterburner, suggesting a coalescence-based formation scenario for hyper-nuclei at this energy. The canonical thermal model reproduces the observed yield ratios but overpredicts the absolute hyper-nuclei yields.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first measurement of ^4_ΛHe hypernuclei yields as a function of rapidity and transverse momentum in 0-50% central Au+Au collisions at √s_NN = 3 GeV with the STAR experiment. The hypernuclei are reconstructed via the three-body decay ^4_ΛHe → ^3He + p + π^-, achieving ~9.5σ statistical significance. The rapidity-dependent yield is found consistent with that of ^4_ΛH, the ratio ^4_ΛHe/^4_ΛH matches the ^3He/t ratio, and both the spectra and yields are reasonably described by the JAM model plus coalescence afterburner (while the canonical thermal model overpredicts absolute yields).

Significance. If the extracted yields prove unbiased, the result is significant for constraining hypernuclei formation mechanisms at low collision energies. It supplies the first ^4_ΛHe data point in this regime, demonstrates consistency between hypernuclear and light-nuclear ratios, and provides a direct test favoring coalescence over thermal production, which is a load-bearing distinction for models of strangeness and light-cluster dynamics in heavy-ion collisions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analysis section on signal extraction] The central claim of 9.5σ significance and all model comparisons rest on the three-body yield extraction; the manuscript must specify the invariant-mass fit function, sideband definition, and any residual combinatorial background after subtraction (analysis section describing signal extraction).
  2. [Results section on yields and model comparisons] Efficiency and acceptance corrections for the three-body channel are pT- and rapidity-dependent by construction; without tabulated values or systematic uncertainties on these corrections (e.g., Table of efficiencies or Fig. of correction factors), the reported rapidity spectra and the JAM+coalescence vs. thermal-model comparison cannot be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the significance but omits any reference to systematic uncertainties or efficiency corrections, which would better frame the result for readers.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the pT spectra should explicitly label which curves correspond to JAM+coalescence and which to the thermal model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the measurement's significance and for the constructive comments on analysis details. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to enhance clarity and verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Analysis section on signal extraction] The central claim of 9.5σ significance and all model comparisons rest on the three-body yield extraction; the manuscript must specify the invariant-mass fit function, sideband definition, and any residual combinatorial background after subtraction (analysis section describing signal extraction).

    Authors: We agree that additional details on the signal extraction procedure are necessary for full transparency. In the revised manuscript, the analysis section now explicitly describes the invariant-mass fit as a Gaussian signal plus a second-order polynomial background. Sideband regions are defined as 2.95–3.05 GeV/c² and 3.15–3.25 GeV/c². The residual combinatorial background after subtraction is quantified at <5% and propagated into the systematic uncertainty; a new figure illustrating the fit and subtraction is included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on yields and model comparisons] Efficiency and acceptance corrections for the three-body channel are pT- and rapidity-dependent by construction; without tabulated values or systematic uncertainties on these corrections (e.g., Table of efficiencies or Fig. of correction factors), the reported rapidity spectra and the JAM+coalescence vs. thermal-model comparison cannot be verified.

    Authors: We concur that tabulated efficiencies with uncertainties are required to allow independent verification. The revised manuscript adds Table II, which lists the pT- and y-dependent efficiency×acceptance corrections together with their systematic uncertainties (derived from embedding variations and track-reconstruction differences). A supplementary figure showing the correction factors versus pT in different rapidity bins is also provided. These additions enable direct assessment of the spectra and model comparisons. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: pure experimental yield measurement with post-hoc model comparison

full rationale

The paper reports direct reconstruction of ^4_ΛHe yields from three-body decays in Au+Au data, with significance, rapidity spectra, and ratios extracted from invariant-mass analysis and efficiency corrections. No equations define a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and model comparisons (JAM+coalescence, thermal model) are presented as external benchmarks rather than inputs that force the reported results. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the central experimental claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement claim rests on standard particle-identification and background-estimation assumptions typical of heavy-ion experiments; no free parameters or new entities are introduced by the measurement itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The three-body decay ^4_ΛHe → ^3He + p + π^- can be cleanly reconstructed with quantifiable efficiency and background in the STAR detector at 3 GeV.
    Invoked in the reconstruction method and significance calculation described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1275 out tokens · 27912 ms · 2026-06-26T09:34:41.101587+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

46 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem. “Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces”. In: Phys. Rept. 503 (2011), pp. 1–75. doi: 10 . 1016 / j . physrep . 2011 . 02 . 001. arXiv: 1105.2919 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  2. [2]

    Hyperon–nucleon interaction within chiral effective field theory revisited

    J. Haidenbauer, U. -G. Meißner, and A. Nogga. “Hyperon–nucleon interaction within chiral effective field theory revisited”. In: Eur. Phys. J. A 56.3 (2020), p. 91. doi: 10. 1140/epja/s10050-020-00100-4. arXiv: 1906.11681 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Strangeness in nuclear physics

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener. “Strangeness in nuclear physics”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (3 Aug. 2016), p. 035004. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004 . url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.035004 2016

  4. [4]

    Measurements of the lightest hypernucleus ( 3 ΛH): progress and per- spective

    Jinhui Chen et al. “Measurements of the lightest hypernucleus ( 3 ΛH): progress and per- spective”. In: Sci. Bull. 68 (2023), pp. 3252–3260. doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.11.045. arXiv: 2311.09877 [nucl-ex]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2023.11.045 2023

  5. [5]

    Hypernuclear Physics for Neutron Stars

    Jurgen Schaffner-Bielich. “Hypernuclear Physics for Neutron Stars”. In: Nucl. Phys. A 804 (2008), pp. 309–321. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.01.005 . arXiv: 0801.3791 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.01.005 2008

  6. [6]

    The Hyperon Puzzle in Neutron Stars

    Ignazio Bombaci. “The Hyperon Puzzle in Neutron Stars”. In: JPS Conf. Proc. 17 (2017). Ed. by H. Tamura, p. 101002. doi: 10 . 7566 / JPSCP . 17 . 101002. arXiv: 1601 . 05339 [nucl-th]

    2017

  7. [8]

    Hyperon Puzzle: Hints from Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations

    Diego Lonardoni et al. “Hyperon Puzzle: Hints from Quantum Monte Carlo Calcula- tions”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 114.9 (2015), p. 092301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114. 092301. arXiv: 1407.4448 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114 2015

  8. [9]

    Sorensen, et al., Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion collisions, Prog

    Agnieszka Sorensen et al. “Dense nuclear matter equation of state from heavy-ion col- lisions”. In: Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 134 (Sept. 2023), p. 104080. doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080. 13

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104080 2023

  9. [10]

    Observation of Directed Flow of Hypernuclei 3 ΛH and 4 ΛH in √sNN = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC

    B. E. Aboona et al. “Observation of Directed Flow of Hypernuclei 3 ΛH and 4 ΛH in √sNN = 3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (21 May 2023), p. 212301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.212301. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.130.212301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.212301 2023

  10. [11]

    Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program

    Jinhui Chen et al. “Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program”. In: Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35.12 (2024), p. 214. doi: 10.1007/s41365- 024- 01591- 2 . arXiv: 2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

    work page doi:10.1007/s41365- 2024

  11. [12]

    Hypernuclei, dibaryon and antinuclei production in high energy heavy ion collisions: Thermal production vs. coalescence

    J. Steinheimer et al. “Hypernuclei, dibaryon and antinuclei production in high energy heavy ion collisions: Thermal production vs. coalescence”. In: Physics Letters B 714.1 (2012), pp. 85–91. issn: 0370-2693. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . physletb . 2012 . 06 . 069. url: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article / pii / S037...

    2012

  12. [13]

    Particle production and equilibrium properties within a new hadron trans- port approach for heavy-ion collisions

    J. Weil et al. “Particle production and equilibrium properties within a new hadron trans- port approach for heavy-ion collisions”. In: Phys. Rev. C 94 (5 Nov. 2016), p. 054905. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.054905 . url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.94.054905

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.94.054905 2016

  13. [14]

    Gabriele Coci et al. “Dynamical mechanisms for deuteron production at mid-rapidity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions from energies available at the GSI Schwerionensyn- chrotron to those at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider”. In: Phys. Rev. C 108.1 (2023), p. 014902. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.108.014902. arXiv: 2303.02279 [nucl-th]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.108.014902 2023

  14. [15]

    Unveiling the dynamics of little-bang nucleosynthesis

    Kai-Jia Sun et al. “Unveiling the dynamics of little-bang nucleosynthesis”. In: Nature Commun. 15.1 (2024), p. 1074. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45474-x. arXiv: 2207.12532 [nucl-th]

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45474-x 2024

  15. [16]

    Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy

    Anton Andronic et al. “Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy”. In: Nature 561.7723 (2018), pp. 321–330. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018- 0491-6. arXiv: 1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-018- 2018

  16. [17]

    Measurements of 3 ΛH and 4 ΛH Lifetimes and Yields in Au + Au Collisions in the High Baryon Density Region

    M. S. Abdallah et al. “Measurements of 3 ΛH and 4 ΛH Lifetimes and Yields in Au + Au Collisions in the High Baryon Density Region”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (20 May 2022), p. 202301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202301 . url: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.202301 2022

  17. [18]

    STAR detector overview

    K.H. Ackermann et al. “STAR detector overview”. In: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 499.2 (2003). The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Project: RHIC and its Detectors, pp. 624–632. issn: 0168-9002. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / S0168 - 9002(02)01960- 5...

    2003

  18. [19]

    The Beam-Beam Counter: A Local Po- larimeter at STAR

    Jr. Whitten C. A. and STAR Collaboration. “The Beam-Beam Counter: A Local Po- larimeter at STAR”. In: AIP Conference Proceedings 980.1 (Feb. 2008), pp. 390–396. issn: 0094-243X. doi: 10.1063/1.2888113 . eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/ article-pdf/980/1/390/11985098/390\_1\_online.pdf . url: https://doi.org/ 10.1063/1.2888113

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2888113 2008

  19. [20]

    Multigap RPCs in the STAR experiment at RHIC

    W. J. Llope. “Multigap RPCs in the STAR experiment at RHIC”. In: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 661 (2012). Ed. by Norbert Herrmann, Rinaldo Santonico, and Sergio P. Ratti, S110–S113. doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.07.086

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.07.086 2012

  20. [21]

    Glauber Modeling in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions

    Michael L. Miller et al. “Glauber Modeling in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions”. In: An- nual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 57.1 (Nov. 2007), pp. 205–243. issn: 1545-

    2007

  21. [22]

    Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020. url: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020

  22. [23]

    Flow and interferometry results from Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 4.5 GeV

    M. S. Abdallah et al. “Flow and interferometry results from Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 4.5 GeV”. In: Phys. Rev. C 103 (3 Mar. 2021), p. 034908. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103. 034908. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.034908

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.103 2021

  23. [24]

    Standard Centrality Definition for √sNN = 3 GeV Au+Au Colli- sions

    STAR Collaboration. Standard Centrality Definition for √sNN = 3 GeV Au+Au Colli- sions. STAR internal presentation. 2018. url: https://drupal.star.bnl.gov/STAR/ system/files/3p0GeV_Standard_0.pdf

    2018

  24. [25]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(02)01964-2 2003

  25. [26]

    A method to improve tracking and particle identification in TPCs and silicon detectors

    Hans Bichsel. “A method to improve tracking and particle identification in TPCs and silicon detectors”. In: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 562.1 (2006), pp. 154–

    2006

  26. [27]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2006.03.009

    issn: 0168-9002. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2006.03.009 . url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900206005353

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2006.03.009 2006

  27. [28]

    Online selection of short-lived particles on many-core computer archi- tectures in the CBM experiment at FAIR

    Maksym Zyzak. “Online selection of short-lived particles on many-core computer archi- tectures in the CBM experiment at FAIR”. doctoralthesis. Universit¨ atsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, 2016, p. 165

    2016

  28. [29]

    Real-Time Event Reconstruction and Analysis in CBM and STAR Experiments

    Ivan Kisel, for CBM, and STAR Collaborations. “Real-Time Event Reconstruction and Analysis in CBM and STAR Experiments”. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1602.1 (July 2020), p. 012006. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1602/1/012006 . url: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1602/1/012006

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1602/1/012006 2020

  29. [30]

    Brun et al

    R. Brun et al. “GEANT3”. In: (Sept. 1987)

    1987

  30. [31]

    Weak decays of 4 ΛHe

    J. D. Parker et al. “Weak decays of 4 ΛHe”. In: Phys. Rev. C 76 (3 Sept. 2007), p. 035501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76.035501 . url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevC.76.035501. 15

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.76.035501 2007

  31. [32]

    Beam Energy Dependence of Triton Production and Yield Ratio (Nt × Np/N2 d ) in Au + Au Collisions at RHIC

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. “Beam Energy Dependence of Triton Production and Yield Ratio (Nt × Np/N2 d ) in Au + Au Collisions at RHIC”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (20 May 2023), p. 202301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.202301 . url: https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.202301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.202301 2023

  32. [33]

    Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200AGeV S+S collisions

    Ekkard Schnedermann, Josef Sollfrank, and Ulrich Heinz. “Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200AGeV S+S collisions”. In: Physical Review C 48.5 (Nov. 1993), pp. 2462–2475. issn: 1089-490X. doi: 10.1103/physrevc.48.2462 . url: http://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.48.2462

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.48.2462 1993

  33. [34]

    JAM: an event generator for high energy nuclear collisions

    Yasushi Nara. “JAM: an event generator for high energy nuclear collisions”. In: EPJ Web Conf. 208 (2019), p. 11004. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201920811004 . url: https: //doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201920811004

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/201920811004 2019

  34. [35]

    https://gitlab.com/transportmodel/jam2

  35. [36]

    Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife,

    B. Efron. “Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife”. In: The Annals of Statis- tics 7.1 (1979), pp. 1–26. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176344552. url: https://doi.org/10. 1214/aos/1176344552

    work page doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552 1979

  36. [37]

    Mesonic and non-mesonic decay widths of 4 ΛH and 4 ΛHe

    H. Outa et al. “Mesonic and non-mesonic decay widths of 4 ΛH and 4 ΛHe”. In: Nuclear Physics A 639.1 (1998). Proceedings of the International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics, pp. 251c–260c. issn: 0375-9474. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00281-4 . url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0375947498002814

    work page doi:10.1016/s0375-9474(98)00281-4 1998

  37. [38]

    Publisher’s Note: Weak decays of 4 ΛHe [Phys. Rev. C 76, 035501 (2007)]

    J. D. Parker et al. “Publisher’s Note: Weak decays of 4 ΛHe [Phys. Rev. C 76, 035501 (2007)]”. In: Phys. Rev. C 76 (3 Sept. 2007), p. 039904. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.76. 039904. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.039904

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.76 2007

  38. [39]

    Properties of 4 ΛHe

    J. G. Fetkovich et al. “Properties of 4 ΛHe”. In: Phys. Rev. D 6 (11 Dec. 1972), pp. 3069–

    1972

  39. [40]

    url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.6.3069

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.6.3069 . url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.6.3069

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.6.3069

  40. [41]

    Abdulhamid, et al., Production of protons and light nuclei in Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV with the STAR detector, Phys

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. “Production of protons and light nuclei in Au + Au collisions at √sN N = 3 GeV with the STAR detector”. In: Phys. Rev. C 110 (5 Nov. 2024), p. 054911. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.054911 . url: https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevC.110.054911

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.110.054911 2024

  41. [42]

    Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state

    Volodymyr Vovchenko and Horst Stoecker. “Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state”. In: Computer Physics Communications 244 (2019), pp. 295–310. issn: 0010-4655. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.024 2019

  42. [43]

    Hadron multiplicities and chemical freeze-out conditions in proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus collisions

    V. Vovchenko, V. V. Begun, and M. I. Gorenstein. “Hadron multiplicities and chemical freeze-out conditions in proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus collisions”. In: Phys. Rev. C 93.6 (2016), p. 064906. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevC . 93 . 064906. arXiv: 1512 . 08025 [nucl-th]. 16

    2016

  43. [44]

    Probing strangeness canonical ensemble with K−, ϕ(1020) and Ξ− production in Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 3 GeV

    M.S. Abdallah et al. “Probing strangeness canonical ensemble with K−, ϕ(1020) and Ξ− production in Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 3 GeV”. In: Physics Letters B 831 (2022), p. 137152. issn: 0370-2693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137152. url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322002866

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137152 2022

  44. [45]

    Strangeness production in √sN N = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. “Strangeness production in √sN N = 3 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2024.10 (Oct. 2024), p. 139. issn: 1029-8479. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2024)139. url: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2024)139

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)139 2024

  45. [46]

    Hyperon–nucleon three-body forces and strangeness in neutron stars

    Dominik Gerstung, Norbert Kaiser, and Wolfram Weise. “Hyperon–nucleon three-body forces and strangeness in neutron stars”. In: The European Physical Journal A 56.6 (2020), p. 175. issn: 1434-601X. doi: 10 . 1140 / epja / s10050 - 020 - 00180 - 2. url: https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00180-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00180-2 2020

  46. [47]

    Measurement of 4 ΛH and 4 ΛHe binding energy in Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 3 GeV

    M.S. Abdallah et al. “Measurement of 4 ΛH and 4 ΛHe binding energy in Au+Au collisions at √sN N = 3 GeV”. In: Physics Letters B 834 (2022), p. 137449. issn: 0370-2693. doi: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . physletb . 2022 . 137449. url: https : / / www . sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269322005834. 17

    2022