Several problems on the measured hyperorder cumulants of net-proton distributions in heavy-ion collisions

Lizhu Chen; Ye-Yin Zhao; Yuanfang Wu; Zhiming Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 51 references

Several problems on the measured hyperorder cumulants of net-proton distributions in heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the correct CBWC implementation for net-proton cumulant ratios is to compute each ratio inside its multiplicity bin first, and that this cuts statistical errors by roughly a third at the statistics of the next…

desk verdict A useful, statistically grounded methods paper on CBWC variants for hyperorder cumulants; the recommendation is plausible but the accuracy claim needs a clearer target definition. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14982 v1 pith:RYNVNL7Y submitted 2025-01-24 hep-ph hep-ex

Lizhu Chen , Ye-Yin Zhao , Zhiming Li , Yuanfang Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords high-ordercumulantsnet-protonfluctuationscentralitybinwidthcorrectionheavy-ioncollisionsQCDphasetransitioncumulantratiosbeamenergyscanstatisticaluncertainty

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper addresses a practical question in heavy-ion data analysis: how the Centrality Bin Width Correction (CBWC) should be implemented when measuring the fifth- and sixth-order cumulant ratios $\mathrm{C}_5/\mathrm{C}_1$ and $\mathrm{C}_6/\mathrm{C}_2$ of net-proton distributions, observables proposed as probes of the QCD phase transition. It compares three CBWC schemes. The central claim is that computing each cumulant ratio inside its multiplicity bin and then averaging over bins with event-number weights ("CBWC-II") removes volume fluctuations in the way the theory intends, and that at the statistics of the second beam-energy-scan phase this reduces statistical errors to roughly 60–70% of those from the ratio-of-weighted-cumulants scheme ("CBWC-I"), an effective doubling of the data sample. The paper further finds that an error-weighted combination of 10%-wide centrality bins ("CBWC-III") yields smaller errors but discards the 0–10% centrality information, making the 0–40% and 10–40% results identical. Based on a relativistic transport model and difference-of-two-Poisson Monte Carlo samples at 11.5 GeV in Au+Au, it recommends CBWC-II for 0–40% centrality analyses and supplies a baseline for experimental hyperorder-cumulant measurements.

What carries the argument

The central object is the choice among three CBWC averaging formulas. CBWC-I computes $\mathrm{C}_m$ and $\mathrm{C}_n$ separately inside each multiplicity bin, weights each cumulant by its event count, and only then divides. CBWC-II computes the ratio $(\mathrm{C}_m/\mathrm{C}_n)_r$ in each bin and then event-averages, $\sum_r \omega_r (\mathrm{C}_m/\mathrm{C}_n)_r$. CBWC-III computes $\mathrm{C}_m/\mathrm{C}_n$ in the four 10%-wide centrality bins with event weights and then combines them with inverse-variance weights. The argument is carried by matching the bin-by-bin ratio formula to the susceptibility ratio $\chi_m/\chi_n$ after each bin's volume cancels, and by comparing the three estimators in large Monte Carlo samples with a known baseline value of unity.

What would settle it

Generate many Monte Carlo samples with the same per-bin multiplicities but with known susceptibility ratios that are not unity, then check whether the event-weighted average of the bin-by-bin ratios reproduces the known ratio on average; a systematic deviation growing as the number of events per bin decreases would falsify the claim that CBWC-II is unbiased. A direct experimental check is to compare CBWC-I and CBWC-II results on real data with the full statistics of the second beam-energy-scan phase: if the CBWC-II values move away from the baseline while CBWC-I values do not, the reduction in error would not correspond to a more accurate measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the estimator that computes $\mathrm{C}_m/\mathrm{C}_n$ bin-by-bin and then event-averages, $\sum_r \omega_r (\mathrm{C}_m/\mathrm{C}_n)_r$, is the correct CBWC implementation for hyperorder cumulant ratios, while the common estimator that forms $\sum_r n_r \mathrm{C}_m^r / \sum_r n_r \mathrm{C}_n^r$ retains a residual volume effect and larger statistical error. The bin-by-bin form matches the thermodynamic identity $\mathrm{C}_m/\mathrm{C}_n = \chi_m/\chi_n$, because each bin's volume cancels before the average is taken. In the model calculations, the 0–40% centrality errors of $\mathrm{C}_6/\mathrm{C}_2$ and $\mathrm{C}_5/\mathrm{C}_1$ under CBWC-II are 68.8% and 63.7% of the CBWC-I errors, respectively, and thirty independent Monte Carlo samples confirm this 60–70% pattern while keeping the averages consistent with the unit baseline. The paper also establishes that error-weighting the four narrow centrality bins into 0–40% (CBWC-III) makes the 0–10% bin negligible, which is undesirable because the most central collisions carry the strongest phase-transition sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The recommendation assumes that the bin-by-bin ratio estimator is an approximately unbiased estimate of the true susceptibility ratio at the occupancy levels of the second beam-energy-scan phase; ratio estimators are nonlinear and can acquire bias in bins with few events, and the paper does not quantify that bias for $\mathrm{C}_5/\mathrm{C}_1$ and $\mathrm{C}_6/\mathrm{C}_2$, while also presuming that the transport model and the difference-of-two-Poisson simulation reproduce the statistical behavior of real Au+Au events.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For 0–40% centrality analyses of $\mathrm{C}_6/\mathrm{C}_2$ and $\mathrm{C}_5/\mathrm{C}_1$, the paper's recommendation is to use CBWC-II, since it cuts statistical errors to about 60–70% of the CBWC-I values, equivalent to doubling the sample size.
Using error-weighted averages inside 10%-wide bins in central collisions underestimates $\mathrm{C}_6/\mathrm{C}_2$, so event-weighting should be used at that stage.
CBWC-III makes the 0–40% and 10–40% results indistinguishable, so any analysis using it forfeits sensitivity to the 0–10% bin where phase-transition signals are most likely.
The model-driven baseline near the difference-of-two-Poisson expectation gives experimental analyses a reference for separating phase-transition effects from the statistical behavior of the CBWC procedure.
Because the 0–10% bin shows significantly different values from the other bins in the transport model, a dedicated high-statistics 0–10% measurement remains necessary despite the appeal of wide-bin error reduction.

Reading between the lines

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

The variance reduction is a general property of ratio estimators: averaging ratios before dividing suppresses bin-to-bin volume fluctuations, so the same ranking of CBWC schemes should hold for other cumulant ratios such as $\mathrm{C}_4/\mathrm{C}_2$ and $\mathrm{C}_3/\mathrm{C}_1$, though the magnitude of the gain will depend on the bin occupancy.
If real data reproduce the simulated pattern, adopting CBWC-II could sharpen the energy dependence of $\mathrm{C}_6/\mathrm{C}_2$ across the beam-energy scan without any new data taking; the practical cost is only a change in the analysis recipe.
A natural testable extension is to report both CBWC-I and CBWC-II results in the published experimental analysis, so that the bias–variance tradeoff is transparent and theory comparisons are not tied to one estimator choice.
The CBWC-III pathology is a caution for any aggregation scheme that weights by inverse variance: when errors scale with the measured value, inverse-variance weighting can silently drop the physics-rich bin, so centrality windows should be checked for whether each contributing bin actually enters the final number.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a practical analysis-methods paper, not new physics. It does something useful: with BES-II-like statistics, it compares three CBWC variants for net-proton C5/C1 and C6/C2 in 0-40% centrality, shows CBWC-II reduces statistical errors to roughly 60-70% of CBWC-I, and demonstrates that error-weighted CBWC-III makes the 0-10% contribution vanish. Those are real, quantified observations, and the warning against error-weighted averaging is backed by a concrete simulation. The paper deserves referee time.

What is genuinely new: the specific comparison of CBWC-I versus CBWC-II for hyperorder cumulant ratios over a wide 0-40% bin with 125M UrQMD events and Skellam ensembles matching BES-II multiplicity and mean multiplicities. The earlier literature discussed CBWC variants, but not this quantified comparison for C5/C1 and C6/C2. No code or data are shipped, but the simulations are simple enough to reproduce and the numbers are consistent with the formulas.

The soft spots are in proportion. The strongest claim — that CBWC-II "more precisely measures" — overreaches because the 0-40% observable is not uniquely defined. Equation (8) applies to a single thermodynamic system. Once you merge Refmult3X bins across 0-10% through 30-40%, CBWC-II converges to an event-weighted mean of per-bin susceptibility ratios, while CBWC-I converges to the ratio of volume-weighted cumulants. If per-bin ratios are centrality-dependent, as UrQMD Fig. 1 itself shows, these are different functionals, and the Skellam tests cannot distinguish them because every bin has true ratio unity, forcing both estimators to the same limit. The paper should state what the intended 0-40% quantity is; otherwise "smaller error" is not by itself evidence of accuracy. A test where the true ratio varies across bins, or a bias-quantified comparison of both estimators against a known target, would settle this.

Two smaller points: per-bin ratio estimators are nonlinear and can be biased at finite occupancy; the paper does not quantify this bias for C5/C1 and C6/C2. And the demonstration that error-weighted averages underestimate, using one Skellam parameter set, is illustrative rather than systematic. These do not sink the main practical message but should be tightened.

Bottom line: for heavy-ion fluctuation analysts preparing BES-II analyses, this is a useful, careful reference. It should go to peer review; the referees should push on the target-observable definition and finite-statistics bias before the CBWC-II prescription is adopted as standard.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper compares three centrality bin width correction (CBWC) procedures for the net-proton cumulant ratios C5/C1 and C6/C2 in 0-40% centrality in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV. Using 125M UrQMD events and Skellam-based Monte Carlo samples with BES-II-like statistics, the authors find that directly averaging per-bin cumulant ratios (CBWC-II) yields statistical errors roughly 60-70% of those from taking the ratio of event-weighted cumulants (CBWC-I), while an error-weighted combination of per-bin results (CBWC-III) makes the 0-10% contribution negligible. The paper recommends CBWC-II and offers a baseline for BES-II analyses.

Significance. If the recommendation is sound, the paper provides a practical, readily implementable prescription for reducing the statistical uncertainty of hyper-order cumulant ratios in a broad centrality bin, with the concrete quantitative claims that the CBWC-II errors for C6/C2 and C5/C1 are 68.8% and 63.7% of the CBWC-I errors, respectively. The use of realistic Refmult3X-based event classification, bootstrap error estimation, and the cross-check between a transport model (UrQMD) and a statistical baseline (Skellam) are strengths. The central issue is that the paper does not define the population quantity that a 0-40% cumulant ratio is intended to estimate, and the simulation evidence does not distinguish between two different functionals when per-bin susceptibility ratios vary.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The paper's central claim that CBWC-II 'aligns more closely' with the theoretical expectation in Eq. (8) is not well-defined, because Eq. (8) applies to a single thermodynamic system. When the true susceptibility ratio chi_m/chi_n varies among Refmult3X bins, as the UrQMD results in Fig. 1 show for 0-10% versus 10-40%, CBWC-I in Eq. (10) and CBWC-II in Eq. (11) converge to different population functionals: a volume-weighted ratio of extensive cumulants versus an event-weighted mean of per-bin susceptibility ratios. The Skellam simulations in Fig. 2 cannot distinguish these functionals because every bin has the same true ratio (unity). The paper should specify the intended 0-40% observable and justify that the event-weighted mean of per-bin ratios is the quantity of theoretical interest; otherwise the smaller statistical error of CBWC-II does not by itself establish that it is a more accurate estimator.
[Section 3.1 and Fig. 2] The accuracy claim for CBWC-II rests on the Skellam simulation, but that simulation only tests the null case of constant per-bin ratios. The paper does not quantify the finite-sample bias of the per-bin ratio estimators (C_m/C_n)_r, which is particularly relevant for C6/C2 in Refmult3X bins with fewer than 0.1M events, as stated in Section 3.2. Although the 30-sample averages are reported to be 'near unity,' the paper does not give the residual bias or a statistical test of bias. Without an explicit bias assessment or a simulation with centrality-dependent true ratios, the observed 60-70% error reduction cannot be interpreted as a reduction in mean squared error.
[Section 3.1 and Fig. 1] The paper states that with widening centrality bin width, variations in the measured values of C6/C2 and C5/C1 are observed between CBWC-I and CBWC-II, but it does not report the magnitude or statistical significance of these differences for the 0-40% bin in the UrQMD model. Without this information, the reader cannot assess whether the 60-70% error reduction is accompanied by a shift in the central value, which is essential for deciding which method is more appropriate for a physics analysis.

minor comments (7)

[Section 3 heading] The word 'UrQDM' in the Section 3 heading should be 'UrQMD'.
[Section 2] There are typographical errors in the text: 'C WBC-II' should be 'CBWC-II', and 'the the initial volume fluctuations' should read 'the initial volume fluctuations'.
[Section 3.1] The sentence 'The formula of CBWC-II method is more equivalent to the theoretical formula as shown in Eq. (11)' is circular, since Eq. (11) is the definition of CBWC-II; the intended comparison is presumably with Eq. (8).
[Throughout] The notation 'Refmult3x' and 'Refmult3X' are used inconsistently; please standardize.
[References] Reference [38] appears to duplicate reference [34] with incorrect details; please verify the citation.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'the respective error ratios calculated using CBWC-II and CBWC' but should say 'CBWC-II and CBWC-I'.
[Section 3.2] The statement 'the error-weighted average can not be used to calculate these two cumulant ratios in any scenario' is too broad; the demonstration covers a specific Skellam parameter set and one centrality bin. Consider softening to 'in the scenarios considered here'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CBWC-II's theoretical-alignment claim is a consistency argument, while the error reduction is an external simulation result.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is self-contained: it applies three CBWC formulas to fixed UrQMD samples and Skellam-based Monte Carlo samples, and the reported 68.8%/63.7% error ratios are read off those simulations, not derived from the method's definition. The Skellam expectation of unity is an external statistical baseline, and both estimators are tested against it rather than fitted to it. The only step that might look circular is the statement that Eq. (11) "aligns more closely" with Eq. (8); however, Eq. (11) is merely written so that, after applying Eq. (8) bin by bin, it is the event-weighted susceptibility ratio. That is a motivation/consistency argument about estimator form, not a derivation of the measured cumulants from that same formula. Citations to earlier work by the same group [36,37] on event-weighted versus error-weighted averages are corroborated in this paper by independent Skellam simulations (Fig. 3), so they are not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Therefore there is no circular step that meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central recommendation rests on standard cumulant definitions, a statistical baseline, and UrQMD/Skellam modeling assumptions. It does not introduce new fitted parameters, new particles, or new forces. One hand-picked Skellam point illustrates the error-weighting bias, and the delta-theorem scaling in Eq. (14) is assumed rather than derived.

free parameters (1)

Skellam simple-illustration parameters = <N_p>=30.0, <N_pbar>=0.5
Hand-picked parameters in Fig. 3(a) to illustrate the error-weighted average bias. Not fitted to data, but the paper's categorical claim about error-weighted averages rests in part on this illustration.

assumptions (5)

standard math Cumulant ratios equal susceptibility ratios, C_m/C_n = chi_m/chi_n, with volume dependence eliminated (Eqs. 1 and 8).
This is the theoretical basis for comparing CBWC formulas and for arguing that CBWC-II aligns more closely with theory.
domain assumption The Skellam distribution is a valid statistical baseline with C4/C2, C5/C1, and C6/C2 equal to unity.
Used as the expected values in the Skellam simulations, and as the reference point for judging method bias.
domain assumption Refmult3X multiplicity and the kinematic cuts 0.4<pT<2.0 GeV/c and |y|<0.5 reproduce the BES-II analysis conditions.
The centrality resolution and acceptance are taken from UrQMD and the RHIC BES-II cumulant analysis; results may not transfer to other acceptances or centralities.
domain assumption Bootstrap resampling provides accurate statistical uncertainties for the cumulant ratios.
All error bars are estimated by bootstrap, but the paper does not validate the bootstrap procedure for these high-order cumulants.
domain assumption Delta-theorem scaling error(C6/C2) is proportional to sigma^4/sqrt(n) (Eq. 14).
Used to explain why 0-10% events dominate the error and become negligible under inverse-variance weighting. The formula is stated without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Several problems on the measured hyperorder cumulants of net-proton distributions in heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYNVNL7Y

@misc{pith2026250114982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Several problems on the measured hyperorder cumulants of net-proton distributions in heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYNVNL7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14982}
}

abstract

Hyperorder cumulants $C_5/C_1$ and $C_6/C_2$ are recommended as sensitive observables to explore the QCD phase transition in heavy-ion collisions. Precisely measuring their results remains a difficult task in experiments, when employing the Centrality Bin Width Correction (CBWC) to suppress the initial volume fluctuations. Various techniques within the CBWC formula can lead to notable differences in the results. We will systematically investigate the application of the CBWC method to the measured net-proton $C_5/C_1$ and $C_6/C_2$ using the UrQMD model and Skellam-based simulations at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV in Au + Au collisions. A recommended approach is proposed to calculate $C_5/C_1$ and $C_6/C_2$ in 0-40\% centrality. With statistics comparable to the RHIC Beam Energy Scan phase II (BES-II), our studies provide a baseline for analyzing net-proton $C_5/C_1$ and $C_6/C_2$ in relativistic heavy-ion collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14982 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (Color Online) The ratios of net-proton C6/C2 and C5/C1 in the UrQMD model in eight centralities (left panel) and different centrality bin widths (right panel) using CBWC-I (open circles) and CBWC-II (red solid circles) methods. The results for the same centrality are slightly off-set horizontally (including all the following plots) to improve clarity. bias events in Au + Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 GeV. In an eff… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (Color Online) Skellam-based simulations of net-proton (a) C6/C2 and (b) C5/C1 for 0 − 40% Au + Au collisions at √ sNN = 11.5 GeV, utilizing 100 million MB events in each sample. The results shown are for CBWC-I (open circles) and CBWC-II (red solid circles) methods. The Refmult3X distribution and ⟨Np⟩ and ⟨Np¯⟩ for each Refmult3X are taken from the UrQMD model. The averages in 0-40% centrality over all 30 samples b… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (Color Online) (a): Skellam simulations of C6/C2 with the input parameters: ⟨Np⟩ = 30.0,⟨Np¯⟩ = 0.5. Each sample consisted of 105 events. The red and black dashed lines represent the event- and error-weighted averages over 50 samples, respectively. (b): C6/C2 in 10-20% centrality obtained by Skellam-based simulations of minimum bias data sample. The data are identical to that used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Color Online) Skellam-based simulations results of net-proton C6/C2 (left panel) and C5/C1 (right panel) calculating by using CBWC-III method. The results shown are for 0 − 40% (solid circles) and 10 − 40% (open circles) centralities. shows that the error of C6/C2 is …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (Color Online) UrQMD results of net-proton C6/C2 (left panel) and C5/C1 (right panel) calculating by using CBWC-I, -II, and -III, respectively. The results shown are for 0 − 40% (solid circles) and 10 − 40% (open circles) centralities. undergo a phase transition in the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[1]

Bzdak, S

A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Phys. Rept. 853, 1 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

M. A. Stephanov, Phys. ReV. Lett 102, 032301 (2009)

work page 2009
[3]

Asakawa, S

M. Asakawa, S. Ejiri, and M. Kitazawa, Phys. ReV. Lett 103, 262301 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

M. A. Stephanov, Phys. ReV. Lett 107, 052301 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys

A. Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D 96, 074510 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Xin An et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1017, 122343 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Cheng et al., Phys

M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 79, 074505 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Schmidt, prog

C. Schmidt, prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 186, 563 (2010)

work page 2010

Show all 51 references

[9]

Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys

A. Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D 95, 054504 (2017)

2017
[10]

Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys

A. Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D 101, 074502 (2020)

2020
[11]

Kenji Morita et al., Phys. Rev. C 88 034903, (2013)

2013
[12]

Skokov, B

V. Skokov, B. Friman and K. Redlich, Phys. Lett. B 708, 179 (2012)

2012
[13]

Friman et al., Eur

B. Friman et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1694 (2011)

2011
[14]

Wei-jie Fu et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 094047 (2021)

2021
[15]

Wei-jie Fu et al., arXiv:2308.15508 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[16]

M. S. Abdallah et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett 127, 262301 (2021)

2021
[17]

B. E. Aboona et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett 130, 082301 (2023)

2023
[18]

Vovchenko et al., Phys

V. Vovchenko et al., Phys. Lett. B 811, 135868 (2020)

2020
[19]

Vovchenko, R

V. Vovchenko, R. V. Poberezhnyuk and V. Koch, JHEP 10, 089 (2020)

2020
[20]

Vovchenko, Phys

V. Vovchenko, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014903 (2022)

2022
[21]

Vovchenko, V

V. Vovchenko, V. Koch and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014904 (2022)

2022
[22]

Chen et al.., Chin

L.-Z. Chen et al.., Chin. Phys. C 45, 104103 (2021)

2021
[23]

Lizhu Chen et al.., Phys. Rev. C 109, 034911 (2024)

2024
[24]

Garg et al., Phys

P. Garg et al., Phys. Lett. B 726, 691 (2013)

2013
[25]

Adam Bzdak, Volker Koch and Vladimir Skokov, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014901 (2013)

2013
[26]

Adam Bzdak, Romain Holzmann and Volker Koch, Phys. Rev. C 94, 064907 (2016)

2016
[27]

Asakawa, M

M. Asakawa, M. Kitazawa, B. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. C101, 034913 (2020)

2020
[28]

Qian Chen and Guo-Liang Ma, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014907 (2022)

2022
[29]

12823 [nucl-th]

Qian Chen et al., arXiv: 2402. 12823 [nucl-th]
[30]

Skokov, B

V. Skokov, B. Friman, K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C 88, 034911 (2013)

2013
[31]

Rustamov, J

A. Rustamov, J. Stroth, and R. Holzmann Nucl. Phys. A 1034 122641 (2023)

2023
[32]

Romain Holzmann, Volker Koch, Anar Rustamov, Joachim Stroth, arXiv: 2403.03598 [nucl-th]

arXiv
[33]

Luo (For the STAR Collaboration), J

X. Luo (For the STAR Collaboration), J. Phys. : Conf. Ser. 316, 012003 (2011)

2011
[34]

Xiaofeng Luo, Nu Xu. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 112 (2017)

2017
[35]

M. S. Abdallah et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021)

2021
[36]

Chen et al., Nucl

L.-Z. Chen et al., Nucl. Phys. A 957 60 (2017)

2017
[37]

Chen Li-Zhu et al., Chin. Phys. C 41, 104103 (2017)

2017
[38]

X. Luo, N. Xu, Nucl. Tech. 28, 112 (2017)

2017
[39]

Adam Bzdak, Volker Koch, Phys. Rev. C 100, 051902 (2019). 13

2019
[40]

Skellam J G, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 109, 296 (1946)

1946
[41]

Braun-Munzinger et al., Phys

P. Braun-Munzinger et al., Phys. Rev. C 84, 064911 (2011)

2011
[42]

Xue Pan et al., Phys. Rev. C 89, 014904 (2014)

2014
[43]

S. A. Bass et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41, 255 (1998)

1998
[44]

Bleicher et al., J

M. Bleicher et al., J. Phys. G 25, 1859 (1999)

1999
[45]

Talked at CPOD2024, May 20-14, 2024

Ashish Pandav (for the STAR Collaboration), ”Precision measurement of net-proton number fluctuations in Au+Au collisions at RHIC”. Talked at CPOD2024, May 20-14, 2024

2024
[46]

Efron, Ann

B. Efron, Ann. Statist. 7, 1 (1979)

1979
[47]

Pandav, D

A. Pandav, D. Mallick and B. Mohanty, Nucl. Phys. A 991, 121608 (2019)

2019
[48]

X. Luo, J. Phys. G 39, 025008 (2012)

2012
[49]

Adam et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys

J. Adam et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett 126, 092301 (2021)

2021
[50]

Adamczyk et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys

L. Adamczyk et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett 113, 092301 (2014)

2014
[51]

Adamczyk et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys

L. Adamczyk et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 785, 551 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bzdak, S

A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Phys. Rept. 853, 1 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

M. A. Stephanov, Phys. ReV. Lett 102, 032301 (2009)

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Asakawa, S

M. Asakawa, S. Ejiri, and M. Kitazawa, Phys. ReV. Lett 103, 262301 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [4]

M. A. Stephanov, Phys. ReV. Lett 107, 052301 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys

A. Bazavov et al., (HotQCD Collaboration) Phys. Rev. D 96, 074510 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Xin An et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1017, 122343 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Cheng et al., Phys

M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 79, 074505 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Schmidt, prog

C. Schmidt, prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 186, 563 (2010)

work page 2010