Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Productions of $^3_{\Lambda}$H, $^4_{\Lambda}$H and $^4_{\Lambda}$He in different coalescence channels in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV, the measured $^4_{\Lambda}$H yield is underestimated by about 56% unless unconfirmed $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$ bound states join coalescence; future $^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He}/^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}$…

desk verdict Useful channel decomposition and cleanly testable ratio predictions, but the case for 2Λn and 3Λn depends on an untested freeze-out ordering and the baseline asymmetry is close to a fitted input. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13640 v1 pith:PZOXFAKQ submitted 2025-04-18 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Rui-Qin Wang , Jun Song , Mao-Yan Wu , Huai-Tong Xue , Feng-Lan Shao This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex PACS 21.80.+a25.75.Dw25.75.-q
keywords hypernucleiLambdacoalescencemechanismneutron-LambdaboundstatesproductionasymmetryyieldratiosAu-Aucollisionsheavy-ion
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 asks whether the coalescence mechanism—which builds light nuclei by combining hadrons that fly out of a heavy-ion collision close in momentum and position—can account for the measured yields of the strangeness-bearing hypernuclei $^3_{\Lambda}$H, $^4_{\Lambda}$H, and $^4_{\Lambda}$He at the low collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV. In the authors' coalescence model, $^3_{\Lambda}$H is reproduced within uncertainties, but the computed $^4_{\Lambda}$H yield falls short of the measured value by about 56%. The central proposal is that the missing yield comes from coalescence channels built on two unconfirmed neutron-$\Lambda$ bound states, $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$; because these feed $^4_{\Lambda}$H more than they feed $^4_{\Lambda}$He, their existence would visibly enlarge the production asymmetry between the two $A=4$ hypernuclei. The paper predicts the yield ratios $^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He}/^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}$ and $(^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}-^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He})/(^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}+^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He})$ under four scenarios, ranging from about 0.71 and 0.17 with no bound states to about 0.46–0.49 and 0.34–0.37 with both. A sympathetic reader would care because the collisions that already measured $^4_{\Lambda}$H can, with one more yield-ratio measurement, place existence constraints on neutron-$\Lambda$ bound states that direct searches have not yet settled.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the analytical $N$-body coalescence formula (Eq. (44)), a closed expression for the invariant transverse-momentum spectrum of a hypernucleus formed from $N$ primordial hadrons: the product of $N$ single-hadron spectra, each evaluated at a share $m_i/(m_1+\cdots+m_N)$ of the cluster momentum, times a spin degeneracy factor and a product of Gaussian overlap integrals whose widths combine the cluster's root-mean-square radius (2.0 fm for $^4_{\Lambda}$H, 4.9 fm for $^3_{\Lambda}$H) with the hadronic freeze-out radius $R_f=3.27$ fm. The formula follows from Wigner-transforming a spherical harmonic-oscillator wave function and approximating the momentum kernel by a delta function, justified by the kernel's small width. On top of this sits a two-step bookkeeping scheme that avoids double counting: first nucleons and $\Lambda$'s coalesce into $d$, $t$, $^3$He, and $^3_{\Lambda}$H, then those nuclei capture remaining hadrons. The channel inventory for $A=4$—which species can feed $^4_{\Lambda}$H versus $^4_{\Lambda}$He—is what converts the measured deficit into constraints on $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$. The asymmetry argument runs through the analytic ratios Eqs. (53)–(58), where the neutron-surplus factor $Z_{np}=1.34$ fixes the baseline and the $^2_{\Lambda}n$/$^3_{\Lambda}n$ channels push the ratio toward 0.

What would settle it

Measure the two yield ratios $^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He}/^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}$ and $(^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}-^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He})/(^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}+^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He})$ at midrapidity in the same 0–10% central Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV. The paper's four scenarios place the pairs at about (0.71, 0.17) with neither bound state, (0.63–0.64, 0.22) with only $^2_{\Lambda}n$, (0.55–0.57, 0.27–0.29) with only $^3_{\Lambda}n$, and (0.46–0.49, 0.34–0.37) with both; a measured pair falling clearly in one band and excluding the others would settle which states exist. A direct measurement of the $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$ yields in the same system (predicted $dN/dy\approx1.4\times10^{-1}$ and $\approx4.8\times10^{-2}$) would confirm the mechanism independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claim is that, in the coalescence picture applied to central Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV, the measured abundance of the hypernucleus $^4_{\Lambda}$H cannot be reproduced by channels made of measured species alone: direct four-body $p+n+n+\Lambda$ coalescence, $n+d+\Lambda$, and $t+\Lambda$ together give $dN/dy\approx2.2\times10^{-3}$ against a measured $(4.95\pm0.43\pm1.01)\times10^{-3}$, a shortfall of about 56% that extends below the data's lower error bar. The paper attributes the gap to participation of the unconfirmed neutron-$\Lambda$ bound states $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$: $^2_{\Lambda}n$ can enter $^4_{\Lambda}$H through $p+n+^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $d+^2_{\Lambda}n$ but enters $^4_{\Lambda}$He through only $p+p+^2_{\Lambda}n$, while $^3_{\Lambda}n$ contributes to $^4_{\Lambda}$H only, via $p+^3_{\Lambda}n$. Because these channels add asymmetrically, the $^4_{\Lambda}$H-to-$^4_{\Lambda}$He asymmetry grows from the baseline set by the neutron surplus alone ($^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He}/^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}\approx0.71$, asymmetry $\approx0.17$) to $^4_{\Lambda}{\rm He}/^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}\approx0.46$–$0.49$ with asymmetry $\approx0.34$–$0.37$ when both states exist. The paper also predicts the states' own yields, $dN/dy\approx1.4\times10^{-1}$ for $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $\approx4.8\times10^{-2}$ for $^3_{\Lambda}n$, and shows that including them brings the $^4_{\Lambda}$H total to within a residual deficit that it attributes to decays of excited hypernuclei.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the freeze-out ordering assumption that $^3_{\Lambda}$H forms after all other light (hyper-)nuclei, so it cannot coalesce into $^4_{\Lambda}$H or $^4_{\Lambda}$He; if $^3_{\Lambda}$H were available earlier, extra channels such as $^3_{\Lambda}{\rm H}+n\to{}^4_{\Lambda}{\rm H}$ would take up part of the missing yield, and the inferred roles of $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$—whose abundances are themselves model outputs—would have to be re-mapped.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If both $^2_{\Lambda}n$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n$ exist, their channels raise the computed $^4_{\Lambda}$H yield from about $2.2\times10^{-3}$ to about $4.0\times10^{-3}$ at RMS 2.0 fm, closing most of the 56% gap; the remaining deficit is attributed to decays of excited hypernuclei.
  • The two ratios are scenario-dependent by design: about 0.71 and 0.17 with no bound states, falling to about 0.46–0.49 and 0.34–0.37 with both, so a single future measurement distinguishes the cases.
  • Because $^3_{\Lambda}n$ feeds only $^4_{\Lambda}$H while $^2_{\Lambda}n$ feeds both $^4_{\Lambda}$H and $^4_{\Lambda}$He, the four columns of Table V separate the 'only $^2_{\Lambda}n$' from 'only $^3_{\Lambda}n$' scenarios, letting the two states be constrained independently rather than jointly.
  • The model's inputs—$R_f=3.27$ fm, $Z_{np}=1.34$, blast-wave fits to proton and $\Lambda$ spectra—are all fixed by light-nucleus and hyperon data, so the hypernucleus predictions are parameter-free tests of the coalescence mechanism extended to strangeness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the two proposed ratios compare particles measured in the same collision sample, acceptance and decay-branching uncertainties largely cancel; a few-percent measurement would already separate the 'no bound states' column from the 'both bound states' column, and a ten-percent measurement would separate 'no states' from 'only $^2_{\Lambda}n$', which differ by only about ten percent in $^4_{\L
  • The same channel-inventory logic could be exported to $\Xi$-hypernuclei or to $A=4$ hypernuclei at other beam energies, where the neutron surplus and the relative weight of the $^2_{\Lambda}n$/$^3_{\Lambda}n$ channels change, providing independent cross-checks of the existence constraints.
  • The predicted $^2_{\Lambda}n$ yield, $dN/dy\approx0.14$, is an order of magnitude above the $^4_{\Lambda}$H yield and well above the $^3_{\Lambda}$H yield; a dedicated search for the state in the same collision system—through its decay products or through correlation measurements—could test the bound state's existence directly, rather than only through the asymmetry ratios.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends an analytical coalescence model to the production of Λ-hypernuclei (3ΛH, 4ΛH, 4ΛHe) in central Au-Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 3 GeV. The model combines nucleon+Λ and nucleus+nucleon(Λ) coalescence channels in a two-step scheme designed to avoid double counting, and the authors present channel-by-channel pT spectra, rapidity densities, and mean transverse momenta. Without the hypothetical bound states 2Λn and 3Λn, the model underpredicts the STAR 4ΛH yield by about 56% (Table I); including these states through the channels p+n+2Λn, d+2Λn, and p+3Λn brings the yield closer to data but leaves a residual deficit (Table IV). The authors propose the yield ratios 4ΛHe/4ΛH and (4ΛH−4ΛHe)/(4ΛH+4ΛHe) as observables that could discriminate between scenarios with and without these neutron-Λ bound states.

Significance. The paper's strengths are its analytic, transparent coalescence formalism, the explicit channel decomposition, and the fact that no new free parameters are introduced beyond those fixed by light-nucleus data in the previous work. The proposed asymmetry ratios are a falsifiable prediction that could in principle constrain the existence of 2Λn and 3Λn. However, the central inference is conditional: it depends on the assumption that 3ΛH freezes out after 4ΛH and 4ΛHe, and the no-exotic baseline asymmetry is essentially a restatement of the fitted neutron-to-proton ratio Znp. The exotic-state contributions also inherit the model's uncertainty in the unmeasured 2Λn/3Λn multiplicities. With a sensitivity study and an uncertainty estimate, the paper would provide a valuable constraint; in its present form, the conclusion is suggestive rather than decisive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B and III D (Eq. (17))] The exclusion of 3ΛH from the formation of 4ΛH is load-bearing. The paper assumes that 3ΛH freezes out after all other light (hyper-)nuclei and therefore cannot participate in 4ΛH production; this is stated as 'likely' in Sec. III B and as a definite exclusion in Sec. III D, with Ref. [52] cited but no quantitative justification. If the ordering is wrong and the two-body channel 3ΛH + n → 4ΛH (which the formalism of Eq. (17) would describe) operates, then the measured 3ΛH yield dN/dy ≈ 1.13×10-2 (Table I) and the neutron surplus Znp = 1.34 imply that a modest coalescence probability suffices to produce a yield comparable to the no-exotic deficit of ≈ 2.77×10-3, so the inferred need for 2Λn and 3Λn would be non-unique. The authors should either provide a dynamical reason for the ordering or test the alternative scenario.
  2. [Sec. III E, Eqs. (53)-(54), Table V] The no-exotic baseline asymmetry is essentially a fitted input restated as a prediction. For the four-body channels, Eqs. (53)-(54) give 4ΛHe/4ΛH = 1/Znp = 0.746 and (4ΛH−4ΛHe)/(4ΛH+4ΛHe) = (Znp−1)/(Znp+1) = 0.145, with Znp = 1.34 fixed by the t/3He ratio (Sec. III A). Consequently the 'neither 2Λn nor 3Λn' entries in Table V (≈0.71 and ≈0.17) are not independent predictions; the predictive content is in the deviations caused by the exotic channels. The paper should state this explicitly and should assess how robust those deviations are to the assumed RMS radii, binding energies, and spins of 2Λn and 3Λn, since the abundances in Table II are outputs of the same model.
  3. [Secs. III C-III D, Tables II, IV, V] The scenario-dependent ratios rest on unmeasured 2Λn and 3Λn multiplicities computed with the same fitted inputs, and no theoretical uncertainty is propagated from the fits of the blast-wave parameters, Znp, Rf, or the adopted RMS radii. Moreover, after including the exotic states the model still does not fully reproduce the data: at the nominal RMS = 2.0 fm the total dN/dy for 4ΛH is 4.00×10-3, about 19% below the STAR central value of 4.95×10-3, and at RMS = 2.5 fm it is 3.30×10-3, below the lower bound of the combined experimental uncertainty. This residual deficit leaves room for other channels, such as decays of excited hypernuclei, which the paper mentions only in passing. A sensitivity analysis and an uncertainty estimate are needed to support the claim that 2Λn and 3Λn are specifically required.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. I] The phrase 'baryonic interactions do minate' contains a typo and should read 'dominate'.
  2. [Sec. III B] The term 'perdue states' appears to be a typo for 'putative states'.
  3. [Sec. III A] The phrase 'dividing protons in Fig. 1 (a) by 80%' is ambiguous; since the measured protons are about 80% of the primordial ones, the primordial spectrum should be obtained by dividing by 0.80 (equivalently multiplying by 1.25), and this should be stated unambiguously.
  4. [Sec. III C] The numerical value of the RMS radius of 2Λn obtained from RMS = 1/sqrt(4 μ BΛ) is not quoted; the paper would be more reproducible if the value (about 2 fm) were given.
  5. [Sec. III E, Eq. (55)] The value N3He/Nt = 0.687 is taken from central values of Ref. [33]; quoting the experimental uncertainty would help readers gauge the robustness of the two-body-channel asymmetry.
  6. [Tables I, III, IV] Theoretical results are quoted without any uncertainty; adding a sensitivity range over Rf and the assumed RMS radii would make the comparison with data more informative.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The no-exotic 4ΛHe/4ΛH asymmetry is an algebraic restatement of the fitted Znp, and the exotic-scenario ratios are recomputed from the same fitted inputs.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (Znp input), Sec. III E Eqs. (53)-(54), Table V]
    "We here use Znp = 1.34, which has been fixed by the experimental data of the yield ratio t/3He [33]. ... For 4ΛH and 4ΛHe formed via four-body coalescence, with Eq. (39) we approximately have the pT-integrated yield ratios 4ΛHe/4ΛH = Np/Nn = 1/Znp = 0.746, (53) ... = (Znp−1)/(Znp+1) = 0.145. (54) Eqs. (53) and (54) show that the production asymmetry ... closely relates with the yield density asymmetry of the neutron and the proton Znp."

    Znp is a fitted input, fixed to the experimental t/3He ratio. Equation (53) makes the no-exotic four-body 4ΛHe/4ΛH ratio equal to 1/Znp by construction, and Eq. (54) makes the asymmetry equal to (Znp−1)/(Znp+1). The Table V 'neither 2Λn nor 3Λn' ratios are weighted combinations of this fitted Znp and the measured t/3He ratio entering via Eqs. (55)-(56). Thus the paper's advertised baseline asymmetry 'prediction' is a restatement of its fitted inputs, not an independent output of the coalescence mechanism.

  2. other [Sec. III C, Sec. III D, Tables II, IV, V]
    "Based on the hypothesis of their existences, we predict productions of 2Λn and 3Λn with Eqs. (17) and (28). ... The enhanced dN/dy of 3Λn compared to 3ΛH closely relates with two factors. One is the neutron surplus from the net nucleons in the colliding Au nuclei, and the other is the relatively small size of 3Λn than 3ΛH."

    The 2Λn and 3Λn abundances that drive the enhanced 4ΛH yields and the shifted 4ΛHe/4ΛH ratios in Table V are computed with the same coalescence model, the same blast-wave fits to proton and Lambda spectra, and the same fitted Znp and Rf values that define the baseline. Consequently, the exotic-scenario predictions are model outputs built from the same fitted inputs rather than independent empirical constraints on the existence of 2Λn and 3Λn. The only hypothesis-specific external inputs are the assumed binding energy, radii, and spins of these states.

full rationale

The paper's analytical coalescence formalism (Section II) is derived from explicit Wigner-transform kernels and is not itself circular. The input spectra for protons and Lambdas are blast-wave fits to external STAR data; Znp and Rf are fixed by external t/3He and deuteron data, so the self-citation to Ref. [36] is not load-bearing circularity. However, the paper presents the production asymmetry as a prediction while the no-2Λn/3Λn baseline is, by Eqs. (53)-(56), just a transform of the fitted Znp and the measured t/3He ratio. The exotic-scenario ratios additionally depend on 2Λn and 3Λn yields that are computed from the same fitted inputs and the same coalescence model, so the claimed constraint on the existence of these states is model-dependent rather than independently predicted. The freeze-out ordering assumption that 3ΛH cannot coalesce into 4ΛH or 4ΛHe is load-bearing for the 56% deficit argument but is attributed to an external citation, Ref. [52]; it is a robustness concern, not a circularity. On balance, the partial circularity is concentrated in the baseline asymmetry being a restatement of fitted inputs, giving a moderate circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central results rest on fitted neutron/proton asymmetry and freeze-out radius, a blast-wave input, adopted RMS radii, and the speculative existence of two unconfirmed bound states. The paper declares no new free parameters, but the model-dependence of the exotic-state abundances and the lack of propagated uncertainties are the main uncharged assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • Znp (neutron-to-proton yield density ratio) = 1.34
    Fixed in Sec. III A by reproducing the t/3He yield ratio from STAR data; enters all hypernucleus yields through the neutron spectrum and directly sets the four-body asymmetry via Eqs. (53)-(54).
  • R_f (effective freeze-out radius) = 3.27 fm
    Fixed in Ref. [36] by reproducing the deuteron yield rapidity density; used in every coalescence channel via Eqs. (13), (25), (36), and (42).
  • Blast-wave parameters for proton and Lambda pT spectra = not listed; fitted to STAR data in Fig. 1
    The invariant pT distributions of protons and Lambdas are obtained by fitting the blast-wave model to published spectra; these fits carry the input distributions for all coalescence calculations.
  • RMS radii of 3ΛH, 4ΛH, 4ΛHe, 2Λn, 3Λn = 3ΛH: 4.9 fm; 4ΛH/4ΛHe: 1.5-2.5 fm; 2Λn: derived from B=4.052 MeV; 3Λn: 2.0 fm
    Adopted from theory and varied by hand; the 4ΛH/4ΛHe results are shown at three RMS values, so the absolute predictions carry a sizeable model uncertainty.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math A spherical harmonic oscillator wave function for the produced nucleus and the corresponding Wigner transform kernel (Sec. II A, Eq. (4)).
    The kernel is derived from a standard oscillator wave function; this is a conventional choice in coalescence models but is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Coordinate-momentum factorization of the joint distributions, Eqs. (5), and factorized relative-coordinate distributions.
    The paper explicitly assumes no coordinate-momentum coupling, justified by earlier success at similar energies; this is an uncontrolled approximation for the present calculation.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous coalescence in the rest frame of the coalescing pair, Eq. (12).
    Standard in coalescence models, but not independently validated for these low-energy collisions.
  • domain assumption The gaussian momentum kernel is approximated as a delta function, Eq. (14).
    Justified by the small width of 1/sigma relative to typical momenta; the paper cites Ref. [38] for robustness, but no quantitative accuracy test is given here.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence and properties of 2Λn and 3Λn as bound-state coalescence participants (Sec. III C, Eqs. (45)-(52)).
    These states are unconfirmed experimentally; their radii and spins are adopted from theory, and their abundances are predicted by the same model being tested.
  • domain assumption 3ΛH is formed later than 4ΛH and 4ΛHe and therefore cannot feed them (Sec. III B and Sec. III D).
    This freeze-out ordering, cited to Ref. [52], excludes channels such as 3ΛH + n -> 4ΛH; if the ordering is wrong, the channel inventory changes.
invented entities (2)
  • 2Λn (neutron-Lambda bound state) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides additional channels p+n+2Λn and d+2Λn for 4ΛH and p+p+2Λn for 4ΛHe, enhancing the yield asymmetry.
    Not introduced by this paper, but used here as a coalescence participant with model-computed abundance; its existence is unconfirmed, and the paper gives quantitative predictions for its yield and pT spectrum that could be tested.
  • 3Λn (di-neutron-Lambda bound state) independent evidence
    purpose: Adds channel p+3Λn -> 4ΛH only, enlarging the 4ΛH/4ΛHe asymmetry.
    Again not original to this paper, but the paper predicts its production yield and uses it in the 4ΛH calculation; the predicted ratios provide a falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Productions of $^3_{\Lambda}$H, $^4_{\Lambda}$H and $^4_{\Lambda}$He in different coalescence channels in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZOXFAKQ

@misc{pith2026250413640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Productions of $^3_\Lambda$H, $^4_\Lambda$H and $^4_\Lambda$He in different coalescence channels in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrts_NN=3$ GeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZOXFAKQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13640}
}
abstract

We study the productions of $\Lambda$-hypernuclei $^3_{\Lambda}$H, $^4_{\Lambda}$H and $^4_{\Lambda}$He in the coalescence mechanism in Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=3$ GeV. Considering the abundance and great importance of baryons and light (hyper-)nuclei on the collision dynamics, we include not only nucleon$+\Lambda$ coalescence but also nucleus+nucleon($\Lambda$) coalescence. We present contributions from different coalescence channels for $^3_{\Lambda}$H, $^4_{\Lambda}$H and $^4_{\Lambda}$He in their productions. We predict the production asymmetry between $^4_{\Lambda}$H and $^4_{\Lambda}$He, characterized by yield ratios $^4_{\Lambda}\text{He}/^4_{\Lambda}\text{H}$ and $(^4_{\Lambda}\text{H}-^4_{\Lambda}\text{He})/(^4_{\Lambda}\text{H}+^4_{\Lambda}\text{He})$, which can shed light on the existence constraints of the possible neutron-$\Lambda$ bound states $^2_{\Lambda}n~(n\Lambda)$ and $^3_{\Lambda}n~(nn\Lambda)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the invariant pT spectra of primordial pro￾tons and Λ hyperons measured experimentally at the rapid￾ity interval −0.1 < y < 0 in the 0 − 10% centrality in Au-Au collisions at √ sNN = 3 GeV. Filled circles with error bars are experimental data [33, 49]. Dashed lines are the results of the blast-wave model. Note that protons and Λ’s shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Predictions of invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the invariant pT spectra of 3 ΛH at midrapidity in central Au-Au collisions at √ sNN = 3 GeV. Filled circles with error bars are experimental data [18]. The dashed line and the dotted line denote contributions from p+n+Λ →3 ΛH and d + Λ →3 ΛH, respectively, the s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Predictions of invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Wigner Phase-Space Densities of Nuclear Clusters and Hypernuclei

    nucl-th 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The authors calculate Wigner phase-space densities for clusters from deuteron to double-Lambda hyperhelium using hyperspherical-harmonic solutions of the Schrödinger equation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [52]

    Momentum dependence of light nuclei production in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    R.-Q. Wang, F.-L. Shao, and J. Song, Phys. Rev. C 103, 064908 (2021) , arXiv:2007.05745 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    f (n) h1h2h3h4 is the normalized four-hadron joint coordinate-momentum distribution

    for h1 /nequalh2 /nequalh3 /nequalh4, h1 = h2 /nequalh3 /nequalh4, h1 = h2 /nequalh3 = h4, respectively. f (n) h1h2h3h4 is the normalized four-hadron joint coordinate-momentum distribution. We rewrite the kernel function as RH j (x1, x2, x3, x4; p1, p2, p3, p4, p) = gH j × R(x, p) H j (x1, x2, x3, x4; p1, p2, p3, p4)δ( 4∑ i=1 pi − p), (30) where the spin ...

  3. [2]

    RMS H j , where RMS H j is the root- mean-square radius of H j and its values for di fferent light nuclei can be found in Ref. [ 42]. The normalized two-hadron joint distribution f (n) h1h2 (x1, x2; p1, p2) is generally coordinate and mo- mentum coupled, especially in central heavy-ion collision s with relatively high collision energies where the collecti ...

  4. [3]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P . Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stac hel, Nature 561, 321 (2018) , arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Kozhevnikova and Y

    M. Kozhevnikova and Y . B. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034901 (2024) , arXiv:2401.04991 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

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

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    687, (55) 4 ΛH −4 ΛHe 4 ΛH +4 ΛHe = Nt − N3He Nt + N3He = 0

    we approximately have the pT -integrated yield ratios 4 ΛHe 4 ΛH = N3He Nt = 0. 687, (55) 4 ΛH −4 ΛHe 4 ΛH +4 ΛHe = Nt − N3He Nt + N3He = 0. 186. (56) The last equality signs in the above two equations are evalu- ated with the central values of the experimental data of t and 3He in Ref. [ 33]. For such two-body coalescence channels, the production asymmet...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Hashimoto and H

    O. Hashimoto and H. Tamura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 564 (2006)

    2006

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    (14) The robustness of this δfunction approximation has been checked at the outset of the analytical coalescence model in the work [ 38]

    has a small value of about or less than 0.1 GeV/c, we can mathematically approximate the gaussian form of the momentum-dependent kernel function to be a δfunction as follows e − ( p′ 1 − m1 m2 p′ 2 )2 (1+ m1m2 )2 / (2σ2 21 ) ≈ [ √ π√ 2σ21 (1 + m1 m2 ) ] 3 δ( p′ 1 − m1 m2 p′ 2)...

  2. [9]

    5 0 . 715 0 . 639 0 . 573 0 . 488

  3. [10]

    0 0 . 713 0 . 634 0 . 564 0 . 477

  4. [11]

    5 0 . 711 0 . 629 0 . 553 0 . 4644 ΛH−4 ΛHe 4 ΛH+4 ΛHe

  5. [12]

    5 0 . 166 0 . 221 0 . 271 0 . 344

  6. [13]

    0 0 . 167 0 . 224 0 . 279 0 . 354

  7. [14]

    5 0 . 169 0 . 228 0 . 288 0 . 366 very different, but averaged transverse momenta were almost the same. Comparing our theoretical results to the available data published by the STAR collaboration, we found that the pos- sible neutron- Λbound states 2 Λn and 3 Λn may take part i...

  8. [15]

    J. Chen, D. Keane, Y .-G. Ma, A. Tang, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rept. 760, 1 (2018) , arXiv:1808.09619 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    T. R. Saito et al., Nature Rev. Phys. 3, 803 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    We com- pute the invariant pT distributions of 2 Λn and 3 Λn in the ra- pidity interval −0

    and ( 28). We com- pute the invariant pT distributions of 2 Λn and 3 Λn in the ra- pidity interval −0. 1 < y < 0 in the 0 − 10% centrality in Au-Au collisions at √ sNN = 3 GeV . An approximate size of 2 Λn is evaluated via RMS 2 Λn = 1/ √ 4µBΛ [15], where the reduced mass µ= m...

  11. [18]

    Abdallah et al

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

    2022

  12. [19]

    Aboona et al

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

    2023

  13. [20]

    Cho et al

    S. Cho et al. (ExHIC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95, 279 (2017) , arXiv:1702.00486 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Acharya et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Feliciello and T

    A. Feliciello and T. Nagae, Rept. Prog. Phys. 78, 096301 (2015)

    2015

  16. [23]

    D. H. Davis, Nucl. Phys. A 754, 3 (2005)

    2005

  17. [24]

    Esser et al., Nucl

    A. Esser et al., Nucl. Phys. A 914, 519 (2013) . 14

    2013

  18. [25]

    Chen et al., Nucl

    J. Chen et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 214 (2024) , arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Nemura, Y

    H. Nemura, Y . Suzuki, Y . Fujiwara, and C. Nakamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 103, 929 (2000) , arXiv:nucl-th/9912065

    2000 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Steinheimer, K

    J. Steinheimer, K. Gudima, A. Botvina, I. Mishustin, M. Bleicher, and H. Stocker, Phys. Lett. B 714, 85 (2012) , arXiv:1203.2547 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A. S. Botvina, K. K. Gudima, J. Steinheimer, M. Ble- icher, and J. Pochodzalla, Phys. Rev. C 95, 014902 (2017) , arXiv:1608.05680 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    C. A. Bertulani, Phys. Lett. B 837, 137639 (2023) , arXiv:2211.12643 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Reichert, J

    T. Reichert, J. Steinheimer, V . V ovchenko, B. D¨ onigus , and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 107, 014912 (2023) , arXiv:2210.11876 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Adam et al

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

    2020

  25. [32]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 827, 137003 (2022) , arXiv:2108.00908 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  26. [33]

    Abdulhamid et al

    M. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 110, 054911 (2024) , arXiv:2311.11020 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  27. [34]

    Abdulhamid et al

    M. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Nature 632, 1026 (2024) , arXiv:2310.12674 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  28. [35]

    Y . Xu, X. He, and N. Xu, Chin. Phys. C 47, 074107 (2023) , arXiv:2305.02487 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 754, 360 (2016) , arXiv:1506.08453 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 860, 139066 (2025) , arXiv:2405.19839 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2410.17769 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    746, (53) 4 ΛH −4 ΛHe 4 ΛH +4 ΛHe = Nn − Np Nn + Np = Znp − 1 Znp + 1 = 0

    we approx- imately have the pT -integrated yield ratios 4 ΛHe 4 ΛH = Np Nn = 1 Znp = 0. 746, (53) 4 ΛH −4 ΛHe 4 ΛH +4 ΛHe = Nn − Np Nn + Np = Znp − 1 Znp + 1 = 0. 145. (54) Eqs. ( 53) and ( 54) show that the production asymmetry between 4 ΛH and 4 ΛHe formed via four-body coal...

  33. [40]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P . Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. Sto cker, Phys. Lett. B 697, 203 (2011) , arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Cleymans, S

    J. Cleymans, S. Kabana, I. Kraus, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich, and N. Sharma, Phys. Rev. C 84, 054916 (2011) , arXiv:1105.3719 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [42]

    V ovchenko, B

    V . V ovchenko, B. D¨ onigus, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett. B 785, 171 (2018) , arXiv:1808.05245 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    D.-N. Liu, C. M. Ko, Y .-G. Ma, F. Mazza- schi, M. Puccio, Q.-Y . Shou, K.-J. Sun, and Y .-Z. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138855 (2024) , arXiv:2404.02701 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    K.-J. Sun, C. M. Ko, and B. D¨ onigus, Phys. Lett. B 792, 132 (2019) , arXiv:1812.05175 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Sun and L.-W

    K.-J. Sun and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 94, 064908 (2016) , arXiv:1607.04037 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [46]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 827, 136941 (2022) , arXiv:2112.04066 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  40. [47]

    H. H. Gutbrod, A. Sandoval, P . J. Johansen, A. M. Poskanz er, J. Gosset, W. G. Meyer, G. D. Westfall, and R. Stock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 667 (1976)

    1976

  41. [48]

    L. K. Liu, C. L. Hu, X. H. He, S. S. Shi, and G. N. Xie, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138853 (2024) , arXiv:2404.13582 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), JHEP 10, 139 (2024) , arXiv:2407.10110 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Wang, J.-P

    R.-Q. Wang, J.-P . Lv, Y .-H. Li, J. Song, and F.-L. Shao, Chin. Phys. C 48, 053112 (2024) , arXiv:2210.10271 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Wang, Y .-G

    R. Wang, Y .-G. Ma, L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, K.-J. Sun, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 108, L031601 (2023) , arXiv:2305.02988 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The slightly larger size of 3He than t suppresses its production stronger in the coalescence mechanism, which is transmitted to 4 ΛHe via two-body coalescence

    and ( 54), could come from the di fferent sizes of t and 3He. The slightly larger size of 3He than t suppresses its production stronger in the coalescence mechanism, which is transmitted to 4 ΛHe via two-body coalescence. For two-body coalescence channels with 2 Λn or 3 Λn part...

  46. [54]

    Zhao, Y .-T

    X.-Y . Zhao, Y .-T. Feng, F.-L. Shao, R.-Q. Wang, and J. Song, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054908 (2022) , arXiv:2201.10354 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    and (56), i.e., smaller 4 ΛHe/ 4 ΛH and larger ( 4 ΛH −4 Λ He)/ (4 ΛH +4 Λ He) compared to those in Eqs. (

  48. [56]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 729, 809 (2003) , arXiv:nucl-th/0306032

    2003 arXiv

  49. [57]

    L. Zhu, C. M. Ko, and X. Yin, Phys. Rev. C 92, 064911 (2015) , arXiv:1510.03568 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P . Marinova, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Wang, Y .-H

    R.-Q. Wang, Y .-H. Li, J. Song, and F.- L. Shao, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034907 (2024) , arXiv:2309.16296 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mrowczynski, Acta Phys

    S. Mrowczynski, Acta Phys. Polon. B 48, 707 (2017) , arXiv:1607.02267 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Kisiel, M

    A. Kisiel, M. Gała˙ zyn, and P . Bo˙ zek, Phys. Rev. C 90, 064914 (2014) , arXiv:1409.4571 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 93, 024905 (2016) , arXiv:1507.06842 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2462 (1993) , arXiv:nucl-th/9307020

    1993 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Hu (STAR), EPJ Web Conf

    Y . Hu (STAR), EPJ Web Conf. 296, 14010 (2024) , arXiv:2401.00319 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Juric et al., Nucl

    M. Juric et al., Nucl. Phys. B 52, 1 (1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    Zhang and C

    Z. Zhang and C. M. Ko, Phys. Lett. B 780, 191 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Ji (STAR), EPJ Web Conf

    Y . Ji (STAR), EPJ Web Conf. 296, 02004 (2024) , arXiv:2312.15768 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A. S. Botvina, I. N. Mishustin, and J. Pochodzalla, Phys. Rev. C 86, 011601 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    R. H. Dalitz and B. W. Downs, Phys. Rev. 110, 958 (1958)

    1958

  62. [70]

    Richard, Q

    J.-M. Richard, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 91, 014003 (2015) , arXiv:1404.3473 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    I. R. Afnan and B. F. Gibson, Phys. Rev. C 92, 054608 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Sch¨ afer, B

    M. Sch¨ afer, B. Bazak, N. Barnea, and J. Mareˇ s, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025204 (2021) , arXiv:2007.10264 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    T. Y . Htun and Y . Yan, Phys. Rev. C 105, 064001 (2022) , arXiv:2211.01693 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. D. Cohen, W. Det- mold, H. W. Lin, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Par- reno, M. J. Savage, and A. Walker-Loud (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D 87, 034506 (2013) , arXiv:1206.5219 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Gal and H

    A. Gal and H. Garcilazo, Phys. Lett. B 736, 93 (2014) , arXiv:1404.5855 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Rappold et al

    C. Rappold et al. (HypHI), Phys. Rev. C 88, 041001 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    T. R. Saito, V . Bozkurt, and C. Rappold (HypHI), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 590, 012018 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    Barile (ALICE), EPJ Web Conf

    F. Barile (ALICE), EPJ Web Conf. 95, 04003 (2015) , arXiv:1411.1941 [hep-ex]. 15

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Rappold et al

    C. Rappold et al. (W ASA-FRS, Super-FRS Experiment), EPJ Web Conf. 290, 09007 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Escrig (W ASA-FRS /Super-FRS), Acta Phys

    S. Escrig (W ASA-FRS /Super-FRS), Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 17, 3 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Rappold et al., Nucl

    C. Rappold et al., Nucl. Phys. A 913, 170 (2013) , arXiv:1305.4871 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Hildenbrand and H

    F. Hildenbrand and H. W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034002 (2019) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 102, 039901 (2020)], arXiv:1904.05818 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Buyukcizmeci, T

    N. Buyukcizmeci, T. Reichert, A. S. Botvina, and M. Bleicher, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 23 (2025) , arXiv:2410.17449 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B 834, 137449 (2022) , arXiv:2207.00778 [nucl-ex]

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.