Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Charge Separation Measurements in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 7.7--200 GeV in Search of the Chiral Magnetic Effect

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a positive flow-subtracted charge separation signal in mid-central Au+Au collisions at 11.5–19.6 GeV, reaching a combined 5.5σ significance.

desk verdict First high-statistics BES-II application of the STAR group's ESS method shows a residual positive Δγ near zero flow at 11.5–19.6 GeV, but the key background-subtraction assumptions are deferred to an unpublished companion paper, so the result is promising yet conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00275 v1 pith:HU75H5MB submitted 2025-05-30 nucl-ex hep-ex

The STAR Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-exhep-ex PACS 25.75.-q
keywords chiralmagneticeffectchargeseparationeventshapeselectionflowbackgroundsuppressionquark-gluonplasmagamma112correlatorlocalparityviolationheavy-ioncollisions
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 tries to establish whether the charge separation predicted by the chiral magnetic effect is present in heavy-ion collisions after the dominant flow-induced background is removed. It does this with a new application of event shape selection to Au+Au collisions at beam energies from 7.7 to 200 GeV, projecting the charge-separation correlator $\Delta\gamma_{112}$ to zero elliptic flow. The residual signal is positive in 20\%--50\% central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=11.5$, 14.6, and 19.6 GeV, with individual significances of 2.6$\sigma$, 3.1$\sigma$, and 3.3$\sigma$, and a combined 10--20 GeV significance of 5.5$\sigma$. At 200 GeV the signal is consistent with zero, which would explain the null result in prior isobar collisions and would locate the chiral-magnetic response at lower beam energies.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the event shape selection (ESS) extrapolation to zero elliptic flow. Events are binned by $q^2_{2,\mathrm{PPOI}}$, a pair-based event-shape variable constructed from the same particles of interest, so it captures both the initial geometry and expansion fluctuations without relying on long-range correlations with a separate kinematic region. In each bin the paper measures $\Delta\gamma_{112}$ and $v_2$, fits the correlator linearly as a function of $v_2$, and takes the $v_2=0$ intercept as the zero-flow projection; a small $(1-\bar v_2)^2$ correction restores the unbiased signal. The spectator event plane, reconstructed from forward detectors, fixes the magnetic-field direction and suppresses nonflow correlations.

What would settle it

Measure $\Delta\gamma_{112}$ in ultra-central Au+Au collisions, where $v_2$ is near zero and the chiral magnetic effect is expected to be small: a positive intercept there would indicate the zero-flow subtraction still contains background. Likewise, repeating the ESS extrapolation with an event-shape variable built from a different kinematic region and finding a materially different intercept would show the linear zero-flow projection is not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that after flow-background subtraction the observable $N_{\mathrm{part}}\Delta\gamma_{112}^{\mathrm{ESS}}$ in the 20\%--50\% centrality range is positive and statistically significant at three intermediate beam energies, and that the background indicator $N_{\mathrm{part}}\Delta\gamma_{132}^{\mathrm{ESS}}$ is consistent with zero at every energy. The paper interprets the positive residual as a charge-separation signal compatible with the chiral magnetic effect, while cautioning that its energy dependence requires further theoretical work on magnetic-field evolution and QCD topological transitions. It also finds that the ESS method attributes at least 80\% of the previously measured $\langle\Delta\gamma_{112}\rangle$ to flow-related background.

Load-bearing premise

The extrapolation assumes that the flow-related background in $\Delta\gamma_{112}$ is a strictly linear function of $v_2$ and that nothing background-like survives at $v_2 = 0$; if a background component is nonlinear in $v_2$ or persists at zero flow, it would be misread as chiral magnetic effect signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nonzero flow-subtracted signal at 11.5--19.6 GeV locates the chiral-magnetic response in the beam-energy window where the magnetic field can persist long enough to act on the quark-gluon plasma.
  • The null result at 200 GeV, combined with previous isobar and Au+Au upper limits, implies that at top energy the CME contribution to $\Delta\gamma_{112}$ is small or absent.
  • Agreement with the earlier $\Delta H(\kappa_{\mathrm{bg}}=2.5)$ analysis indicates a single $v_2$-coupled background mechanism may describe the charge-dependent correlations across the measured energies.
  • The finding that at least 80\% of the raw $\langle\Delta\gamma_{112}\rangle$ is flow background means future CME searches need event-shape-based subtraction rather than raw correlator comparisons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The energy window of the signal could be a test of magnetic-field lifetime models: if the field decays too quickly at 200 GeV but survives at 11.5--19.6 GeV, the CME yield should track the calculated field duration, an implication the paper raises but does not itself demonstrate.
  • A direct extension would be to run the same ESS subtraction on the isobar collision data at BES energies, where the background conditions are matched but the magnetic response differs, isolating any residual CME component.
  • The linear $v_2$ assumption could be stress-tested within existing data by comparing intercepts obtained from restricted $v_2$ ranges or by including higher harmonics in the fit; a stable intercept would raise confidence that the residual is physics rather than extrapolation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The STAR Collaboration reports measurements of the charge-separation observable Δγ112 and the background indicator Δγ132 in Au+Au collisions at √s_NN = 7.7–200 GeV, using spectator event planes and a new event-shape-selection (ESS) method. The ESS method classifies events by a pair-level flow variable q2_2,PPOI, plots Δγ112 versus v2, extrapolates linearly to v2=0, and applies a (1−v2)^2 correction. The paper finds that the ESS-corrected Δγ112 is positive in mid-central (20–50%) collisions at 11.5, 14.6, and 19.6 GeV with significances 2.6σ, 3.1σ, and 3.3σ, respectively, and that a statistically weighted combination over 11.5–19.6 GeV gives 5.5σ. The Δγ132_ESS control observable is consistent with zero at all energies, and Δγ112_ESS is consistent with zero at 7.7, 9.2, 17.3, 27, and 200 GeV. The results are interpreted as evidence for a finite charge-separation signal in the 10–20 GeV beam-energy range.

Significance. If the ESS extrapolation is valid, this is an important result: it is the first STAR BES-II measurement to claim a residual charge-separation signal above the flow background at RHIC energies, with an energy dependence that peaks in the 10–20 GeV window and vanishes at 200 GeV, consistent with the null isobar result. The paper's strengths include the very large BES-II data sets, the use of the forward EPD spectator plane to suppress nonflow, the inclusion of a γ132 control observable, and a systematic-uncertainty procedure with multiple cut variations. The comparison with the independent ΔH(κ_bg=2.5) measurement is also a useful cross-check. However, the scientific impact is conditional on the ESS linearity and purity assumptions, which are not demonstrated in this manuscript; the central claim therefore currently rests on the unpublished companion paper [50].

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II (Eq. (2), Fig. 2)] The central extraction rests on the assumption that the flow-related background in Δγ112 is strictly linear in v2 and that no pair-correlation contribution survives at v2=0. The event-shape variable q2_2,PPOI is constructed from the same particle pairs of interest that enter Δγ112, so the q2-selected event classes are not independent of the observable; a selection-induced correlation can in principle produce a nonzero intercept that is not a CME signal. The manuscript does not provide a closure test of this assumption (e.g., applying ESS to a background-only simulation, or splitting pairs into q2-defining and observable subsets), and all details are deferred to the unpublished companion paper [50]. The agreement of Δγ132_ESS with zero is reassuring but not a substitute, because γ132 has a different harmonic structure and may have different sensitivities to the same short-range sources.
  2. [Section II, after Fig. 2] The (1−v2)^2 correction applied to the y-intercept is described as 'small,' but for typical BES values v2≈0.08–0.12 the factor changes the extracted signal by roughly 15–25%, comparable in size to the quoted 2.6–3.3σ differences. The derivation of this factor is not given in the manuscript; it is attributed to the unpublished companion paper [50] and to Refs. [36,48,49,51]. Since the correction is applied multiplicatively to the key observable, the reader cannot verify whether it is derived from the same assumptions as the linear extrapolation or whether it might remove part of a genuine CME signal. Please provide the derivation, or a published reference with the full derivation, and demonstrate its centrality and energy dependence.
  3. [Fig. 4(a), combined-significance paragraph] The combined 5.5σ significance is computed over the four energies 11.5, 14.6, 17.3, and 19.6 GeV, a window that is defined after the data have been inspected; the neighboring 9.2 and 27 GeV points are not included in the average. With eight beam energies in the scan, the probability of observing one or more ~3σ excursions under the global null is non-negligible, and no trials factor or global p-value is reported. The individual 2.6–3.3σ significances should be presented as the primary evidence, and the combined significance should either be justified by a prespecified physics criterion (e.g., the magnetic-field-lifetime or chiral-restoration window) or be corrected for the number of tested energies.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Text before Fig. 4] The word 'repsectively' is a typo and should read 'respectively.'
  2. [Eq. (2)] The notation for the number of pairs is inconsistent: the equation uses both N_pair and Npair for the same quantity; please unify the notation and explicitly define v2,pair in the text.
  3. [References] Reference [50] is listed only as 'The accompanying long paper' with no arXiv or journal identifier; for a self-contained journal submission, the companion paper should be publicly available or the reference should be updated.
  4. [Figures 3 and 4] The 'meson-meson' label appearing in the figure panels is not explained in the figure captions; the text introduces the proton-exclusion criterion nσp<−2, but the connection between the label and the POI selection should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ESS residual is a data extrapolation, not a fitted prediction, and self-citations are method references rather than circular inputs.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper does not derive a theoretical prediction from first principles; it measures Delta_gamma_112 and Delta_gamma_132 in data, bins events by the ESS variable q2_2,PPOI, measures v2 in each bin, and linearly extrapolates Delta_gamma_112(v2) to v2=0. The reported residual is a fit intercept, not a quantity obtained by inserting the answer into the input. No equation makes the intercept equal to an input by construction; the linearity and purity of the v2 background are physical assumptions rather than circular reductions. The paper defers details of the ESS correction and the systematic central-value prescription to an unpublished companion paper [50] (Sec. II: 'The details are discussed in an accompanying paper [50]'; Sec. III: 'the final central value is taken as the mean of the averages of these extremes across all five sources [50]'), which is a reproducibility gap but not a demonstrated circularity because the (1-v2)^2 correction is not fitted to the reported signal in the present text. The consistency checks against Delta_gamma_132_ESS and Delta_H(kappa_bg=2.5) are independent internal tests. The ESS method is cited from same-group prior papers [36,48,49,51], but those are peer-reviewed method references with external validation, not load-bearing self-citations that forbid alternatives. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation-forced step is identifiable from the text; circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ESS model assumptions and the standard CME framework. No new particles or forces are introduced. The only fitted quantity in the extraction is the slope of the linear background model; the intercept is the reported measurement.

free parameters (1)
  • ESS linear-fit slope = not reported
    Slope of Delta-gamma_112 vs v2 in the event shape selection (Fig. 2). It is fitted to data and determines the extrapolated intercept, the central result. Not a prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The flow-related background to Delta-gamma_112 is linear in v2, so the zero-v2 intercept is background-free.
    The ESS extrapolation in Fig. 2 relies on this. If the background has a v2-independent component or non-linear v2 dependence, the intercept is biased.
  • domain assumption The correction factor (1-v2)^2 recovers the unbiased signal Delta-gamma_ESS from the zero-v2 intercept.
    Applied in Sec. II; derived in Refs [36,48,49,51] by the same group. Incorrectness would change the reported magnitudes.
  • domain assumption The spectator event plane is a good proxy for the reaction plane and the magnetic field direction, and its use suppresses nonflow.
    Used in Eqs. (3)-(5) for v2 and gamma. Relies on the correlation between spectator deflection and the initial magnetic field.
  • domain assumption Delta-gamma_132 is a background indicator for Delta-gamma_112, sharing the same flow-related background.
    The vanishing of Delta-gamma_132_ESS is used to conclude background suppression. If the two observables have different backgrounds, this check is weaker.
  • domain assumption The CME predicts a positive contribution approximately 2|a1|^2 to Delta-gamma_112.
    Standard theory (Ref [16]); used to interpret the positive residual as a CME signal.
  • domain assumption Excluding (anti)protons from POI (meson-meson pairs) captures the CME signal while avoiding proton-related flow complications.
    POI are charged hadrons with n_sigma_p < -2; the choice is motivated by Ref [12] and proton-antiproton collective motion differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charge Separation Measurements in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 7.7--200 GeV in Search of the Chiral Magnetic Effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HU75H5MB

@misc{pith2026250600275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charge Separation Measurements in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrts_NN=$ 7.7--200 GeV in Search of the Chiral Magnetic Effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HU75H5MB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00275}
}
abstract

The chiral magnetic effect in heavy-ion collisions predicts a charge separation signal along a magnetic field, which indicates local $P$ and $CP$ violations in the quark-gluon plasma. We report measurements of electric charge separation signals perpendicular to the spectator event plane in Au+Au collisions using high-statistics data from RHIC Beam Energy Scan II and top-energy runs. A novel event shape selection method is employed to suppress the flow-induced background. The residual charge separation signals near the zero-flow limit are positive in Au+Au collisions within the 20\%--50\% centrality range, with significance levels of $2.6\sigma$, $3.1\sigma$, and $3.3\sigma$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} =$ 11.5, 14.6, and 19.6 GeV, respectively. At other beam energies, the signals are either statistically limited or consistent with zero.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the CME in a two-nucleus collision. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a): illustration of various particle emission patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Centrality dependence of (a–h) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) presents the beam-energy dependence of Npart⟨∆γ 112⟩, Npart∆γ 112 ESS, and Npart∆γ 132 ESS integrated over the 20%–50% centrality range in Au+Au collisions. The background indicator ∆γ 132 ESS is consistent with zero at all energies, affirming the effectiveness of …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    F. Wen, J. Bryon, L. Wen, G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C42, 014001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Kharzeev, R

    D. Kharzeev, R. D. Pisarski, and M. H. G. Tytgat, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 512 (1998)

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Kharzeev and R

    D. Kharzeev and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D61, 111901(R) (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [3]

    Kharzeev, Phys

    D. Kharzeev, Phys. Lett. B633, 260 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [4]

    Q. Li, D. Kharzeev, C. Zhang, et al. Nature Phys12, 550 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Xiong, S

    J. Xiong, S. K. Kushwaha, T. Liang, et al. Science350, 413-416 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. Zhao, Y. Long, et al. Phys. Rev. X5, 031023 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.88, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    D. E. Kharzeev and J. Liao, Nature Rev. Phys.3, 55 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    J. Chen, X. Dong, X. He, H. Huang, F. Liuet al., NUCL SCI TECH35, 214 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao and P. Tribedy, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430007 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys.,69, 1 (1990)

    1990

  5. [12]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A803, 227 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 5925 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C85, 044907 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    The kinematic cuts on pseu- dorapidity, momentum, and transverse momentum are |η|<1,p <1.4 GeV/c, andp T >0.2 GeV/c, re- spectively

    to ensure track quality, and another cut on the dis- tance of the closest approach to the primary vertex (DCA <3 cm) to suppress contributions from weak decays and secondary interactions. The kinematic cuts on pseu- dorapidity, momentum, and transverse momentum are |η|<1,p <1....

  9. [16]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C70, 057901 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    Choudhury et al., Chin

    S. Choudhury et al., Chin. Phys. C46, 014101 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Magdy, S

    N. Magdy, S. Shi, J. Liao, N. Ajitanand, R. A. Lacey, Phys. Rev. C97, 061901 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    A. H. Tang, Chin. Phys. C44, 054101 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Schlichting and S

    S. Schlichting and S. Pratt, Phys. Rev. C83, 014913 (2011)

    2011

  15. [22]

    Wuet al., Phys

    W.-Y. Wuet al., Phys. Rev. C107, L031902 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Pratt, S

    S. Pratt, S. Schlichting and S. Gavin, Phys. Rev. C84, 024909 (2011)

    2011

  17. [24]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V. Koch and J. Liao, Lect. Notes Phys.871, 503 (2013)

    2013

  18. [25]

    B. I. Abelevet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 251601 (2009)

    2009

  19. [26]

    B. I. Abelevet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 81, 054908 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 88, 064911 (2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    Abelevet al.[ALICE Collaboration], Phys

    B. Abelevet al.[ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 012301 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    K. H. Ackermannet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.86402 (2001)

    2001

  23. [30]

    Adamet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    J. Adamet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B798, 134975 (2019). 6

    2019

  24. [31]

    Adamset al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    J. Adamset al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C73, 034903 (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C94, 041901 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    V. Koch, S. Schlichting, V. Skokov, P. Sorensen, J. Thomas, S. Voloshin, G. Wang, and H.-U. Yee, Chin. Phys. C41, 072001 (2017)

    2017

  27. [34]

    Deng, X.-G

    W.-T. Deng, X.-G. Huang, G.-L. Ma, and G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C97, 044901 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. [STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C105, 014901 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. [STAR Collaboration] Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032005 (2024); Phys. Rev. C110, 014905 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Milton, G

    R. Milton, G. Wang, M. Sergeeva, S. Shi, J. Liao, and H. Huang. Phys. Rev. C104, 064906 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 052302 (2014)

    2014

  32. [39]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. X14, 011028 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    Petersen, B

    H. Petersen, B. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. C,88, 044918 (2013)

    2013

  34. [41]

    Schukraft, A

    J. Schukraft, A. Timmins, S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 719, 394 (2013)

    2013

  35. [42]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE Collaboration], Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 777, 151 (2018)

    2018

  36. [43]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C97, 044912 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Acharyaet al.[ALICE Collaboration], J

    S. Acharyaet al.[ALICE Collaboration], J. High Energy Phys.09, 160 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    Khachatryanet al.[CMS Collaboration], Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C92, 034911 (2015)

    2015

  39. [46]

    Aaboudet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], Eur

    M. Aaboudet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C78, 142 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 122301 (2021)

    2021

  41. [48]

    Nie [STAR Collaboration], Nucl

    M. Nie [STAR Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121783 (2021)

    2021

  42. [49]

    Z. Xu, B. Chan, G. Wang, A. Tang, H. Huang, Phys. Lett. B848, 138367 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    The accompanying long paper

    [STAR Collaboration] “The accompanying long paper”

  44. [52]

    Z. Xu, G. Wang, A. H. Tang, H. Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 107, L061902 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Anderson et al., Nucl

    M. Anderson et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 659 (2003),

    2003

  46. [54]

    W. J. Llopeet al.[STAR Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A522, 252 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 86, 054908 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Llopeet al.[STAR Collaboration], Nucl

    W.J. Llopeet al.[STAR Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A661, S110 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 162301 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 142301 (2013)

    2013

  51. [59]

    Bichsel, Nucl

    H. Bichsel, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A562, 154 (2006)

    2006

  52. [60]

    Xuet al., Nucl

    Y. Xuet al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A614, 28 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. [STAR Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A968, 163970 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Adleret al., Nucl

    C. Adleret al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A470, 488 (2002)

    2002

  55. [63]

    B. E. Aboonaet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 839, 137779 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Adamset al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys

    J. Adamset al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C73, 34903 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 092301 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    H.j. Xu, J. Zhao, X. Wang, H. Li, Z.W. Lin, C. Shen, F. Wang, Chin. Phys. C42, 084103 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Voloshin, Phys

    S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C98, 054911 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Choudhury, G

    S. Choudhury, G. Wang, W. B. He, Y. Hu and H. Z. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 383 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.[STAR Collaboration], Nature614, 244 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Barlow, Conference on Advanced Statistical Tech- niques in Particle Physics, 2002, pp

    R. Barlow, Conference on Advanced Statistical Tech- niques in Particle Physics, 2002, pp. 134–144

    2002

  63. [71]

    Zellner, An Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp

    A. Zellner, An Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 41–53 (1971). ISBN 0-471-98165-6

    1971

  64. [72]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.[STAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C106, 034908 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Ikeda, D

    K. Ikeda, D. E. Kharzeev, and Y. Kikuchi, Phys. Rev. D 103, L071502 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    H. Li, X. Xia, X. G. Huang and H. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 108, 044902 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    A. P. Huang, X. Y. Wu and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094032 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Yan and X.-G

    L. Yan and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D107, 094028 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    A. J. Mizher, M. N. Chernodub, and E. S. Fraga, Phys. Rev. D82, 105016 (2010)

    2010

  70. [78]

    Shreyasiet al.[ALICE Collaboration], Phys

    A. Shreyasiet al.[ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 856, 138862 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.