Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Simulations show spectator nucleons create a low-pT enhancement in light-nucleus spectra that standard Blast-Wave fits miss, so extrapolated yields in peripheral 3 GeV Au+Au collisions are underestimated.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:57 UTC pith:BJXUQNNT

load-bearing objection A model-based caution about Blast-Wave extrapolation for light nuclei at √sNN=3 GeV, with a genuinely instructive spectator decomposition and an internal consistency check, but the central claim rests on coalescence parameters tuned to the very data it criticizes. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.17273 v2 pith:BJXUQNNT submitted 2025-11-21 hep-ph

Investigation of the Spectator Effect on Light Nuclei Production in Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions at High Baryon Density Region

Hongcan Li , Li'Ang Zhang , Junyi Han , Yaping Wang , Junlin Wu , Guannan Xie , Gao-Chan Yong This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 25.75.-q
keywords light nuclei yieldsspectator effectAMPT-HCcoalescencehigh baryon densitytransverse momentum spectraBlast-Wave extrapolationAu+Au collisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether the standard way of obtaining full light-nucleus yields—fitting measured transverse-momentum spectra and extrapolating to low pT—misses a real component. Using a transport model with an after-burner coalescence model, it finds that in peripheral Au+Au collisions at √sNN=3 GeV, spectator nucleons (nucleons that never suffered an inelastic collision) produce a distinct low-pT bump in proton, deuteron, and triton spectra, especially at backward rapidity. A Blast-Wave fit to the measured acceptance cannot describe that bump, so the pT-integrated yields obtained by fitting lie below the true full-pT integral. Applying the same acceptance and fitting method to the model makes it match published data, implying the published data themselves may be systematically low; the model's raw integral overshoots them.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a measurable fraction of light nuclei at √sNN=3 GeV originate from spectator nucleons that retain their initial longitudinal and Fermi momentum and coalesce into deuterons and tritons at low transverse momentum. This spectator component grows from central to peripheral collisions and from mid- to backward rapidity. Because standard Blast-Wave extrapolation of pT spectra above the experimental acceptance does not reproduce this low-pT bump, dN/dy values computed by fitting are systematically lower than the true pT-integrated yield. The paper supports this by showing that the same model, when processed through the same acceptance and fit, reproduces the

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the AMPT-HC transport model, in which spectators are tagged by tracking whether each nucleon underwent an inelastic collision: those that did are participants, all others (including elastically scattered nucleons) are spectators. A two-body coalescence afterburner with an elliptical phase-space window (radial cutoff r_low=0.7 fm, axis r_high=5 fm for deuterons and 2 fm for tritons, momentum cutoff p_high=0.3 GeV/c for deuterons and 0.7 GeV/c for tritons) forms deuterons and tritons from nearby nucleon pairs. The Blast-Wave function supplies the benchmark for how experiments extrapolate measured spectra. The spectator tag is what separates the low-pT bump from the partic

Load-bearing premise

The whole case rests on AMPT-HC's spectator nucleons coalescing into deuterons and tritons with the same efficiency as participants; the model itself underestimates triton yields at mid-rapidity (Sec. 3), which the authors trace to the simplified coalescence afterburner, and the coalescence parameters are tuned to the very data the comparison uses, so the spectator bump is not independently confirmed by data.

What would settle it

Measure the pT spectra of protons, deuterons, and tritons down to pT≈0.1 GeV/c at rapidity y≈−0.9 in 40–80% peripheral Au+Au at √sNN=3 GeV. If the measured spectra lie on the Blast-Wave extrapolation from the pT>0.5/1.0/1.2 GeV/c region, the spectator bump is absent and the underestimate claim fails; if a bump appears below the fit, the claim is supported.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In 40–80% peripheral Au+Au at √sNN=3 GeV, the true pT-integrated yields of protons, deuterons, and tritons exceed those obtained from Blast-Wave extrapolation of the measured pT window, so published dN/dy values in the backward-rapidity region are lower bounds, not full yields.
  • The underestimation is largest at backward rapidity and in peripheral collisions, where the spectator fraction is largest; mid-rapidity central yields are barely affected.
  • The overall centrality dependence of light-nucleus yields is composed of two opposing trends: a participant contribution that grows with centrality and a spectator contribution that shrinks, so a single functional fit over centrality can mask the spectator component.
  • Extracting light-nucleus yields in the high-baryon-density regime requires extending the low-pT acceptance or replacing Blast-Wave fits with functions that explicitly include a spectator term.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the spectator bump is real, the published double-yield ratio (N_t × N_p / N_d^2) at backward rapidity in peripheral collisions would shift, since the three nuclei receive different spectator contributions; the paper does not compute this, but it bears directly on the ratio's use as a QCD phase-transition probe.
  • The mechanism implies the effect grows at lower collision energies, where spectator nucleons carry a larger share of the total momentum; comparing against available fixed-target data near √sNN=2–3 GeV could test this trend.
  • A direct test outside the paper's model: measure the net-proton or light-nucleus pT spectrum at very backward rapidity in a system with a spectator-tagging detector (e.g., a zero-degree calorimeter); a spectator-flavored low-pT excess would confirm the coalescence assumption.
  • The tuning of coalescence parameters to the same STAR data used for comparison means the bump's magnitude is not a free prediction; a cleaner test would fix parameters from mid-rapidity central data and then predict backward-rapidity peripheral yields without refitting.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates spectator-nucleon contributions to light-nucleus (p, d, t) production in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 3 GeV using the AMPT-HC hadronic transport model with an afterburner coalescence model. It decomposes the transverse-momentum spectra into participant, spectator, and mixed components and finds a significant low-pT enhancement from spectator nucleons, particularly in peripheral collisions and backward rapidity. The authors then apply the same limited-acceptance Blast-Wave fitting procedure used by STAR to the model output and show that this reproduces the published STAR dN/dy values, whereas the full-pT integral of the model overestimates the STAR data at backward rapidity. They conclude that conventional extrapolation procedures may systematically underestimate the true pT-integrated light-nucleus yields in this kinematic region.

Significance. If the spectator-driven low-pT enhancement is real, the paper identifies a potentially important systematic effect in the experimental extraction of light-nucleus yields at high baryon density. The study benefits from explicit model-data comparisons, a clear decomposition of the yield into participant/spectator/mixed components, and the self-consistent application of the experimental acceptance and fitting procedure to the model. However, the central claim is conditional on model fidelity: the coalescence parameters are tuned to the same STAR data that the paper later argues are underestimated, and no independent observable constrains the clustering efficiency of spectator nucleons. The paper is therefore a useful model-based caution, but it does not, as written, establish an experimental underestimate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6)] The coalescence parameters (r_high=5 fm, p_high=0.3 GeV/c for d; 2 fm, 0.7 GeV/c for t; r_low=0.7 fm) are scanned to best describe the STAR light-nucleus spectra. The same tuned model then supplies the 'true' full-pT reference in Fig. 3. This is partially circular: the size of the spectator bump is controlled by these parameters, especially the generous r_high=5 fm, and no independent observable fixes spectator-to-cluster efficiency. Please provide a sensitivity study varying r_high/p_high over a physically motivated range (e.g., r_high=3-6 fm) and show how the claimed underestimate changes. Calibrating spectator coalescence on a different observable, such as spectator neutrons or d+Au collisions, would substantially strengthen the claim.
  2. [Fig. 3] The model's full-pT integral overestimates STAR at backward rapidity, while the model evaluated with the same limited-acceptance Blast-Wave procedure (red curves) matches the STAR data. Thus the data are equally consistent with an overestimate of spectator clustering as with an experimental underestimate. The central claim therefore stands or falls on model fidelity, not on the comparison with STAR. Please state this explicitly and discuss alternative interpretations, such as an over-large coalescence radius or insufficient repulsive core in Eq. (6).
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1(a)] The paper concedes that the afterburner coalescence model underpredicts the mid-rapidity triton yield, attributing this to the simplicity of the coalescence model. Since triton production in the spectator regime uses the same mechanism, the claimed triton underestimate at backward rapidity in Fig. 3 is not independently supported. Without a validated triton coalescence description, the triton panel is inconclusive. Please show that the triton bump persists under an alternative coalescence prescription or improve the triton description before drawing strong conclusions.
  4. [Sec. 2.1] Spectators are defined as nucleons that underwent no inelastic collision, including nucleons that underwent elastic scattering. At √sNN=3 GeV elastic cross sections are sizable, so this definition may label as 'spectators' nucleons that have substantially changed momentum. The clean separation into participant/spectator components in Figs. 1 and 5 is therefore model-dependent. Please quantify the robustness of the spectator low-pT peak, for example by comparing with a geometrical Glauber-type spectator definition or by showing that elastic collisions do not wash out the spectator component.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Conclusions] The text speaks of 'forward rapidities' while all backward-rapidity bins shown are at negative y (e.g., -1.0 < y < -0.9). Please clarify the rapidity sign convention and use consistent terminology.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The notation (Δr - r_low)^2 with the additional condition Δr > r_low is slightly confusing: it means that just above r_low the allowed Δp is nearly p_high, so the repulsive core is not very strong. Please clarify the intended physical meaning.
  3. [Fig. 2] The figure legend and labels are hard to read; in particular, the correspondence between line styles and the p, d, t spectra should be made explicit in the caption or legend.
  4. [General] There are minor typos, e.g., 'denisty' in the Introduction and 'participating nucleons' in the Fig. 4 axis label. A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The 'true' full-pT reference is produced by coalescence parameters fitted to the same STAR yields the paper calls underestimates; the spectator bump is an emergent but unvalidated output.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6)]
    "In order to determine the values of r low ,r high and p high that have the best descriptions for the light nuclei yield, we carry out the scan of these three parameters for each light nuclei species. The results of model calculations are obtained using the coalescence parameters for deuteron (triton) r high =5 (2) fm ,p high = 0.3 (0.7) GeV/cand the r low =0.7 (0.7) fm, which are qualitatively consistent with the STAR data in each centrality bin."

    The coalescence window parameters are scanned against the STAR light-nucleus yields, and the same tuned model then supplies the full-pT integrated reference used to declare those STAR yields underestimates. The size of the spectator low-pT bump is controlled by r_high and p_high, so the claimed missing component is not an independent prediction but a consequence of parameters calibrated to the very data whose completeness is being questioned.

  2. other [Sec. 3, Fig. 3]
    "The dN/dy values predicted by the AMPT-HC model (black curves) agree with the STAR data at mid-rapidity, but show a significant overestimation in the backward rapidity region."

    The black curves are full-pT integrals of the same AMPT-HC afterburner whose coalescence parameters were fitted to STAR data. The backward-rapidity overestimation is interpreted as evidence that STAR's Blast-Wave extrapolation misses spectator-driven low-pT production, but it is equally consistent with the model overproducing spectator clusters. No independent observable constrains spectator-nucleon coalescence efficiency, since the STAR points lie above the stated fitting thresholds and the paper itself notes the afterburner underpredicts mid-rapidity tritons.

full rationale

The paper is not formally circular in the sense of Eq. X reducing to Eq. Y: the spectator low-pT bump is an emergent output of AMPT-HC plus coalescence, and the Fig. 3 red-curve exercise is a legitimate internal-consistency check that the model plus STAR-like cuts reproduces the published yields. However, the central quantitative claim—that STAR's Blast-Wave extrapolation underestimates the true pT-integrated light-nucleus yields—rests entirely on the model's full-pT integral, and that model's cluster-formation efficiency is tuned using the same STAR yields. The paper explicitly concedes a related fidelity limitation: 'the mid-rapidity yield of triton is underestimated, which is due to the simple after-burner coalescence model that needs to be improved.' This makes the underestimate claim a calibrated-model interpretation rather than a parameter-free prediction. Because the bump itself is not directly fitted and the red-curve comparison is transparent, the issue is partial circularity (calibration loop) rather than a definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a single tuned model: six coalescence-window parameters fitted to the STAR yields being discussed, one chosen mean-field stiffness, a definitional participant/spectator split, and the assertion that Blast-Wave cannot represent the spectator component. No new physical entities are introduced; the participant/spectator/mixed decomposition is bookkeeping, not a new interaction.

free parameters (7)
  • Deuteron coalescence window r_high = 5 fm
    Sec. 2.2: scanned to give the best description of STAR light-nucleus yields; the outer spatial axis of the coalescence ellipse directly controls the deuteron yield, including the spectator contribution.
  • Deuteron coalescence window p_high = 0.3 GeV/c
    Sec. 2.2: scanned; the momentum axis sets how different two nucleons' momenta can be, controlling coalescence of slow spectator nucleons into low-pT deuterons.
  • Deuteron coalescence lower limit r_low = 0.7 fm
    Sec. 2.2: scanned; short-range repulsion cutoff entering Eq. (6).
  • Triton coalescence window r_high = 2 fm
    Sec. 2.2: scanned; spatial size of the two-step two-body coalescence window for triton formation.
  • Triton coalescence window p_high = 0.7 GeV/c
    Sec. 2.2: scanned; momentum tolerance for consecutive two-body coalescence producing tritons; larger than the deuteron value, inflating low-pT spectator triton production.
  • Triton coalescence lower limit r_low = 0.7 fm
    Sec. 2.2: scanned; same short-range repulsion cutoff used for deuterons.
  • Baryon mean-field incompressibility k0 = 380 MeV
    Eq. (4): chosen value controlling mean-field stiffness (via α, β, γ); affects nucleon trajectories and spectator kinematics at 3 GeV. No sensitivity study is shown.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AMPT-HC with hadronic mean-field potentials faithfully describes hadron transport in Au+Au at √sNN=3 GeV, including the freeze-out phase-space distribution of spectator nucleons.
    Sec. 2.1; the entire magnitude of the claimed underestimate is inherited from this model. The paper validates only the participant-dominated central/mid-rapidity region, not the spectator-dominated kinematics.
  • ad hoc to paper A nucleon that undergoes only elastic scattering (or no collision) is a spectator; only inelastic collisions mark a nucleon as a participant.
    Sec. 2.1: 'nucleons that have undergone elastic process or those that do not participate in collisions at all will be recorded as spectators.' This replaces the position-based Glauber split and by definition assigns all elastically scattered nucleons to the spectator pool, inflating that component.
  • domain assumption Light nuclei form exclusively by two-body phase-space coalescence with fixed elliptic windows (r_low, r_high, p_high), with equal coalescence probability for participant- and spectator-origin nucleons.
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6); the afterburner does not distinguish nucleon origin, so spectator coalescence efficiency equals participant efficiency — a strong assumption controlling the size of the claimed low-pT bump.
  • ad hoc to paper The Blast-Wave function describes the participant (thermal) component but not the spectator component over the extrapolated low-pT range.
    Sec. 3, Figs. 2–3; this is the premise of the underestimation argument. It is asserted from the model's own spectra, not demonstrated independently from data.
  • standard math Standard Woods-Saxon and Thomas-Fermi initial conditions with Au parameters apply; nucleon positions and momenta at t=0 are given by Eqs. (1)–(2).
    Sec. 2.1; standard nuclear structure input, but the specific R and d values for Au are not stated in the text.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 8416 in / 20251 out tokens · 189365 ms · 2026-08-03T20:57:37.767572+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The light nuclei yields and their yield ratios, regarded as sensitive probes of the QCD phase structure, have been extensively measured at various collision energies. However, due to limited detector acceptance, the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated yield is often obtained by extrapolating from the measured $p_{\rm T}$ spectrum to the unmeasured low-$p_{\rm T}$ region using model-based fits. Simulations using AMPT-HC combined with an after-burner coalescence approach indicate a significant enhancement of light nuclei production at low $p_{\rm T}$, particularly in peripheral collisions and at forward rapidities, driven primarily by spectator nucleons. As a result, standard extrapolation procedures may systematically miss this additional low-$p_{\rm T}$ component, leading to an underestimate of the $p_{\rm T}$-integrated light-nucleus yields in such scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17273 by Gao-Chan Yong, Guannan Xie, Hongcan Li, Junlin Wu, Junyi Han, Li'Ang Zhang, Yaping Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Transverse momentum spectra of different components (top panels) and participant component fraction (bottom panels) of p, d and t in Au+Au collisions at √ sNN = 3 GeV. The different color bands are the AMPT-HC model simulation results, black bands are total component, red bands are participant component, blue bands are spectator component, green bands are mixing component. The solid marker points are STAR … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: presents the rapidity density distribution dN/dy of proton, deuteron and triton in peripheral collisions at central￾ity 40-80%. The black curves are obtained by integrating the total pT spectra over the full pT range, while the red curves are derived using both the total pT spectra within a limited ac￾ceptance and the Blast-Wave fitting function from the AMPT￾HC model. The solid black markers represent the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: figure 5. The figure 5 shows the di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different components of total yield as a function of the number of participants nucleons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ohnishi, Phase diagram and heavy-ion collisions: Overview, Prog

    A. Ohnishi, Phase diagram and heavy-ion collisions: Overview, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 193 (2012) 1–10. arXiv:1112.3210,doi:10.1143/PTPS.193.1

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Palni, et al., Dynamics of hot QCD matter 2024 — Bulk properties, Int

    P. Palni, et al., Dynamics of hot QCD matter 2024 — Bulk properties, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 34 (07) 0 100 200 300 7 −105 −103 −101 −1010 2 10Au + Au Collision = 3 GeV NNs0 10×p-2 10×d-4 10×tTot. Part. Spec. Mix. 〉 part.N〈Participanting Nucleons 〉 part.N〈Yield/ Figure 5: Different components of total yield as a function of the number of participants nucleons...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Fodor, S

    Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, Critical point of QCD at finite T and mu, lattice results for physical quark masses, JHEP 04 (2004) 050.arXiv:hep-lat/0402006,doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2004/04/050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Asakawa, K

    M. Asakawa, K. Yazaki, Chiral Restoration at Finite Den- sity and Temperature, Nucl. Phys. A 504 (1989) 668–684. doi:10.1016/0375-9474(89)90002-X

    doi:10.1016/0375-9474(89)90002-x 1989

  5. [5]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, E. V . Shuryak, Signatures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4816–4819.arXiv:hep-ph/9806219,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.81.4816

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Hatta, T

    Y . Hatta, T. Ikeda, Universality, the QCD critical/tri- critical point and the quark number susceptibility, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 014028.arXiv:hep-ph/0210284, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.014028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    STAR Collaboration, Beam Energy Dependence of Triton Production and Yield Ratio (N t ×N p/N2 d) in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 202301.arXiv:2209.08058,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.130.202301. 5

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Steinheimer, K

    J. Steinheimer, K. Gudima, A. Botvina, I. Mishustin, M. Bleicher, H. Stocker, Hypernuclei, dibaryon and antin- uclei production in high energy heavy ion collisions: Thermal production versus Coalescence, Phys. Lett. B 714 (2012) 85–91.arXiv:1203.2547,doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2012.06.069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

    Dönigus, Selected highlights of the production of light (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions, Eur

    B. Dönigus, Selected highlights of the production of light (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion colli- sions, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (11) (2020) 280.doi:10.1140/ epja/s10050-020-00275-w

    2020

  10. [10]

    STAR Collaboration, Production of protons and light nu- clei in Au+Au collisions at sNN=3 GeV with the STAR detector, Phys. Rev. C 110 (5) (2024) 054911.arXiv: 2311.11020,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.110.054911

    arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    B. E. Aboona, et al., Light nuclei femtoscopy and baryon interactions in 3 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 864 (2025) 139412.arXiv:2410.03436,doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139412

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, P. Stein- berg, Glauber modeling in high energy nu- clear collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205–243.arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Gyulassy, X.-N

    M. Gyulassy, X.-N. Wang, Hijing 1.0: A monte carlo program for parton and particle production in high energy hadronic and nuclear collisions, Computer Physics Communications 83 (2) (1994) 307–331.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(94)90057-4. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0010465594900574

    arXiv 1994

  14. [14]

    S. Bass, M. Belkacem, M. Bleicher, M. Brandstetter, L. Bravina, C. Ernst, L. Gerland, M. Hofmann, S. Hof- mann, J. Konopka, G. Mao, L. Neise, S. Soff, C. Spieles, H. Weber, L. Winckelmann, H. Stöcker, W. Greiner, C. Hartnack, J. Aichelin, N. Amelin, Microscopic models for ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Progress in Parti- cle and Nuclear Physics 4...

    doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(98)00058-1 1998

  15. [15]

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, S. Pal, A Multi- phase transport model for relativistic heavy ion colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901.arXiv:nucl-th/ 0411110,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064901

    doi:10.1103/physrevc.72.064901 2005

  16. [16]

    Yong, Z.-G

    G.-C. Yong, Z.-G. Xiao, Y . Gao, Z.-W. Lin, Dou- ble strangenessΞ−production as a probe of nuclear equation of state at high densities, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136521.arXiv:2105.10284,doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2021.136521

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    B. Zhang, Zpc 1.0.1: a parton cascade for ultra- relativistic heavy ion collisions, Computer Physics Communications 109 (2) (1998) 193–206.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(98)00010-1. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0010465598000101

    doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(98)00010-1 1998

  18. [18]

    B.-A. Li, C. M. Ko, Formation of superdense hadronic matter in high-energy heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 52 (1995) 2037–2063.arXiv:nucl-th/9505016,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.52.2037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  19. [19]

    Brown, C.-H

    G. Brown, C.-H. Lee, M. Rho, V . Thorsson, From kaon-nuclear interactions to kaon condensation, Nu- clear Physics A 567 (4) (1994) 937–956.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/0375-9474(94)90335-2. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375947494903352

    arXiv 1994

  20. [20]

    C. Gale, G. Welke, M. Prakash, S. Lee, S. Das Gupta, Transverse momenta, nuclear equation of state, and momentum-dependent interactions in heavy-ion colli- sions, Physical Review C 41 (4) (1990) 1545 – 1552, cited by: 160.doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.41.1545. URLhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record. uri?eid=2-s2.0-4243848848&doi=10.1103% 2fPhysRevC.41.1545&partne...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.41.1545 1990

  21. [21]

    G. F. Bertsch, S. Das Gupta, A Guide to micro- scopic models for intermediate-energy heavy ion colli- sions, Phys. Rept. 160 (1988) 189–233.doi:10.1016/ 0370-1573(88)90170-6

    1988

  22. [22]

    Aboona, et al., Observation of Directed Flow of Hypernuclei HΛ3 and HΛ4 in sNN=3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys

    B. Aboona, et al., Observation of Directed Flow of Hypernuclei HΛ3 and HΛ4 in sNN=3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (21) (2023) 212301.arXiv:2211.16981, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.212301

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Aichelin, E

    J. Aichelin, E. Bratkovskaya, A. Le Fèvre, V . Kireyeu, V . Kolesnikov, Y . Leifels, V . V oronyuk, G. Coci, Parton- hadron-quantum-molecular dynamics: A novel micro- scopicn-body transport approach for heavy-ion colli- sions, dynamical cluster formation, and hypernuclei pro- duction, Phys. Rev. C 101 (4) (2020) 044905.arXiv: 1907.03860,doi:10.1103/PhysRe...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Schnedermann, J

    E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, U. W. Heinz, Ther- mal phenomenology of hadrons from 200-A/GeV S+S collisions, Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 2462–2475. arXiv:nucl-th/9307020,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 48.2462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  25. [25]

    M. I. Abdulhamid, et al., Strangeness production in√sNN =3 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC, JHEP 10 (2024) 139.arXiv:2407.10110,doi:10.1007/ JHEP10(2024)139. 6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024