Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 29 references

First evidence of a strange dibaryon in heavy-ion collisions

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 16:01 UTC pith:F7OQX3SS

load-bearing objection First experimental evidence for a p-Omega strange dibaryon from STAR femtoscopy, plus new BES-II fluctuation and correlation results — but the bound-state claim rests on source-function assumptions that this proceedings does not fully justify. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07254 v1 pith:F7OQX3SS submitted 2026-07-08 nucl-ex hep-exnucl-th

Recent highlights from the STAR Experiment

Rutik Manikandhan This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-exnucl-th PACS 25.75.Gz25.75.Dw13.75.Ev21.45.-v
keywords strange dibaryonfemtoscopic correlationsproton-Omega interactionQCD phase diagrambeam energy scannet-proton cumulantsbaryon-strangeness correlationsscattering length
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.

This proceedings paper presents a suite of STAR measurements from the Beam Energy Scan program at RHIC, spanning collision energies from 3 to 200 GeV, that collectively probe the QCD phase diagram for signatures of a critical point and the nature of strongly interacting matter. Among the results—net-proton cumulants showing deviations from hadronic baselines at low energies, a non-monotonic energy dependence in transverse momentum correlations not reproduced by transport models, and baryon-strangeness correlations tracing a transition from hadronic to partonic degrees of freedom—the most striking new claim is the first experimental evidence for a strange dibaryon. Femtoscopic correlation analysis of proton–Omega pairs in 200 GeV isobar collisions yields a negative scattering length between −4 and −5 fm, indicating a predominantly attractive interaction. The extracted binding energy of 1–3 MeV is consistent with lattice QCD predictions for a weakly bound p–Omega state in the strangeness S = −3 sector, specifically in the spin-averaged and quintet (J = 2) channels. The paper argues that this constitutes evidence for a bound state rather than a purely scattering interaction, and that the full set of measurements—fluctuations, correlations, and femtoscopy—provides complementary constraints on the QCD equation of state and the ongoing search for the critical point.

Core claim

The central discovery is the extraction of a negative scattering length (f0 between −4 and −5 fm) for the proton–Omega interaction from femtoscopic correlation functions measured in 200 GeV isobar collisions, which the authors present as the first experimental evidence of a strange dibaryon: a weakly bound p–Omega state with a binding energy of 1–3 MeV in the strangeness S = −3 sector, consistent with lattice QCD predictions for the J = 2 quintet state. The paper frames this within a broader program where multiple observables—net-proton cumulants, transverse momentum correlations, baryon-strangeness correlations, and identical-pion femtoscopy—each constrain different aspects of the QCD phase

What carries the argument

The load-bearing technique is femtoscopic correlation analysis: two-particle momentum correlations measured at low relative momentum are sensitive to the strong final-state interaction between the particle pair. By fitting the correlation function with a model parameterized by scattering length (f0) and effective range (d0), one extracts the strong-interaction potential parameters. A negative scattering length signals an attractive interaction; when combined with the effective range, it can indicate the existence of a bound state. The same femtoscopic framework is applied to pion–pion pairs (probing source geometry) and p–Xi pairs (probing another hyperon–nucleon channel), while fluctuation-

Load-bearing premise

The extraction of the proton–Omega scattering parameters assumes that the femtoscopic correlation function is dominated by the strong final-state interaction, and that the source function, residual Coulomb effects, and particle feed-down from heavier resonances are fully accounted for. If the source geometry or residual correlations are mis-modeled, the negative scattering length could be an artifact of the fitting procedure rather than evidence of a bound state.

What would settle it

A femtoscopic measurement with improved source-function control or in a different collision system that yields a positive or near-zero scattering length for the proton–Omega pair, or a binding energy inconsistent with the 1–3 MeV range predicted by lattice QCD, would undermine the dibaryon claim.

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

If this is right

  • If the p–Omega bound state is confirmed, it adds a new entry to the spectrum of hadronic bound states predicted by QCD and provides direct experimental input on the hyperon–nucleon interaction in the strangeness S = −3 sector.
  • The extracted scattering parameters constrain the equation of state of dense baryonic matter relevant to neutron star interiors, where hyperon interactions determine whether exotic degrees of freedom appear at high density.
  • The non-monotonic energy dependence of the pT correlator in central collisions, if confirmed with higher precision, could signal thermodynamic changes near a critical point, though no definitive signature is claimed yet.
  • The baryon-strangeness correlation data showing a transition from hadronic to partonic behavior across the BES energy range provides a phenomenological boundary on the crossover region of the QCD phase diagram.
  • The net-proton cumulant deviations at fixed-target energies motivate further measurements at even lower energies to determine whether the enhancement grows toward a critical point or reflects other dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the p–Omega bound state exists with a binding energy of 1–3 MeV, it could affect the composition of neutron star matter at densities where Omega baryons might appear, potentially softening the equation of state and altering the mass-radius relationship—though the relevance depends on whether such states survive in dense matter at finite temperature and chemical potential.
  • The femtoscopic method could be extended to other strangeness sectors (e.g., Xi–Xi or Omega–Omega pairs) to systematically map the baryon–baryon interaction landscape and test whether additional dibaryon states predicted by lattice QCD can be detected experimentally.
  • Cross-correlating the non-monotonic pT correlation signal with the net-proton cumulant deviations at overlapping energies could test whether both observables respond to the same underlying thermodynamic change, strengthening or weakening the critical-point interpretation.
  • The agreement between the extracted p–Omega binding energy and lattice QCD predictions for the J = 2 state, but not necessarily other spin channels, suggests that spin-resolved femtoscopic analyses with higher statistics could distinguish between competing theoretical models of the hyperon–nucleon potential.

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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution summarizes recent STAR results from the Beam Energy Scan-II program, covering net-proton cumulants, transverse momentum correlations, baryon-strangeness correlations, and femtoscopic measurements of identical pions and baryon-baryon pairs. The energy range spans sqrt(sNN) = 3 to 200 GeV. The most prominent new result is the femtoscopic study of p–Omega correlations in 200 GeV isobar collisions, which the authors interpret as the first experimental evidence for a strange dibaryon (a weakly bound p–Omega state). The paper is a conference proceedings summarizing preliminary results, and its scope and depth are consistent with that genre.

Significance. The paper provides a useful compendium of STAR BES-II highlights. The p–Omega femtoscopic result is potentially significant as the first experimental constraint on the S = -3 hyperon-nucleon interaction, with implications for neutron star equations of state. The net-proton cumulant and pT correlation results provide incremental but important constraints on QCD critical point searches. The baryon-strangeness correlation results offer a diagnostic of partonic versus hadronic degrees of freedom across the phase diagram. The breadth of observables and the wide energy range are strengths. However, several key results are labeled 'STAR Preliminary' and reference conference talks rather than peer-reviewed publications, which limits the depth of systematic scrutiny possible in this venue.

major comments (5)
  1. §2.4.2 (p–Omega analysis): The claim of 'first experimental evidence of a strange dibaryon' is the most load-bearing assertion in the paper. The extraction of f0 and d0 depends on the assumed source function, but the proceedings does not describe how the source radius was determined for p–Omega pairs. Since the p–Omega^- system is oppositely charged, Coulomb FSI produces an attractive enhancement at low relative momentum that is qualitatively similar to an attractive strong interaction. The separation of Coulomb and strong contributions in the Lednicky-Lyuboshits formalism depends critically on the assumed source radius R. For pion femtoscopy (§2.4.1), R is well-constrained by identical-pion HBT, but the Omega is a rare, multi-strange baryon that may freeze out at different times and through different mechanisms. The proceedings should at minimum state what source radius was used, how it
  2. §2.4.2, Fig. 6(b): The binding energy is quoted as 1–3 MeV and compared to HAL QCD and QDCSM predictions. However, the text does not specify how the binding energy was derived from the extracted scattering parameters (f0, d0), nor what systematic uncertainty accompanies this derivation. The contour plot in Fig. 6(a) shows 1sigma–3sigma confidence regions for f0 and d0, but the propagation of these uncertainties to the binding energy is not shown. Given that the bound-state claim requires specific conditions on f0 and d0, the proceedings should state the relationship used and the resulting uncertainty band on the binding energy.
  3. §2.1 (net-proton cumulants): The text reports 'significant enhancement of the cumulants relative to baseline expectations' at fixed-target energies and a deviation at sqrt(sNN) = 19.6 GeV with 'approximately 2–5sigma' significance for C4/C2. The wide range (2–5sigma) suggests that the significance depends on which baseline model is used and which uncertainty sources are included. The proceedings should clarify which baseline yields 2sigma and which yields 5sigma, and whether the significance includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. Without this, the reader cannot assess the robustness of the deviation.
  4. §2.2 (pT correlations): The non-monotonic energy dependence of the scaled correlator in central collisions is highlighted as a potentially critical signature, and the text notes that UrQMD and AMPT 'are unable to quantitatively reproduce' it. However, the proceedings does not discuss whether known non-critical effects (e.g., volume fluctuations, centrality selection biases, resonance decays) have been evaluated as alternative explanations. The statement that 'the discrepancy may suggest the presence of additional physics mechanisms' is speculative without such checks. The authors should at least acknowledge these alternative sources and indicate whether they have been ruled out.
  5. Several key results (net-proton cumulants Ref. 16, pT correlations Ref. 20, baryon-strangeness Ref. 21, p–Omega Ref. 26) cite conference talks presented at Quark Matter 2025 rather than peer-reviewed publications. While this is understandable for a proceedings contribution, it means that full systematic details are unavailable for the reader or referee to verify. The authors should clearly label all such results as preliminary throughout the text (some are labeled 'STAR Preliminary' only in §2.4.2) and add a note in the Summary about the preliminary status of each claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2.1: The reference numbers in the text appear to be mismatched with the reference list. For example, the hydrodynamical model with excluded volume is cited as Ref. 12 in the figure caption but as Ref. 13 in the text, and the thermal model with canonical treatment is cited as Ref. 13 in the caption but Ref. 12 in the text. Please reconcile.
  2. §2.1: The kinematic acceptance for fixed-target energies is given as -0.5 < y - y_cm < 0, while collider energies use |y| < 0.5. The text should briefly explain why the acceptance is asymmetric for fixed-target and how this affects comparability between fixed-target and collider results.
  3. §2.3: The baryon-strangeness correlation observable is discussed but its mathematical definition is not given. A brief definition or reference to the specific observable used would help the reader.
  4. §2.4.1: The text mentions a 'slight decrease of R_side and a gradual increase of R_long' with increasing collision energy, but does not discuss R_out. A brief comment on the R_out trend would be valuable.
  5. Fig. 2 caption: 'AMPT19 (0-5%) and (30-40%) shown as pink (grey) bands' — the parenthetical color assignments are ambiguous. Please clarify which color corresponds to which centrality.
  6. The abstract states 'Au+Au collisions' but the p–Omega results (§2.4.2) use isobar collisions (Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr). The abstract should reflect this or the text should note the collision system difference.
  7. §2.4.2: The text refers to 'p–Omega^-' and 'p-bar–Omega^+' pairs. The notation should be consistent throughout (e.g., using overline notation for antiparticles) to improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurements compared against independent theoretical benchmarks

full rationale

This is an experimental proceedings paper presenting STAR measurements (net-proton cumulants, transverse momentum correlations, baryon-strangeness correlations, femtoscopy) and comparing them against external theoretical calculations (UrQMD, HAL QCD, FRG, LQCD, hydrodynamics with excluded volume, HRG canonical ensemble). The measurements are obtained from detector data and are independent of the theoretical models they are compared against. The p-Omega bound-state claim rests on fitting femtoscopic correlation functions to extract scattering parameters (f_0, d_0), and the resulting binding energy is then compared to HAL QCD predictions—the extraction does not assume the HAL QCD result. Self-citations to STAR Collaboration papers and conference proceedings are standard experimental references, not load-bearing circular dependencies. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on standard femtoscopic formalism and heavy-ion modeling baselines. The p-Omega bound state is not invented ad hoc but is an experimentally extracted parameter set compared against external theoretical predictions.

free parameters (2)
  • Femtoscopic source parameters (R_inv, R_out, R_side, R_long) = Not explicitly stated
    The source size parameters used in the femtoscopic fitting of p-Omega correlations are fitted to the data; their values are not detailed in this proceedings text.
  • Scattering length f_0 and effective range d_0 = f_0 between -4 and -5 fm
    These strong-interaction parameters are extracted by fitting the p-Omega correlation function; they are the central result of the dibaryon analysis.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The femtoscopic correlation function can be factorized into a source function and a two-particle wave function governed by the Lednicky-Lyuboshits formalism.
    Invoked implicitly in §2.4.2 to extract scattering parameters from measured correlation functions.
  • domain assumption Non-critical baselines from UrQMD and HRG models correctly capture hadronic physics, so deviations indicate critical or partonic physics.
    Used throughout §2.1-2.3 to interpret deviations from these models as signals of new physics.
  • domain assumption Baryon-strangeness correlation values from FRG/LQCD represent the partonic limit.
    Invoked in §2.3 to interpret the high-energy data approaching deconfined quark degrees of freedom.
invented entities (1)
  • Strange dibaryon (p-Omega bound state) independent evidence
    purpose: Explains the observed negative scattering length and attractive interaction in p-Omega correlations.
    The paper provides a falsifiable experimental handle (the extracted scattering length and binding energy) that can be checked against independent lattice QCD calculations and future measurements.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 11101 in / 2277 out tokens · 471330 ms · 2026-07-09T16:01:54.615498+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Understanding the QCD phase structure and the possible existence of a critical point remains one of the central goals of the heavy-ion program at RHIC. In this proceeding, we present recent STAR results across multiple observables that probe different aspects of the hot and dense matter created in Au+Au collisions. These include two-particle transverse momentum correlations of mean transverse momentum, net-proton cumulants up to fourth order, identical-pion femtoscopy, and baryon-strangeness correlations. We also discuss femtoscopic measurements of baryon-baryon pairs, which provide insight into hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions and the possible formation of strange dibaryon states. Together, these results provide complementary probes of the system's evolution across a wide collision-energy range (sqrt(sNN) = 3-200 GeV), offering new constraints on the QCD equation of state and the location of the QCD critical point.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07254 by Rutik Manikandhan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Net-proton cumulant ratios: (a) C2/⟨p+¯p⟩, (b) C3/C1, and (c) C4/C2, and proton factorial cumulant ratios: (d) κ2/κ1, (e) κ3/κ1, and (f) κ4/κ1 in Au+Au collisions. The bars and bands on the data points represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. Theoretical calculations from a hydrodynamical model with excluded volume12 (Hydro, blue dashed line), a thermal model with canonical treatme… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The relative dynamical correlation in Au+Au 0–5% central collisions from this analysis, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Collision-energy dependence of the baryon–strangeness correlation observable in Au+Au [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Collision-energy dependence of the femtoscopic radii extracted from identical-pion HBT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Extracted p–Ξ− scattering length parameter f0 from femtoscopic correlation analyses in Au+Au, Ru+Ru, and Zr+Zr collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV. The combined result from all collision systems is also shown and compared with theoretical predictions from HAL QCD calculations. Figure taken from Ref.26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Contour plot of the effective range d0 versus scattering length f0 for p − Ω− and p¯− Ω+ pairs measured in 200 GeV isobar collisions (Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr). The red and blue points indicate the best-fit values, with 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ confidence contours shown. (b) Binding energy extracted for the spin-averaged and J = 2 (quintet) states compared with theoretical predictions from HAL QCD and the Quark Delocaliz… 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

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Stephanov, K

    M. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal and E. Shuryak,Phys. Rev. D60, 114028 (Nov 1999), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.114028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.114028 1999

  2. [2]

    Stephanov, K

    M. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal and E. Shuryak,Physical Review Letters81, 4816 (November 1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4816

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.4816 1998

  3. [3]

    M. A. Stephanov,Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 052301 (Jul 2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLet t.107.052301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlet 2011

  4. [4]

    STAR Collaboration (M. S. A. et al.),Phys. Rev. C104, 024902 (August 2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024902

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.024902 2021

  5. [5]

    STAR Collaboration (M. I. Abdulhamidet al.),Nature635, 67 (2024), arXiv:2401.06625 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08097-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08097-2 2024

  6. [6]

    Collaboration),Rept

    STAR Collaboration (S. Collaboration),Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 108601 (2025), arXiv:2506.17785 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ae0fc3. July 9, 2026 0:45 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE ws-ijmpa 10R. Manikandhan

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ae0fc3 2025

  7. [7]

    Gavin and G

    S. Gavin and G. Moschelli,Phys. Rev. C85, 014905 (Jan 2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRe vC.85.014905

    work page doi:10.1103/physre 2012

  8. [8]

    Gavin,Phys

    S. Gavin,Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 162301 (Apr 2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.16230 1

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.16230 2004

  9. [9]

    V. Koch, A. Majumder and J. Randrup,Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 182301 (Oct 2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.182301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.182301 2005

  10. [10]

    Properties of the QCD Matter -- An Experimental Review of Selected Results from RHIC BES Program

    J. Chenet al.,Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024),arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex], doi: 10.1007/s41365-024-01591-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s41365-024-01591-2 2024

  11. [11]

    STAR Collaboration (M. S. A. et al.),Phys. Rev. C107, 024908 (February 2023), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.024908

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.024908 2023

  12. [12]

    Vovchenko, V

    V. Vovchenko, V. Koch and C. Shen,Phys. Rev. C105, 014904 (Jan 2022), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.014904

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.105.014904 2022

  13. [13]

    Braun-Munzinger, B

    P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Friman, K. Redlich, A. Rustamov and J. Stachel,Nuclear Physics A1008, 122141 (April 2021), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122141

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2021.122141 2021

  14. [14]

    S. A. Bass,Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics41, 255 (1998), doi:10.1016/S0 146-6410(98)00058-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0 1998

  15. [15]

    Bleicher, E

    M. Bleicher, E. Zabrodin, C. Spieles, S. A. Bass, C. Ernst, S. Soff, L. Bravina, M. Belka- cem, H. Weber, H. St”ocker and W. Greiner,Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Par- ticle Physics25, 1859 (September 1999), doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/25/9/308 1999

  16. [16]

    Sweger, Proton high-order cumulants results from the star fixed-target program (2025), Presented at Quark Matter 2025

    Z. Sweger, Proton high-order cumulants results from the star fixed-target program (2025), Presented at Quark Matter 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Collision Energy Dependence of $p_{\rm t}$ Correlations in Au+Au Collisions at RHIC

    STAR Collaboration Collaboration (J. Adamet al.),Phys. Rev. C99, 044918 (2019), arXiv:1901.00837 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044918

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.044918 2019

  18. [18]

    ALICE Collaboration (B. B. Abelevet al.),Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3077 (2014), arXiv:1407.5530 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3077-y

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3077-y 2014

  19. [19]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Chen and C. Zhang,Phys. Rev. C111, 024911 (Feb 2025), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.111.024911

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Manikandhan, Dynamical transverse momentum fluctuations at high baryon den- sity measured by the star experiment (2025), Presented at Quark Matter 2025

    R. Manikandhan, Dynamical transverse momentum fluctuations at high baryon den- sity measured by the star experiment (2025), Presented at Quark Matter 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Feng, Baryon-strangeness correlations in au+au collisions at rhic-star (2025), Pre- sented at Quark Matter 2025

    H. Feng, Baryon-strangeness correlations in au+au collisions at rhic-star (2025), Pre- sented at Quark Matter 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Bollweg, H.-T

    D. Bollweg, H.-T. Ding, J. Goswami, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky and C. Schmidt,Phys. Rev. D110, 054519 (Sep 2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054519

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.054519 2024

  23. [23]

    Pratt,Phys

    S. Pratt,Phys. Rev. D33, 1314 (Mar 1986), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.1314

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.33.1314 1986

  24. [24]

    STAR Collaboration (V. B. Luong),Phys. Part. Nucl.55, 822 (2024), doi:10.1134/ S1063779624700278

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Charged pion production in $\mathbf{Au+Au}$ collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{NN}}}$ = 2.4$\mathbf{GeV}$

    HADES Collaboration (J. Adamczewski-Muschet al.),Eur. Phys. J. A56, 259 (2020), arXiv:2005.08774 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00237-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00237-2 2020

  26. [26]

    Zhang, Search for the strange dibaryons with baryon correlations in isobar collisions at star (2025), Presented at Quark Matter 2025

    K. Zhang, Search for the strange dibaryons with baryon correlations in isobar collisions at star (2025), Presented at Quark Matter 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Iritani, S

    T. Iritani, S. Aoki, T. Doi, F. Etminan, S. Gongyo, T. Hatsuda, Y. Ikeda, T. Inoue, N. Ishii, T. Miyamoto and K. Sasaki,Physics Letters B792, 284 (May 2019), doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.050 2019

  28. [28]

    Lednicky and V

    R. Lednicky and V. L. Lyuboshits,Yad. Fiz.35, 1316 (1981)

    work page 1981

  29. [29]

    Y. Yan, Q. Huang, Y. Yang, H. Huang and J. Ping, Investigating thep-ωinteraction and correlation functions (2025)

    work page 2025