Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

This paper shows that a normalizing-flow surrogate of the proton–proton emission source, fit to 49 LHC correlation functions, reduces antinuclei coalescence uncertainties from factors of 10–1000 to a few-to-ten percent.

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

2026-08-01 07:21 UTC pith:GPOPSV7K

load-bearing objection Ambitious and well-engineered pipeline, but the headline uncertainty reduction is only partly earned; the cosmic-ray extrapolation sits on an untested energy-independence assumption. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21689 v1 pith:GPOPSV7K submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.HE hep-ph

Light Antinuclei Coalescence: Femtoscopic Constraints via Neural-Flow Surrogates

M. Korwieser , L. Fabbietti , B. Hashemi , L. Heinrich , M. Mahlein , D. L. Mihaylov , C.S. Zeyn This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE hep-ph
keywords cosmic-ray antinucleicoalescencefemtoscopysource functionnormalizing flowsCECA source modelB2/B3 coalescence parametersdark matter indirect detection
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 paper argues that the dominant uncertainty in cosmic-ray antinuclei production—the shape of the proton–neutron emission source—can be removed by combining femtoscopy with machine learning. The authors train a normalizing-flow surrogate of the CECA source model on 49 proton–proton correlation functions from LHC collisions, spanning several multiplicity classes and transverse-mass bins, and fit all 49 simultaneously. Using the established scaling of the source with event multiplicity and pair transverse mass, they extrapolate from TeV-scale collisions to the low-multiplicity GeV regime where cosmic rays produce antinuclei. Propagated through a Wigner-function coalescence model, this data-constrained source reduces the uncertainty on the deuteron coalescence parameter B2 from a factor of 10–100 to a few percent (plus a ~15% wavefunction systematic) and on the three-nucleon parameter B3 from about a factor of 1000 to ~10% in the measured kinematic range. If correct, this makes predictions of the secondary antinuclei background for dark-matter searches quantitatively controlled.

Core claim

Working in the coalescence picture of light-nucleus formation, the paper shows that the femtoscopic source function S(r*) for proton–proton pairs—extracted from 49 correlation functions via the Koonin–Pratt equation with a high-precision strong interaction—can be represented by a fast, differentiable normalizing-flow surrogate of the CECA source model. Because the source scales with multiplicity and transverse mass rather than with collision energy, the authors fit LHC data at sqrt(s) = 13 and 13.6 TeV across four multiplicity classes and seven mT bins, then extrapolate along a linear eigenmode of the fit to low multiplicity (<dNch/deta> <~ 5), the regime relevant for cosmic-ray interactions

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conditional normalizing-flow surrogate of CECA (Common Emission in CATS), an effective femtoscopic source model parametrized by three parameters: core radius rd, shape h, and lifetime tau. The flow maps a Gaussian latent distribution through invertible transformations to the resonance-deformed, non-Gaussian source distribution S(r* | rd,h,tau; k*, mT), and is trained on 1.84 x 10^8 samples from 2300 CECA configurations. It reduces a single source evaluation by over 100x, making a simultaneous fit of all 49 correlation functions possible. The extrapolation is carried by the empirical mT–multiplicity scaling of the source—the claim that in small systems the emiss

Load-bearing premise

The whole extrapolation stands or falls on the scaling premise that the proton–proton emission source is fixed by event multiplicity and pair transverse mass rather than by collision energy—a regime with no direct data, where the mT extrapolation systematic is estimated by truncating to the lowest measured bin rather than by a validated model.

What would settle it

A direct femtoscopic measurement of p–p correlations at sqrt(s) ~ 24 GeV with multiplicity <dNch/deta> ~ 2–5, compared with the multiplicity-extrapolated LHC source at matched mT; if the inferred source radius and shape disagree by more than the quoted uncertainty, the scaling premise is falsified. A published deuteron spectrum from the ongoing SPS fixed-target program whose B2(pT) deviates from the surrogate-based band by more than the combined uncertainty would also falsify the coalescence prediction.

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

If this is right

  • Secondary antideuteron and antihelium flux predictions for dark-matter indirect searches become reproducible at the few-to-ten percent level rather than spanning factors of 10–1000.
  • The source functions replace pion-pair proxies in coalescence calculations, removing a known bias from long-lived resonance contributions that overestimates radii by up to a factor of three.
  • The framework accepts new femtoscopic measurements from the energy range of interest (sqrt(s) ~ 20–30 GeV) as direct constraints, without retraining the surrogate.
  • The A=3 predictions place antihelium-3/antitriton coalescence on a controlled footing for the first time, and the same pipeline can be extended to heavier antinuclei.
  • The differentiable surrogate sets up an end-to-end inference route from correlation functions through coalescence to galactic propagation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper explicitly sets aside proton–Lambda correlations to avoid interaction-model systematics; with improved hyperon potentials, feeding those channels through the same surrogate would constrain the source with a second isospin sector and test the universality of the extracted geometry.
  • Because the surrogate is differentiable and the full chain is modular, one could invert the direction of inference: instead of predicting B2 from femtoscopic data, fit cosmic-ray antinuclei measurements (once they exist) to the source parameters, making the coalescence calculation part of a Bayesian analysis of future observations.
  • The ~15% wavefunction systematic for B2 is at present irreducible in the paper's approach, but a matched pair of chiral potentials for the two- and three-nucleon sectors would bring the B2 and B3 wavefunction systematics under a single consistent framework.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter trains a conditional normalizing-flow surrogate for the CECA femtoscopic source model, fits it to 49 ALICE p–p correlation functions at √s = 13 and 13.6 TeV, and then extrapolates the source in multiplicity and transverse mass to the low-multiplicity regime relevant for cosmic-ray antinuclei production. Using the ToMCCA coalescence afterburner, the authors compute B2 and B3 and claim that uncertainties shrink from factors of 10–100 and ~1000 to the few-percent and ten-percent level, respectively, in the measured kinematic range. The paper includes closure tests on withheld CECA configurations, a reproduction of the published Run-2 CECA fit, and a comparison with a preliminary NA61/SHINE B2 band.

Significance. The methodological core is genuinely useful: replacing expensive CECA simulations with a differentiable surrogate, validating it on held-out configurations, and using femtoscopic data to constrain the coalescence source is a step forward for antinuclei predictions. If the extrapolation assumptions are correct, the impact on cosmic-ray antinuclei searches and dark-matter interpretations is substantial. However, the headline uncertainty reduction depends on an energy-scaling hypothesis that is not yet empirically established, and the current external benchmark is preliminary. The paper is therefore significant but not yet fully convincing as a basis for quantitative cosmic-ray flux predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'Crucially...' and Appendix A] The central extrapolation from LHC pp collisions (√s=13/13.6 TeV, ⟨dNch/dη⟩≈2.55 and higher) to the cosmic-ray regime (√s≈24 GeV, ⟨dNch/dη⟩≲5) rests on the assertion that the source scales with multiplicity but not collision energy. This is supported only by a three-point linear fit in (η,ξ) eigenmode space using the three MB classes, with the extrapolation target 2.2 below the lowest anchor (2.55). The NA61/SHINE comparison in Fig. 2 is a useful but weak check: the B2 band is preliminary, reconstructed by Lévy-Tsallis fits to spectra with bootstrap propagation. I ask for a quantitative test of energy independence using existing ALICE pp femtoscopic data at √s=7 TeV [38] at matched multiplicity, or an explicit uncertainty penalty for unvalidated energy extrapolation. Without this, the few-percent uncertainty claim is not supported in the cosmic-ray regime.
  2. [Full-dataset fit, χ²/NDF = 1.39] The statement that the NF surrogate simultaneously describes all 49 correlation functions with χ²/NDF = 1.39 is not interpretable as written because NDF is not reported. Since the fit quality is the main evidence that CECA captures the source geometry, please report NDF, per-class χ², and the treatment of bin-to-bin correlations. If NDF is large the quoted value is uninformative; if small it changes the significance. This is a reporting gap in a load-bearing result.
  3. [mT-extrapolation systematic; Fig. 2] The systematic for pT/A < 0.4 GeV/c is estimated by 'truncating the source to the lowest measured mT range.' This is an arbitrary proxy for extrapolation and is not a validated model of the mT dependence below the measured range. It does not cover the possibility that the source shape changes at low mT (e.g. due to resonance composition or radial flow), nor does it address energy dependence. Since the cosmic-ray flux is dominated by low kinetic energies, this truncation procedure is load-bearing for the claimed uncertainty reduction below 0.4 GeV/c. Please justify the procedure against a physics-motivated alternative or use a more conservative systematic.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2] The Fig. 2 legend shows 'ToMCCA-B3 ×360' while the caption says the B3 prediction is scaled by a factor of 30 for visual clarity. Please harmonize the stated scaling factor.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A1)] There is an unbalanced parenthesis in Eq. (A1): lnL_M^i,s((r_d,h,τ|m_T^(i)) has an extra opening parenthesis. Please correct.
  3. [Appendix D] 'SciPi.optimize.curve fit' should be 'scipy.optimize.curve_fit'.
  4. [Abstract and Fig. 2] The abstract's 'few percent and ten-percent level' should be qualified by pT range: Fig. 2 shows the source uncertainty reaching up to 23% below 0.4 GeV/c. The abstract currently overstates the uniformity of the uncertainty reduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: source parameters are fit to correlation functions, B2/B3 are independent coalescence-model outputs checked against external measurements.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The normalizing-flow surrogate is trained on CECA simulations and validated on held-out CECA configurations (Supplemental B/C), the CECA parameters are fit to 49 ALICE p-p correlation functions, and the resulting source functions are then fed into the independent ToMCCA coalescence afterburner to compute B2 and B3. The B2 prediction is not statistically forced by the fit: it is a different observable related to the source through the Wigner-function coalescence integral, and it is benchmarked against the external ALICE B2 measurement and the preliminary NA61/SHINE band. The closure test against Ref. [50] is a sanity check, not the load-bearing evidence; the direct fit to ALICE data (chi2/NDF=1.39) carries the constraint. Citations to CECA, CATS, and ToMCCA are self-citations in the sense of prior work by the same group, but these are externally falsifiable models anchored to data, not unverified theorems or imported uniqueness arguments. The central physical extrapolation assumption — that the source scales with multiplicity rather than collision energy — is stated as an input from the literature and is a limitation/correctness risk, not a definitional circularity. The paper explicitly flags the preliminary nature of the NA61/SHINE comparison and the exclusion of the HM class from the linear fit, but these are honesty statements about the evidence, not attempts to disguise an input as a prediction. No quoted equation or fitted parameter reduces by construction to the claimed B2/B3 output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities (no new particles, forces, dimensions). Its free parameters are the fitted CECA source parameters and the linear multiplicity-scaling coefficients. The load-bearing axioms are the p-p→p-n substitution, the multiplicity-scaling extrapolation, and the linear eigenmode model — all domain assumptions or ad hoc to the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • rd, h, tau (CECA source parameters) = grid-scanned/fitted to ALICE data; best-fit values not numerically quoted in the visible text
    The three CECA parameters are the free parameters of the source model, fit jointly to the 49 ALICE correlation functions. They are the central fitted quantities of the paper.
  • Eigenmode rotation angle theta and linear scaling slopes/intercepts in (eta, xi) = fit to the three MB multiplicity classes
    The multiplicity extrapolation relies on the principal-axis rotation theta converting (h,tau) to (eta,xi) and linear fits in each eigenmode. These are data-derived fit values; the extrapolation below ⟨dNch/dη⟩~2.55 is the core claim, made without additional free parameters but with a fitted linear model.
  • Thermal-model parameters (temperature, volume) via Thermal-FIST = anchored to [58] / [32,42]
    CECA's resonance contributions are anchored to thermal-model calculations whose parameters are fit to ALICE data. This enters the source model upstream and is not a free parameter of this paper's fit, but it is a parameterized model input.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The p–p correlation source S(r*) can be substituted for the p–n source under isospin symmetry at matched mT and multiplicity (Sec. 'In this Letter...').
    The entire B2 prediction uses p–p femtoscopic sources as a proxy for p–n emission. If isospin symmetry is broken in the source (e.g., different resonance contributions), B2 is shifted. The paper cites the isospin argument but does not quantify the error from this substitution; no systematic is assigned to it.
  • domain assumption The emission source scales with multiplicity and mT, not collision energy, so TeV ALICE data constrain the source at cosmic-ray energies (Sec. 'Crucially, the emission source in small systems scales with event multiplicity but not collision energy...').
    This is the load-bearing extrapolation premise. The paper cites Refs. [41] but no data exist at low multiplicity/energy; the systematic test performed (truncating to lowest mT) does not validate the energy/multiplicity scaling.
  • standard math The Koonin–Pratt equation with high-accuracy potentials (Argonne v18/N4LO) and the CATS framework yields robust inference of S(r*) from C(k*) (Sec. 2 'The p–p interaction... is known to high accuracy.')
    This is standard femtoscopic methodology, but it assumes the correctness of CATS and the potentials. Given the paper's own dependence on these, it's a standard-domain assumption rather than ad hoc.
  • standard math The equal-time, on-shell, and smoothness approximations in the coalescence model are valid (Sec. 2 'three assumptions...')
    The paper states on-shell and smoothness give sub-percent corrections at LHC energies [37], and equal-time is standard. This is a standard assumption, but it is load-bearing for the B2 expression.
  • ad hoc to paper Multiplicity parametrization via a linear model in (eta, xi) holds down to ⟨dNch/dη⟩~2.2 (Appendix A).
    The linear fit is anchored at the three MB classes (~2.55, 10-50%, 50-100%) and extrapolated to ~2.2 for NA61/SHINE. No data or physical model justifies the linear extrapolation in this range; the HM class is excluded because it doesn't fit the scaling. This is an ad-hoc extrapolation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13245 in / 9130 out tokens · 68016 ms · 2026-08-01T07:21:37.119390+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Precise predictions of cosmic-ray antinuclei fluxes, a prime dark matter signature, are limited by the lack of data constraining production rates of antinuclei. We mitigate this bottleneck with a fast, differentiable normalizing-flow surrogate for the femtoscopic source model (CECA), fit to 49 ALICE proton-proton correlation functions, and extrapolated via scaling laws to the low-multiplicity domain relevant for cosmic rays. The surrogate reproduces CECA with sub-percent emulation fidelity, yielding data-constrained source functions that remove the dominant uncertainty in coalescence-based antinuclei production rates. The resulting uncertainties on the coalescence parameters $B_2$ and $B_3$ shrink from factors of 10-100 and ${\sim}$1000 to the few percent and ten-percent level, respectively, with an additional ${\sim}15\%$ wavefunction systematic for $B_{2}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21689 by B. Hashemi, C.S. Zeyn, D. L. Mihaylov, L. Fabbietti, L. Heinrich, M. Korwieser, M. Mahlein.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the resulting pT -differential coalescence parameter B2(pT/A) compared to NA61/SHINE prelimi￾nary data [51, 52] and the ALICE MB measurement [64], with which our prediction is consistent at the 0.84σ level. The NA61/SHINE results are preliminary and no B2 is published, so it is constructed by fitting the proton [52] and deuteron [51] spectra with a L´evy-Tsallis function and calculating Eq. 1. The un… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Likelihood eigenmode decomposition and multiplic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.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

68 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln, Helv

    F. Zwicky, Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln, Helv. Phys. Acta6, 110 (1933)

    1933

  2. [2]

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., Rotation of the An- dromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions, Astrophys. J.159, 379 (1970)

    1970

  3. [3]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark Matter, No journal information (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Aprileet al.(XENON), WIMP Dark Matter Search Using a 3.1 Tonne-Year Exposure of the XENONnT Experiment, Phys

    E. Aprileet al.(XENON), WIMP Dark Matter Search Using a 3.1 Tonne-Year Exposure of the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 221003 (2025), arXiv:2502.18005 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    D. S. Akeribet al.(LZ), Searches for Light Dark Matter and Evidence of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scat- tering of Solar Neutrinos with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, (2025), arXiv:2512.08065 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combination and summary of ATLAS dark matter searches interpreted in a 2HDM with a pseudo-scalar mediator using 139 fb−1 of s=13 TeV pp collision data, Sci

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Combination and summary of ATLAS dark matter searches interpreted in a 2HDM with a pseudo-scalar mediator using 139 fb−1 of s=13 TeV pp collision data, Sci. Bull.69, 3005 (2024), arXiv:2306.00641 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Dark sector searches with the CMS experiment, Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Dark sector searches with the CMS experiment, Phys. Rept.1115, 448 (2025), arXiv:2405.13778 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    S. Abdollahiet al.(Fermi-LAT, HA WC, H.E.S.S., MAGIC, VERITAS), Combined dark matter search towards dwarf spheroidal galaxies with Fermi-LAT, HA WC, H.E.S.S., MAGIC, and VERITAS, JCAP03, 035, arXiv:2508.20229 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  10. [10]

    Donato, N

    F. Donato, N. Fornengo, and P. Salati, Anti-deuterons as a signature of supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rev. D62, 043003 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9904481

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  11. [11]

    K. Blum, K. C. Y. Ng, R. Sato, and M. Takimoto, Cosmic rays, antihelium, and an old navy spotlight, Phys. Rev. D96, 103021 (2017), arXiv:1704.05431 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Korsmeier, F

    M. Korsmeier, F. Donato, and N. Fornengo, Prospects to verify a possible dark matter hint in cosmic antipro- tons with antideuterons and antihelium, Phys. Rev. D 97, 103011 (2018), arXiv:1711.08465 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Aguilaret al.(AMS), The Alpha Magnetic Spectrom- eter (AMS) on the International Space Station: Part II — Results from the first seven years, Phys

    M. Aguilaret al.(AMS), The Alpha Magnetic Spectrom- eter (AMS) on the International Space Station: Part II — Results from the first seven years, Phys. Rept.894, 1 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Aoyamaet al.(GAPS), The General Antiparticle Spectrometer (GAPS) Antarctic Balloon Payload, No journal information (2026), arXiv:2604.19830 [astro- ph.IM]

    K. Aoyamaet al.(GAPS), The General Antiparticle Spectrometer (GAPS) Antarctic Balloon Payload, No journal information (2026), arXiv:2604.19830 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    von Doetinchemet al., Cosmic-ray antinuclei as mes- sengers of new physics: status and outlook for the new decade, JCAP08, 035, arXiv:2002.04163 [astro-ph.HE]

    P. von Doetinchemet al., Cosmic-ray antinuclei as mes- sengers of new physics: status and outlook for the new decade, JCAP08, 035, arXiv:2002.04163 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    Maurinet al., Precision cross-sections for advancing cosmic-ray physics and other applications: A comprehen- sive programme for the next decade, Phys

    D. Maurinet al., Precision cross-sections for advancing cosmic-ray physics and other applications: A comprehen- sive programme for the next decade, Phys. Rept.1161, 1 (2026), arXiv:2503.16173 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    K. M. Ferriere, The interstellar environment of our galaxy, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 1031 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0106359

    arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    ˇSerkˇ snyt˙ eet al., Reevaluation of the cosmic an- tideuteron flux from cosmic-ray interactions and from 6 exotic sources, Phys

    L. ˇSerkˇ snyt˙ eet al., Reevaluation of the cosmic an- tideuteron flux from cosmic-ray interactions and from 6 exotic sources, Phys. Rev. D105, 083021 (2022), arXiv:2201.00925 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Abgrallet al.(NA61), NA61/SHINE facility at the CERN SPS: beams and detector system, JINST9, P06005, arXiv:1401.4699 [physics.ins-det]

    N. Abgrallet al.(NA61), NA61/SHINE facility at the CERN SPS: beams and detector system, JINST9, P06005, arXiv:1401.4699 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    M. Unger (NA61/SHINE), Fragmentation Cross Sec- tions for the Understanding of Cosmic-Ray Transport in the Galaxy: Results and Prospects from NA61/SHINE, PoSICRC2025, 146 (2025), arXiv:2510.17973 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    J. G. Messchendorpet al.,Hadron Physics Opportunities at F AIR, Tech. Rep. (2025) white Paper of the ’QCDat- F AIR’ initiative, arXiv:2512.15986

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Bursche, H

    A. Bursche, H. P. Dembinski, P. Di Nezza, M. Ferro- Luzzi, F. Fleuret, G. Graziani, G. Manca, E. A. Mau- rice, N. Neri, L. L. Pappalardo, P. Robbe, M. Schmelling, M. A. Winn, and V. Zhukov,Physics opportunities with the fixed-target program of the LHCb experiment using an unpolarized gas target, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Deuteron identification via time of flight with LHCb, Eur

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Deuteron identification via time of flight with LHCb, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1329 (2025), arXiv:2508.06305 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Observation of deuteron and antideuteron formation from resonance-decay nucleons, Nature648, 306 (2025), arXiv:2504.02393 [nucl-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Observation of deuteron and antideuteron formation from resonance-decay nucleons, Nature648, 306 (2025), arXiv:2504.02393 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Bellini, K

    F. Bellini, K. Blum, A. P. Kalweit, and M. Puccio, Examination of coalescence as the origin of nuclei in hadronic collisions, Phys. Rev. C103, 014907 (2021), arXiv:2007.01750 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Kachelriess, S

    M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko, and J. Tjemsland, On nuclear coalescence in small interacting systems, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 167 (2021), arXiv:2012.04352 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Mrowczynski, Deuteron formation mechanism, J

    S. Mrowczynski, Deuteron formation mechanism, J. Phys., G13, 1089–1097 (1987)

    1987

  28. [28]

    Blum and M

    K. Blum and M. Takimoto, Nuclear coalescence from correlation functions, Phys. Rev. C99, 044913 (2019), arXiv:1901.07088 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    Mahlein, L

    M. Mahlein, L. Barioglio, F. Bellini, L. Fabbietti, C. Pinto, B. Singh, and S. Tripathy, A realistic coales- cence model for deuteron production, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 804 (2023), arXiv:2302.12696 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Scheibl and U

    R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C59, 1585 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  31. [31]

    Fabbietti, V

    L. Fabbietti, V. Mantovani Sarti, and O. Vazquez Doce, Study of the Strong Interaction Among Hadrons with Correlations at the LHC, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 377 (2021), arXiv:2012.09806 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Common femtoscopic hadron- emission source in pp collisions at the LHC, Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Common femtoscopic hadron- emission source in pp collisions at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 198 (2025), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 86, 12 (2026)], arXiv:2311.14527 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Ali Hassan Abdallahet al.(ALICE), Multiplicity dependence of the size of the common hadron emis- sion source in pp collisions at the LHC, (2026), arXiv:2606.28098 [nucl-ex]

    D. Ali Hassan Abdallahet al.(ALICE), Multiplicity dependence of the size of the common hadron emis- sion source in pp collisions at the LHC, (2026), arXiv:2606.28098 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    S. T. Butler and C. A. Pearson, Deuterons from high- energy proton bombardment of matter, Phys. Rev.129, 836 (1963)

    1963

  35. [35]

    J. I. Kapusta, Mechanisms for deuteron production in rel- ativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C21, 1301 (1980)

    1980

  36. [36]

    Sato and K

    H. Sato and K. Yazaki, On the coalescence model for high energy nuclear reactions, Physics Letters B98, 153 (1981)

    1981

  37. [37]

    I. G. Smith and K. Blum, Corrections to the Smoothness and On-Shell Approximations in Femtoscopy and Coales- cence, No journal information (2026), arXiv:2602.02810 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), p-p, p-Λ and Λ-Λ correlations studied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at √s= 7 TeV, Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), p-p, p-Λ and Λ-Λ correlations studied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at √s= 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. C99, 024001 (2019), arXiv:1805.12455 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    S. E. Koonin, Proton pictures of high-energy nuclear col- lisions, Physics Letters B70, 43 (1977)

    1977

  40. [40]

    Pratt, T

    S. Pratt, T. Cs¨ org˝ o, and J. Zim´ anyi, Detailed predic- tions for two-pion correlations in ultrarelativistic heavy- ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C42, 2646 (1990)

    1990

  41. [41]

    M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Fem- toscopy in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55, 357 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0505014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Search for a common baryon source in high-multiplicity pp collisions at the LHC, Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Search for a common baryon source in high-multiplicity pp collisions at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B811, 135849 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 861, 139233 (2025)], arXiv:2004.08018 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Investigating the p–π ± and p–p–π ± dynamics with femtoscopy in pp colli- sions at √s=13TeV, Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Investigating the p–π ± and p–p–π ± dynamics with femtoscopy in pp colli- sions at √s=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 194 (2025), arXiv:2502.20200 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Femtoscopy with identified charged pions in proton-lead collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV with ATLAS, Phys

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Femtoscopy with identified charged pions in proton-lead collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV with ATLAS, Phys. Rev. C96, 064908 (2017), arXiv:1704.01621 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Two-particle Bose–Einstein cor- relations inppcollisions at √s=13TeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Two-particle Bose–Einstein cor- relations inppcollisions at √s=13TeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 608 (2022), arXiv:2202.02218 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Bose-Einstein correlations of charged hadrons in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV, JHEP03, 014, arXiv:1910.08815 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  47. [47]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Bose-Einstein correlations of same- sign charged pions in the forward region inppcollisions at√s= 7 TeV, JHEP12, 025, arXiv:1709.01769 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Bose-Einstein correlations of same- sign charged pions in the forward region inppcollisions at√s= 7 TeV, JHEP12, 025, arXiv:1709.01769 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    Bellini and A

    F. Bellini and A. P. Kalweit, Testing production scenarios for (anti-)(hyper-)nuclei and exotica at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C99, 054905 (2019), arXiv:1807.05894 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    U. A. Wiedemann and U. W. Heinz, Resonance contri- butions to HBT correlation radii, Phys. Rev. C56, 3265 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9611031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  50. [50]

    Mihaylov and J

    D. Mihaylov and J. Gonz´ alez Gonz´ alez, Novel model for particle emission in small collision systems, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 590 (2023), arXiv:2305.08441 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Shukla, First Deuteron Production Measure- ment in Proton-Proton Interactions at SPS energies by NA61/SHINE, PoSICRC2025, 397 (2025), arXiv:2603.22545 [nucl-ex]

    A. Shukla, First Deuteron Production Measure- ment in Proton-Proton Interactions at SPS energies by NA61/SHINE, PoSICRC2025, 397 (2025), arXiv:2603.22545 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Kowalski and E

    S. Kowalski and E. Zimmerman (NA61/SHINE),Report from the NA61/SHINE experiment at the CERN SPS, Tech. Rep. (CERN, Geneva, 2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, An Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge indepen- dence breaking, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995), arXiv:nucl- th/9408016

    arXiv 1995

  54. [54]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs, and E. Epelbaum, Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two-nucleon poten- tials up to fifth order, Eur. Phys. J. A54, 86 (2018), arXiv:1711.08821 [nucl-th]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    D. L. Mihaylov, V. Mantovani Sarti, O. W. Arnold, L. Fabbietti, B. Hohlweger, and A. M. Mathis, A fem- toscopic Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schr¨ odinger equation (CATS), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 394 (2018), arXiv:1802.08481 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Thermal-FIST: A pack- age for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state, Comput. Phys. Commun.244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Vovchenko, B

    V. Vovchenko, B. D¨ onigus, and H. Stoecker, Canoni- cal statistical model analysis of p-p , p -Pb, and Pb- Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C100, 054906 (2019), arXiv:1906.03145 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Rezende and S

    D. Rezende and S. Mohamed, Variational inference with normalizing flows, inProceedings of the 32nd Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 37, edited by F. Bach and D. Blei (PMLR, Lille, France, 2015) pp. 1530–1538

    2015

  60. [60]

    T. Gl¨ usenkamp, Unifying supervised learning and V AEs: coverage, systematics and goodness-of-fit in normalizing- flow based neural network models for astro-particle reconstructions, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 163 (2024), arXiv:2008.05825 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Mahlein, C

    M. Mahlein, C. Pinto, and L. Fabbietti, ToMCCA: a Toy Monte Carlo Coalescence Afterburner, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1136 (2024), arXiv:2404.03352 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Mahlein, B

    M. Mahlein, B. Singh, M. Viviani, F. Bellini, L. Fabbietti, A. Kievsky, and L. E. Marcucci, ToMCCA-3: A realistic 3-body coalescence model, Submitted to EPCJ (2025), arXiv:2504.02491 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, and R. B. Wiringa, Quantum Monte Carlo calculations of A<= 6 nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4396 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9502031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  64. [64]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (Anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Eur

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (Anti-)deuteron production in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 889 (2020), arXiv:2003.03184 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Werner, I

    K. Werner, I. Karpenko, T. Pierog, M. Bleicher, and K. Mikhailov, Event-by-Event Simulation of the Three- Dimensional Hydrodynamic Evolution from Flux Tube Initial Conditions in Ultrarelativistic Heavy Ion Colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C82, 044904 (2010), arXiv:1004.0805 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  66. [66]

    Evoli, D

    C. Evoli, D. Gaggero, D. Grasso, and L. Maccione, Cosmic-Ray Nuclei, Antiprotons and Gamma-rays in the Galaxy: a New Diffusion Model, JCAP10, 018, [Erra- tum: JCAP 04, E01 (2016)], arXiv:0807.4730 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko, Propagation of cosmic-ray nucleons in the galaxy, Astrophys. J.509, 212 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  68. [68]

    Virtanenet al., SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nature Medicine17, 261 (2020), arXiv:1907.10121 [cs.MS]

    P. Virtanenet al., SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python, Nature Medicine17, 261 (2020), arXiv:1907.10121 [cs.MS]. 8 Supplemental Material Femtoscopy-Constrained Light Antinuclei Coalescence: Bridging Colliders and Cosmic Rays with Neural-Flow Surrogates Appendix A: CECA Multiplicity Parametrization via Likelihood Eigenmode ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020