Search for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ from $\overline{\mathrm{p}}+{}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ femtoscopy in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =5.36$ TeV with ALICE

Giorgio Alberto Lucia (on behalf of the ALICE Collaboration)

REVIEW

Search for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ from $\overline{\mathrm{p}}+{}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ femtoscopy in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =5.36$ TeV with ALICE

Giorgio Alberto Lucia (on behalf of the ALICE Collaboration)

Nuclear Experiment · Submitted 28 Oct 2026 · 16 references

Pith's verdict: First 4Li search: honest null and a new upper limit, but the single-Sill resonance template leaves the limit and the thermal-model comparison shape-dependent.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on October 31, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 1 major objection · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.38549 (version 1)

Pith IDYF6ZXOEU, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationGiorgio Alberto Lucia (on behalf of the ALICE Collaboration). "Search for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ from $\overline{\mathrm{p}}+{}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ femtoscopy in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =5.36$ TeV with ALICE." arXiv:2610.38549 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YF6ZXOEU

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is the first reported search for 4Li in heavy-ion collisions, and it is an honest null. The 2.1 sigma excess is not dressed up as a signal; the 95% upper limit of 1.02e-6 is the least stringent after systematic variations; and the comparison with Thermal-FIST is clearly labeled as suggesting overproduction, not proving it.

What is new: the femtoscopy method is standard ALICE, but using pbar+3He correlations to reconstruct a resonant antinucleus is new, and the upper limit is a genuinely new constraint. The paper gives proper credit: the p-3He correlation prediction in Ref. [5] is the foundation, and the source radius and lambda treatment follow Ref. [9]. I do not see circularity; the fit parameters are extracted from data and the external inputs come from published sources.

The main soft spot is the resonance template. Section 2 says one Sill function with the ground-state mass and width describes all four 4Li states because their shapes are expected to be similar, but no derivation or sensitivity test is shown. The stress-test note is right that this matters: with Q around 4 MeV, a few MeV difference in resonance mass moves the k* peak by tens of MeV/c, and the four-state superposition should be broader than the single ground-state Sill. The raw yield is extracted from the fit amplitude through Eq. 1, so the limit and the thermal-model comparison inherit whatever shape bias exists. The null result at 2.1 sigma is robust; the numerical limit and the interpretation are not. The full paper should either justify the shape with a concrete spectral calculation or vary it and show how the limit changes.

Minor points: the 4He comparison is at 5.02 TeV while the limit is at 5.36 TeV; probably a small effect, but it deserves a sentence. The Thermal-FIST prediction for 4Li is not quoted numerically, so the margin behind the statement that the model exceeds the upper limit is invisible. The neglected hyperon-3He strong interaction and uncorrelated misidentified-pair assumptions are acknowledged; they are reasonable for a source of 7 fm and should be revisited in the main analysis.

Who this is for: people working on light-nucleus production, femtoscopy, and thermal versus coalescence models. I would send it to peer review rather than desk reject: it is a first measurement with honest statistics, and the shape issue is fixable with additional checks. I would cite it as the first 4Li upper limit once the full analysis is available.

Referee report

Significance

If the assumptions behind the resonance template can be supported, this is a useful first experimental constraint on a never-observed antinucleus and sharpens the distinction between thermal and coalescence production for resonant A=4 states. The statistical treatment is appropriately conservative: a 2.1 sigma excess is not promoted to a signal, the upper limit is constructed with pseudo-experiments, and the quoted value is the least stringent one after varying source radius, lambda parameters, and selection criteria. Model inputs such as the source radius, Sill mass and width, and lambda purity weights are taken from published sources rather than fitted freely, which reduces the risk of circularity. The paper's main quantitative claim nevertheless depends on one unvalidated spectral assumption, so the numerical limit and the thermal-model tension should be read as conditional until that assumption is tested.

Major objections (1)

[Section 2, Eq. (2)] The claim that a single Sill function with the 4Li ground-state mass (3.751 GeV/c^2) and width (0.006 GeV/c^2) describes the total 4Li resonance contribution, "including the excited states, as their expected shapes are similar to that of the ground state," is the load-bearing assumption of the analysis. It is not derived, and it is not included among the systematic variations (source radius, lambda parameters, signal selection) listed in Section 3. The assumption is not innocuous near threshold: with Q = m(4Li) - m(p) - m(3He) of about 4 MeV, dk*/dM is roughly 10 (GeV/c)/GeV, so the few-MeV mass differences among the four A=4 states shift the k*-space peak by tens of MeV/c and make the combined resonance shape broader than the ground-state-only Sill function. Because A_4Li is extracted by inverting Eq. (1), both the upper limit in Eq. (3) and the thermal-model conclusion in Section 3 are inherited from this template; a broader true spectrum at comparable bump height would give a larger all-state yield, so the quoted limit could understate the true bound and the apparent thermal-model tension could be weakened. The paper should either repeat the extraction with a resonance model that includes the known A=4 masses, widths, and spin weights and add the difference to the systematic uncertainties, or state explicitly that the limit is conditional on the ground-state Sill spectral shape and temper the thermal-model comparison accordingly. The text should also give explicitly how the fitted A_4Li is converted into the raw yield mu, including whether mu represents the sum over all four states or only the ground state.

Minor objections (4)

[Section 3] The thermal comparison uses a 4He measurement at sqrt(s_NN)=5.02 TeV while the 4Li upper limit is at 5.36 TeV; the phrase "a similar collision system" does not quantify the expected energy dependence, so please state explicitly whether the Thermal-FIST curves are evaluated at each energy separately and why the 0.34 TeV difference is negligible for the 4Li/4He ratio.
[Section 3] The raw yield mu is introduced without a defining equation; the inversion of Eq. (1) and the exact role of A_4Li in Eq. (2) should be written out so the reader can see how the upper limit in Eq. (3) follows from the fit.
[Section 3] The paper does not report the fit quality (for example chi2/ndf) or the fitted value of A_4Li; adding these numbers would help the reader assess how much of the correlation is attributed to the resonance and how the upper limit depends on the fit.
[Figure 2 caption] The caption "The measurements are compared to with Thermal-FIST predictions" should read "The measurements are compared with Thermal-FIST predictions."

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

ALICE finds no significant antilithium-4 signal in central lead-lead collisions, and its new yield limit sits below the thermal-model prediction.

The reading

This proceedings paper reports a search for the antinucleus $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ — three antiprotons and one antineutron bound only as short-lived resonances — in the 0–10% most central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.36$ TeV, using femtoscopic correlations of $\overline{\mathrm{p}}{+}{}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ pairs. No significant signal is found: the excess above the interaction-only baseline has a statistical significance of $Z=2.1\sigma$, below the $3\sigma$ threshold for a claim. The paper therefore sets a 95% confidence level upper limit of $1/N_\mathrm{events}\,dN/dy < 1.02\times10^{-6}$ on the production yield. The thermal-model prediction for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ exceeds this limit, while the same model reproduces the measured $^4\mathrm{He}$ yield, suggesting that point-like thermal treatments overestimate the production of resonant, spatially extended nuclear states. As the first resonant nucleus investigated in heavy-ion collisions, $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ turns the $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}/{}^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ ratio into a sensitive probe for testing thermal versus coalescence nucleosynthesis models in high-energy hadronic collisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the femtoscopic correlation function $C(k^*)$, built from the Koonin–Pratt formula as the convolution of the pair source with the two-particle wave function and measured as the normalized ratio of same-event to mixed-event pair distributions. A $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ resonance decay shows up as a bump in $C(k^*)$ at the relative momentum fixed by the state's mass and width; the paper models this bump with a Sill function using the ground-state values $m=3.751$ GeV/$c^2$ and $\Gamma=0.006$ GeV/$c^2$, asserting that the same shape covers the excited states. The non-resonant part of the correlation is carried by the CATS tool, which handles the Coulomb interaction and a square-well strong potential tuned to measured $\mathrm{p}{-}{}^3\mathrm{He}$ phase shifts, plus a residual $\Sigma^+{-}{}^3\mathrm{He}$ Coulomb term and an uncorrelated background set to unity. The source size $R_s=(7.12^{+0.04}_{-0.06})$ fm is fixed from the measured charged-particle multiplicity. The fit's resonance normalization $A_{4\mathrm{Li}}$ carries the physics: inverted, it gives the raw yield whose upper limit is the paper's headline result.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a non-observation with a quantitative consequence. Using femtoscopic correlations of $\overline{\mathrm{p}}{+}{}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ pairs in the 0–10% most central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.36$ TeV, ALICE sees an excess with significance $Z=2.1\sigma$ in a $3\sigma$ window around the expected ground-state position — a hint, but not a signal. The raw yield from the fit is propagated through Poisson-sampled pseudo-experiments, with systematic variations of the source radius, the $\lambda$ weights, and the signal selection, and the least stringent result, corrected for acceptance, efficiency, and rapidity coverage, is quoted as a 95% confidence level upper limit $1/N_\mathrm{events}\,dN/dy < 1.02\times10^{-6}$. Placed next to the measured $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ yield in central Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV, the limit bounds the $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}/{}^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ ratio. The conclusion the authors draw is that the thermal-model prediction for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ exceeds this limit even though the same model agrees with the $^4\mathrm{He}$ measurement, so the thermal description overestimates production of this resonant state; two-body coalescence models stay compatible but depend strongly on the assumed $^4\mathrm{Li}$ radius and wave function.

Load-bearing premise

The upper limit stands or falls with the assertion that a single Sill function with the $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ ground-state mass and width describes the whole resonance contribution, including the excited states whose shapes the paper states are similar to the ground state without deriving or varying that shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Thermal-model descriptions of light-nucleus production would need to incorporate resonance structure and spatial extent, not just mass and spin, to survive comparison with this limit.
The $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}/{}^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ ratio, with its denominator measured in central Pb–Pb collisions, becomes a direct discriminator between thermal and coalescence production mechanisms.
Coalescence-model fits to the limit will constrain the $^4\mathrm{Li}$ wave function and radius, which the paper identifies as the largest uncertainties in those predictions.
With accumulated Run 3 and Run 4 statistics, the $2.1\sigma$ excess can either mature into the first observation of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$, turning the limit into a yield measurement, or fade and tighten the bound.
A quantified upper limit on $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ sharpens the hadronic-production baseline that any dark-matter search using antinuclei as indirect probes must subtract.

Reading between the lines

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

The single-Sill-function ansatz is the silent partner of the headline limit: re-extracting the yield with a realistic sum over the four known $^4\mathrm{Li}$ levels could move the number, so the thermal-model tension is best read as conditional on that shape.
Running the same femtoscopy pipeline on proton–$^3\mathrm{He}$ and antiproton–$^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ pairs in pp, p–Pb, and other Pb–Pb centralities would map how resonant-antinucleus production scales with source size, a scaling on which thermal and coalescence models differ and which a single centrality point cannot constrain.
If the thermal overshoot survives scrutiny, the natural synthesis — left implicit by the paper — is that resonant composites form with a size-dependent probability near kinetic freeze-out, interpolating between the point-like thermal picture and the wave-function-sensitive coalescence picture.

Original abstract

In these proceedings, the search for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions with ALICE is presented. The particle is reconstructed via its two-body decay channel $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}} \rightarrow \overline{\mathrm{p}} + {}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$, using femtoscopic correlations. A dedicated analysis procedure has been developed to subtract the correlated and uncorrelated $\overline{\mathrm{p}} + ^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ combinatorial background. The production yield of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ is compared with that of $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$. Owing to the presence of several $^4\mathrm{Li}$ resonances and their spin degeneracy, the production of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ is expected to be enhanced with respect to the compact $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$, making this new measurement a sensitive probe for testing nucleosynthesis models in high-energy hadronic collisions.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-10-30: 1 request, 4,561 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.10 · states limitation 0.10 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.48 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.79 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In these proceedings, the search for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions with ALICE is presented. The particle is reconstructed via its two-body decay channel $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}} \rightarrow \overline{\mathrm{p}} + {}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$, using femtoscopic correlations. A dedicated analysis procedure has been developed to subtract the correlated and uncorrelated $\overline{\mathrm{p}} + ^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ combinatorial background. The production yield of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ is compared with that of $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$. Owing to the presence of several $^4\mathrm{Li}$ resonances and their spin degeneracy, the production of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ is expected to be enhanced with respect to the compact $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$, making this new measurement a sensitive probe for testing nucleosynthesis models in high-energy hadronic collisions.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	In these proceedings, the search for $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions with ALICE is presented.	contribution 0.99	0.81	0.04	asserted 0.88
s1	The particle is reconstructed via its two-body decay channel $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}} \rightarrow \overline{\mathrm{p}} + {}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$, using femtoscopic correlations.	method 0.99	0.88	0.04	asserted 1.00
s2	A dedicated analysis procedure has been developed to subtract the correlated and uncorrelated $\overline{\mathrm{p}} + ^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ combinatorial background.	method 0.99	0.91	0.03	asserted 1.00
s3	The production yield of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ is compared with that of $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$.	contribution 0.50	0.86	0.07	asserted 0.95
s4	Owing to the presence of several $^4\mathrm{Li}$ resonances and their spin degeneracy, the production of $^4\overline{\mathrm{Li}}$ is expected to be enhanced with respect to the compact $^4\overline{\mathrm{He}}$, making this new measurement a sensitive probe for testing nucleosynthesis models in high-energy hadronic collisions.	interpretation 0.77	0.09	0.22	hedged possibility 0.73

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.58.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Left panel: femtoscopic correlation function for the

**Figure 2.** 95% confidence level upper limit to the 4Li production in central Pb-Pb collisions (black arrow), compared to the measured yield of 4He in central Pb-Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV [6]. The measurements are compared to with Thermal-FIST predictions [14]. References [1] D. Ali Hassan Abdallah, et al., Wave-Function Femtometry: Hypertriton - The Ultimate Halo Nucleus (4 2026). arXiv:2604.07949. [2] A. Ibarra, S. Wild, Prospects of antideuteron detection from dark matter annihilations or decays at AMS-02 and GAPS, JCAP 02 (2013) 021. arXiv:1209.5539, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/021

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2610.38549 by the authors.

References

Works cited (16)

[5]

S. Bazak, S. Mrowczynski, Production of 4Li andp− 3He correlation function in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (7) (2020) 193. arXiv:2001.11351, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00198-6

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[9]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Femtoscopic study of the proton-proton and proton-deuteron systems in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 871 (2025) 139921. arXiv:2505.01061, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139921

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[1]

D. Ali Hassan Abdallah, et al., Wave-Function Femtometry: Hypertriton - The Ultimate Halo Nucleus (4 2026). arXiv:2604.07949

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[2]

A. Ibarra, S. Wild, Prospects of antideuteron detection from dark matter annihilations or decays at AMS-02 and GAPS, JCAP 02 (2013) 021. arXiv:1209.5539, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[3]

D. R. Tilley, et al., Energy levels of light nuclei A=4, Nucl. Phys. A 541 (1992) 1–104. doi:10.1016/0375- 9474(92)90635-W

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0375- 1992
[4]

J. Cerny, et al., 4Li and the excited levels of 4He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965) 300–303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.300

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.15.300 1965
[6]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of (anti)alpha production in central Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 858 (2024) 138943. arXiv:2311.11758, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138943

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[7]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), First Measurement ofA=4 Hypernuclei and Antihypernuclei at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (16) (2025) 162301. arXiv:2410.17769, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162301

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[8]

M. A. Lisa, et al., Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 357–402. arXiv:nucl-ex/0505014, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151533

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[10]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Centrality dependence of charged-particle pseudorapidity density at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at√sNN =5.36TeV (2025). arXiv:2504.02505. 4

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[11]

D. L. Mihaylov, et al., A femtoscopic Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schrödinger equation (CATS), Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (5) (2018) 394. arXiv:1802.08481, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5859-0

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[12]

T. V . Daniels, et al., Spin-Correlation Coefficients and Phase-Shift Analysis forp+ 3He Elastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 034002. arXiv:1003.5860, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.034002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[13]

F. Giacosa, et al., A simple alternative to the relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (12) (2021)

View on Pith 2021
[14]

V . V ovchenko, H. Stoecker, Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244 (2019) 295–310. arXiv:1901.05249, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.024

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[15]

V . V ovchenko, et al., Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p , p -Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 100 (5) (2019) 054906. arXiv:1906.03145, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054906. 5

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[336]

arXiv:2106.03749, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00641-2

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [5]

S. Bazak, S. Mrowczynski, Production of 4Li andp− 3He correlation function in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (7) (2020) 193. arXiv:2001.11351, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00198-6

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[2] [9]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Femtoscopic study of the proton-proton and proton-deuteron systems in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 871 (2025) 139921. arXiv:2505.01061, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139921

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

D. Ali Hassan Abdallah, et al., Wave-Function Femtometry: Hypertriton - The Ultimate Halo Nucleus (4 2026). arXiv:2604.07949

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[4] [2]

A. Ibarra, S. Wild, Prospects of antideuteron detection from dark matter annihilations or decays at AMS-02 and GAPS, JCAP 02 (2013) 021. arXiv:1209.5539, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/02/021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[5] [3]

D. R. Tilley, et al., Energy levels of light nuclei A=4, Nucl. Phys. A 541 (1992) 1–104. doi:10.1016/0375- 9474(92)90635-W

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0375- 1992

[6] [4]

J. Cerny, et al., 4Li and the excited levels of 4He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965) 300–303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.300

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevlett.15.300 1965

[7] [6]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Measurement of (anti)alpha production in central Pb–Pb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 858 (2024) 138943. arXiv:2311.11758, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138943

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[8] [7]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), First Measurement ofA=4 Hypernuclei and Antihypernuclei at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (16) (2025) 162301. arXiv:2410.17769, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162301

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[9] [8]

M. A. Lisa, et al., Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 357–402. arXiv:nucl-ex/0505014, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151533

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[10] [10]

S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Centrality dependence of charged-particle pseudorapidity density at midrapidity in Pb-Pb collisions at√sNN =5.36TeV (2025). arXiv:2504.02505. 4

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[11] [11]

D. L. Mihaylov, et al., A femtoscopic Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schrödinger equation (CATS), Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (5) (2018) 394. arXiv:1802.08481, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5859-0

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[12] [12]

T. V . Daniels, et al., Spin-Correlation Coefficients and Phase-Shift Analysis forp+ 3He Elastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 034002. arXiv:1003.5860, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.034002

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[13] [13]

F. Giacosa, et al., A simple alternative to the relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (12) (2021)

View on Pith 2021

[14] [14]

V . V ovchenko, H. Stoecker, Thermal-FIST: A package for heavy-ion collisions and hadronic equation of state, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244 (2019) 295–310. arXiv:1901.05249, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.06.024

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[15] [15]

V . V ovchenko, et al., Canonical statistical model analysis of p-p , p -Pb, and Pb-Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 100 (5) (2019) 054906. arXiv:1906.03145, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054906. 5

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[16] [336]

arXiv:2106.03749, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00641-2

View on Pith Pith review arXiv