Differential measurement of global polarization of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=7.7$--$27~\mathrm{GeV}$ from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan-II

The STAR Collaboration

REVIEW

Differential measurement of global polarization of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=7.7$--$27~\mathrm{GeV}$ from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan-II

The STAR Collaboration

Nuclear Experiment · Submitted 2 Nov 2026 · 58 references

Pith's verdict: Careful, genuinely new BES-II differential Λ/Ξ/Ω polarization results that deserve refereeing; the caveat is that the Ω-inclusive common-vorticity claim rests on an unmeasured C_ΩΛ sign branch (≈ +1 vs ≈ −0.6) that the paper acknowledges but still reports with a single branch.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on November 3, 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 ID2611.03237 (version 1)

Pith IDNCFK5BLA, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationThe STAR Collaboration. "Differential measurement of global polarization of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=7.7$--$27~\mathrm{GeV}$ from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan-II." arXiv:2611.03237 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCFK5BLA

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

Quick take: this is a careful, high-statistics STAR measurement that delivers what it claims — the most precise differential Λ, Ξ, and Ω global polarization at BES-II energies, with genuinely new centrality, pT, and rapidity results for the multistrange baryons. The soft spot is exactly where the stress test points: the Ω points, and with them the three-species common-vorticity takeaway, sit on a binary sign assumption the paper itself admits is unmeasured.

What's new: the Ξ centrality/pT/rapidity results at 7.7–27 GeV and the Ω centrality results at 9.2–27 GeV do not appear in the cited literature; the collision-energy dependence and the Λ rapidity dependence belong to the companion paper. The direct-vs-indirect Ξ cross-check is a good internal validation, the two-stage invariant-mass extraction for Ω is a sensible response to the background-Λ-polarization problem, and the systematic accounting — decay parameters, background shapes, KFParticle cuts, event-plane choices — is as transparent as this field gets. The abstract's hedge ('under the stated spin-transfer assumptions') is doing real work.

The main issue is the Ω sign branch. This is not a systematic uncertainty; it is a discrete choice. With α_Ω ≈ 0.0157 and β_Ω small, γ_Ω ≈ ±1, giving C_ΩΛ ≈ +1 or ≈ −0.6. The paper says this plainly in Sec. II.E — that is honest — then plots the +1 branch and keeps Ω inside the species-consistency claim. On the −0.6 branch each Ω point in Fig. 6 flips sign and grows by about 5/3 in magnitude, opposite to Λ and Ξ. The SMASH prediction P_Ω ≈ (5/3)P_Λ favors +1, but that is a model preference, not a measured branch selection. Reporting Ω two-branched, or pulling Ω out of the unified conclusion until γ_Ω is constrained, is the right fix. The Λ and Ξ measurements are unaffected and stand on their own.

Two smaller items. Ref. [31], the companion paper, is a placeholder ('arXiv:arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX'), so the claimed split of new results between the two papers cannot be checked; that must be fixed before journal review. And the Ω systematics are large (30% background, roughly 31–34% total), so even the +1-branch Ω numbers are coarse — the paper acknowledges this, but it means Ω carries less weight than the headline gives it. The tension between the Λ rapidity slope quoted from [31] (0.498 ± 0.103) and the Ξ slopes (0.07 ± 0.70 and 0.71 ± 0.44) is handled honestly: statistically compatible, not resolved.

Who this is for: the heavy-ion spin-vorticity community and the modelers comparing with SMASH IC+CLVisc-type calculations. I would send it to a serious referee. The Λ and Ξ measurements alone justify publication; the Ω branch presentation needs reworking, and nothing about the measurement itself needs to be redone.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the $\Omega$ decay parameters $\gamma_\Omega$ and $\beta_\Omega$ that fixes the sign in $C_{\Omega\Lambda} = \frac{1}{5}(1+4\gamma_\Omega)$ would settle the central assumption: with $C_{\Omega\Lambda} \approx -0.6$, the same daughter-$\Lambda$ data would yield an $\Omega$ polarization of opposite sign, breaking the common-mechanism pattern. Independent of that sign question, the model's quantitative prediction $P_\Omega \simeq \frac{5}{3} P_\Lambda$ at fixed centrality is a concrete target: higher-statistics $\Omega$ data that resolve the $\Omega$ polarization below the $\Lambda$ value, or that resolve any species ordering among $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$, would falsify the common-vorticity picture as stated, as would a resolved $p_T$ or rapidity dependence contradicting the flat behavior reported here.

Referee report

Significance

The Λ and Ξ measurements are a substantial experimental advance: they are the most precise differential hyperon-polarization data at BES-II energies, they include credible internal cross-checks (direct versus indirect Ξ extraction, and the two-stage method validated on Ξ against the conventional invariant-mass approach), and they deliver concrete falsifiable patterns (centrality rise, flat pT, flat Ξ rapidity) that constrain vorticity-based calculations. The authors are appropriately cautious in restricting the SMASH IC+CLVisc comparison to a qualitative level given the feed-down mismatch, and they disclose both the 30% background systematics and the Ω sign ambiguity. The Ω-related part of the headline claim, however, is conceptually different from the Λ and Ξ parts: because the sign of the inferred parent Ω polarization is fixed by assumption, the 'no species difference' statement tests only magnitude under the chosen branch, and the alternative branch would orient Ω opposite to Λ and Ξ. The stress-test concern therefore lands, and the manuscript needs a two-branched or branch-independent presentation of the Ω result before the headline claim can be taken at face value.

Major objections (1)

[Sec. II.E (Eq. (3)); Sec. III.A (Fig. 6); abstract and Sec. IV] The inclusion of Ω in the central claim—'no significant difference in the centrality dependence among Λ, Ξ, and Ω is resolved' (Sec. III.A) and the abstract's common vorticity-driven mechanism across all three species—is contingent on the unresolved sign of γ_Ω. With α_Ω = 0.0157 ± 0.0021 and β_Ω expected small, the normalization α²+β²+γ² = 1 admits γ_Ω ≈ −1, giving C_ΩΛ ≈ −0.6; under that branch every Ω point in Fig. 6 reverses sign and grows in magnitude by a factor of 5/3, so the Ω results would be oriented opposite to Λ and Ξ and the species-consistency claim would fail for Ω. The paper discloses this in Sec. II.E, and I do not treat the disclosure as missing. What remains unresolved is that the abstract, Sec. III.A, and Sec. IV nevertheless present the Ω-inclusive claim as the headline result, no figure or table exhibits the alternative branch, and the consistency of Ω's sign with Λ is partly built in by the choice C_ΩΛ = +1 (Sec. III.A states that this choice 'corresponds to an inferred Ω polarization with the same orientation as Λ'). Because no cited measurement determines sign(γ_Ω), this is a binary ambiguity rather than a component of the quoted systematic uncertainties. I recommend reporting the Ω result two-branched (or quoting the directly measured daughter-Λ polarization as the branch-independent observable) and delimiting the common-mechanism claim to Λ and Ξ, with Ω explicitly flagged as sign-pending, unless the sign ambiguity is resolved.

Minor objections (4)

[Ref. [31]; Sec. III.C] The Λ rapidity slope b = 0.498 ± 0.103 quoted in Sec. III.C is taken from the companion paper Ref. [31], whose identifier is a placeholder ('arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX', 'Companion paper XXX'); this citation must be completed before publication, otherwise the Λ-versus-Ξ rapidity comparison in Secs. III.C and IV cannot be verified.
[Fig. 6] Fig. 6 begins at √sNN = 9.2 GeV, but the text does not state why the 7.7 GeV Ω measurement is absent; adding a sentence attributing this to limited statistics would be helpful.
[Sec. III.C] The |y| fit combines all energies into a single slope, whereas the Λ rapidity slope is described as more prominent at lower collision energies; a sentence stating that the Ξ slope is assumed energy-independent (or showing energy-by-energy slopes) would clarify the interpretation.
[General] The manuscript contains a few typographical artifacts (for example, 'f ´’ur' in the acknowledgements and a truncated sentence at the end of Sec. III.B); these should be cleaned in the final version.

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

The paper

The paper claims

Precise measurements of Λ, Ξ, and Ω global polarization in Au+Au collisions show all three species following the same pattern—stronger polarization in peripheral collisions, no resolved species difference—consistent with a common…

The reading

The paper reports the most precise differential measurements yet of global spin polarization for $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at 7.7–27 GeV per nucleon pair, and it argues that all three species behave as one system: polarization rises toward peripheral collisions, stays flat in transverse momentum where it can be tested, and shows no resolved difference between species. The aim is to test spin–vorticity coupling in the quark–gluon plasma by asking whether strange ($\Lambda$, uds) and multistrange ($\Xi$, dss; $\Omega$, sss) hyperons, which differ in quark content and in how they form, nevertheless acquire their spin alignment from the same global angular momentum source. Because $\Xi$ and $\Omega$ interact weakly with the hadronic medium, they are probes of the early, vortical stage of the collision rather than of the late dilute stage. If the common-mechanism claim holds up at higher statistics, it would pin the origin of hyperon polarization to the rotational motion of the produced matter and constrain how vorticity, magnetic fields, and quark-flavor dynamics each contribute.

What carries the argument

The extraction rests on the weak-decay asymmetry: the daughter baryon is emitted preferentially along the parent spin, so the global polarization is read from the angular distribution of decay products relative to the first-order event plane $\Psi_1$, through $P_H = \frac{8}{\pi \alpha_H} \frac{1}{A_0} \frac{\langle \sin(\Psi_1 - \phi^*_D) \rangle}{\mathrm{Res}(\Psi_1)}$, where $A_0$ is an acceptance correction and $\mathrm{Res}(\Psi_1)$ the event-plane resolution measured with the forward Event Plane Detector. The species ladder is what makes the test discriminating: $\Lambda \to p\pi^-$ is measured directly; $\Xi^- \to \Lambda\pi^-$ is measured both directly with $\alpha_\Xi = -0.401$ and indirectly through the daughter-$\Lambda$ spin using the spin-transfer factor $C_{\Xi\Lambda} = \frac{1}{3}(1+2\gamma_\Xi) = 0.944$, the two methods agreeing within uncertainties; and $\Omega^- \to \Lambda K^-$ is measured only indirectly, through a two-stage invariant-mass procedure that extracts the daughter-$\Lambda$ polarization and converts it via $C_{\Omega\Lambda} = \frac{1}{5}(1+4\gamma_\Omega) \approx +1$. The consistency of the direct and indirect $\Xi$ extractions is the internal validation that the daughter-$\Lambda$ route, on which the $\Omega$ result entirely depends, is sound.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the global polarizations of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ all follow the same pattern: a clear increase toward more peripheral collisions, no significant transverse-momentum dependence for $\Lambda$ and $\Xi$, no significant rapidity dependence for $\Xi$, and $\Xi$ polarization comparable to that of $\Lambda$ within the current precision. The data are read as consistent with a common vorticity-driven polarization mechanism across strange and multistrange hyperons, under the stated spin-transfer assumptions. The $\Omega$ measurement is the delicate piece: because $\alpha_\Omega$ is too small for a direct extraction, the reported $\Omega$ polarization is inferred from the daughter-$\Lambda$ polarization through a two-stage invariant-mass method using $C_{\Omega\Lambda} = \frac{1}{5}(1+4\gamma_\Omega) \approx +1$; the paper states explicitly that the alternative $\gamma_\Omega \approx -1$ solution, with $C_{\Omega\Lambda} \approx -0.6$, would reverse the sign of the inferred $\Omega$ polarization. The claim of species consistency is therefore conditional on that sign choice, and the paper also notes that the model comparison is qualitative because the calculations are for primary hyperons while the measurements include feed-down from decays of heavier hadrons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the choice of the $\Omega$ spin-transfer factor $C_{\Omega\Lambda} \approx +1$, corresponding to the $\gamma_\Omega \approx +1$ solution of the $\Omega$ decay parameters; if the alternative $\gamma_\Omega \approx -1$ solution with $C_{\Omega\Lambda} \approx -0.6$ were the true one, the inferred $\Omega$ polarization would reverse sign and the reported consistency of $\Omega$ with $\Lambda$ and $\Xi$ would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Centrality becomes the controlling variable: the increasing polarization toward peripheral collisions across $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ ties global polarization to the collision geometry and the vorticity it creates, rather than to species-specific production rates.
No species ordering is needed yet: with $\Xi$ comparable to $\Lambda$ and $\Omega$ consistent within its larger uncertainties, quark-content effects (uds, dss, sss) are not required to explain the data at current precision.
The indirect route is validated: the agreement between the direct and daughter-$\Lambda$ extractions of $\Xi$ polarization supports the two-stage method that produces the $\Omega$ result.
Quantitative model tests now require feed-down: because the data are inclusive while the hydrodynamic calculations used for comparison are for primary hyperons, the next decisive comparison needs feed-down, acceptance, and species-dependent freeze-out folded into the theory.
The null $p_T$ and rapidity results constrain the flow field: flat $p_T$ dependence for $\Lambda$ and $\Xi$ and a zero rapidity slope for $\Xi$ restrict how strongly thermal vorticity and shear can vary across momentum and space-time rapidity in the measured range.

Reading between the lines

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

A dedicated determination of $\gamma_\Omega$ would in one step convert the $\Omega$ datum from an assumption-laden point into the sharpest species test, because the model predicts a $\frac{5}{3}$ enhancement of $\Omega$ over $\Lambda$ polarization that the current precision cannot yet see.
The same two-stage daughter-$\Lambda$ machinery could be turned on the feed-down sources themselves, measuring the $\Lambda$ polarization inherited from $\Sigma$ and heavier decays directly and replacing the modeled feed-down corrections that now block quantitative comparison.
If the common-vorticity pattern holds when the BES-II energies are joined with the 200 GeV results, global polarization could serve as a calibrated probe of the fireball's initial angular momentum, applicable to smaller systems and isobar collisions as a test of whether the same rotational dynamics govern them.

Original abstract

We present high-precision differential measurements of the global polarization of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=7.7$, $9.2$, $11.5$, $14.6$, $17.3$, $19.6$, and $27~\mathrm{GeV}$ from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan Phase II (BES-II) using the STAR detector. The results show a clear centrality dependence, with polarization increasing toward more peripheral collisions. Within the present experimental precision, no significant dependence on transverse momentum is observed for $\Lambda$ and $\Xi$, and no significant rapidity dependence is observed for the $\Xi$. The polarization of $\Xi$ hyperons is comparable at the current precision to that of $\Lambda$ hyperons, consistent with a picture in which all hyperons acquire polarization from the same global angular momentum source, with differences arising from quark content and hadronization dynamics. These high-precision, differential measurements across centrality and $p_T$ over the measured energy ranges provide a unique test of spin--vorticity coupling and sensitivity to spin--spin correlations among hyperons with different quark content (uds, dss, and sss). The results are consistent, within current precision and under the stated spin-transfer assumptions, with a common vorticity-driven polarization mechanism across strange and multistrange hyperons. Consequently, they constrain the interplay of vorticity, magnetic fields, and quark-flavor dynamics in the produced medium.

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, 2026-11-04: 1 request, 6,013 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.86 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.16 · 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.

We present high-precision differential measurements of the global polarization of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=7.7$, $9.2$, $11.5$, $14.6$, $17.3$, $19.6$, and $27~\mathrm{GeV}$ from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan Phase II (BES-II) using the STAR detector. The results show a clear centrality dependence, with polarization increasing toward more peripheral collisions. Within the present experimental precision, no significant dependence on transverse momentum is observed for $\Lambda$ and $\Xi$, and no significant rapidity dependence is observed for the $\Xi$. The polarization of $\Xi$ hyperons is comparable at the current precision to that of $\Lambda$ hyperons, consistent with a picture in which all hyperons acquire polarization from the same global angular momentum source, with differences arising from quark content and hadronization dynamics. These high-precision, differential measurements across centrality and $p_T$ over the measured energy ranges provide a unique test of spin--vorticity coupling and sensitivity to spin--spin correlations among hyperons with different quark content (uds, dss, and sss). The results are consistent, within current precision and under the stated spin-transfer assumptions, with a common vorticity-driven polarization mechanism across strange and multistrange hyperons. Consequently, they constrain the interplay of vorticity, magnetic fields, and quark-flavor dynamics in the produced medium.

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	We present high-precision differential measurements of the global polarization of $\Lambda$, $\Xi$, and $\Omega$ hyperons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=7.7$, $9.2$, $11.5$, $14.6$, $17.3$, $19.6$, and $27~\mathrm{GeV}$ from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan Phase II (BES-II) using the STAR detector.	contribution 0.99	0.98	0.06	asserted 1.00
s1	The results show a clear centrality dependence, with polarization increasing toward more peripheral collisions.	result 1.00	0.95	0.25	asserted 1.00
s2	Within the present experimental precision, no significant dependence on transverse momentum is observed for $\Lambda$ and $\Xi$, and no significant rapidity dependence is observed for the $\Xi$.	result 1.00	0.95	0.08	asserted 0.93
s3	The polarization of $\Xi$ hyperons is comparable at the current precision to that of $\Lambda$ hyperons, consistent with a picture in which all hyperons acquire polarization from the same global angular momentum source, with differences arising from quark content and hadronization dynamics.	interpretation 0.73	0.89	0.31	hedged possibility 0.65
s4	These high-precision, differential measurements across centrality and $p_T$ over the measured energy ranges provide a unique test of spin--vorticity coupling and sensitivity to spin--spin correlations among hyperons with different quark content (uds, dss, and sss).	interpretation 0.63	0.90	0.13	asserted 0.93
s5	The results are consistent, within current precision and under the stated spin-transfer assumptions, with a common vorticity-driven polarization mechanism across strange and multistrange hyperons.	interpretation 0.98	0.83	0.48	hedged possibility 0.99
s6	Consequently, they constrain the interplay of vorticity, magnetic fields, and quark-flavor dynamics in the produced medium.	interpretation 1.00	0.77	0.18	asserted 0.92

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.98.

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.** FIG. 1. The first-order event-plane resolution, Res(

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Invariant mass distributions for

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Global polarization of

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Global polarization of

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6. Global polarization of

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7. Global polarization of

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8. Global polarization of

**Figure 9.** FIG. 9. Global polarization of

Showing 8 of the paper's 9 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:2611.03237 by the authors.

References

Works cited (58)

[31]

STAR Collaboration, Global polarization ofΛ,Ξ, andΩhyper- ons in Au+Au collisions from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan-II, arXiv:arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX [nucl-ex] (2026), Companion pa- per XXX

View on Pith 2026
[1]

J. Adamset al.(STAR), Experimental and theoretical chal- lenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Col- laboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC col- lisions, Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[2]

K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[3]

I. Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspective from the BRAHMS experiment, Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[4]

B. B. Backet al.(PHOBOS), The PHOBOS perspective on dis- coveries at RHIC, Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl- ex/0410022

View on Pith 2005
[5]

S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 813 (2024), arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[6]

Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[7]

J.-H. Gao, S.-W. Chen, W.-T. Deng, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Global quark polarization in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Rev. C77, 044902 (2008), arXiv:0710.2943 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[8]

F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Angular momentum con- servation in heavy ion collisions at very high energy, Phys. Rev. C77, 024906 (2008), arXiv:0711.1253 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[9]

B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Global polarization measurement in Au+Au collisions, Phys. Rev. C76, 024915 (2007), [Erratum: 11 Phys.Rev.C 95, 039906 (2017)], arXiv:0705.1691 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[10]

L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), GlobalΛhyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid, Nature 548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[11]

M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Pattern of global spin alignment ofϕand K ∗0 mesons in heavy-ion collisions, Nature614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2023
[12]

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Spin polarization in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430006 (2024), arXiv:2402.04540 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[13]

I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Study ofΛpolarization in rela- tivistic nuclear collisions at √sNN =7.7 –200 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 213 (2017), arXiv:1610.04717 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[14]

O. Vitiuk, L. V . Bravina, and E. E. Zabrodin, Is differentΛand ¯Λpolarization caused by different spatio-temporal freeze-out picture?, Phys. Lett. B803, 135298 (2020), arXiv:1910.06292 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[15]

V . V oronyuk, N. S. Tsegelnik, and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Hyperon global polarization in heavy-ion collisions at energies available at the JINR Nuclotron-based Ion Collider fAcility: Feed-down effects and the role ofΣ0 hyperons, Phys. Rev. C111, 034907 (2025), arXiv:2305.10792 [nucl-th]

View on Pith arXiv 2025
[16]

C. Yi, X.-Y . Wu, J. Zhu, S. Pu, and G.-Y . Qin, Spin polarization ofΛhyperons along the beam direction in p+Pb collisions at√sNN=8.16 TeV using hydrodynamic approaches, Phys. Rev. C 111, 044901 (2025), arXiv:2408.04296 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[17]

X.-L. Sheng, F. Becattini, X.-G. Huang, and Z.-H. Zhang, Spin polarization of fermions at local equilibrium: Second- order gradient expansion, Phys. Rev. C110, 064908 (2024), arXiv:2407.12130 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[18]

S. Fang, S. Pu, and D.-L. Yang, Spin polarization and spin alignment from quantum kinetic theory with self-energy cor- rections, Phys. Rev. D109, 034034 (2024), arXiv:2311.15197 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[19]

F. Becattini and M. A. Lisa, Polarization and V orticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 395 (2020), arXiv:2003.03640 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[20]

T. Niida and S. A. V oloshin, Polarization phenomenon in heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430010 (2024), arXiv:2404.11042 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[21]

J. Chenet al., Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024
[22]

X.-Y . Wu, C. Yi, G.-Y . Qin, and S. Pu, Local and global po- larization ofΛhyperons across RHIC-BES energies: The roles of spin hall effect, initial condition, and baryon diffusion, Phys. Rev. C105, 064909 (2022), arXiv:2204.02218 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[23]

J. Chenet al., Selected Highlights from STAR Experiment, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, 030102 (2026), arXiv:2601.12977 [nucl- ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2026
[24]

Y . Guo, S. Shi, S. Feng, and J. Liao, Magnetic Field Induced Polarization Difference between Hyperons and Anti-hyperons, Phys. Lett. B798, 134929 (2019), arXiv:1905.12613 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[25]

F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal, and S. V oloshin, Global hyperon polarization at local thermodynamic equilib- rium with vorticity, magnetic field and feed-down, Phys. Rev. C95, 054902 (2017), arXiv:1610.02506 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[26]

M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Global polarization ofΛand ¯Λhyperons in Au+Au collisions at √sNN=19.6 and 27 GeV, Phys. Rev. C108, 014910 (2023), arXiv:2305.08705 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[27]

H. Li, X.-L. Xia, X.-G. Huang, and H. Z. Huang, Global spin polarization of multistrange hyperons and feed-down ef- fect in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B827, 136971 (2022), arXiv:2106.09443 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[28]

J. Adamet al.(STAR), Global Polarization ofΞandΩHyper- ons in Au+Au Collisions at√sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162301 (2021), arXiv:2012.13601 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2021
[29]

J. Adamet al.(STAR), Global polarization ofΛhyperons in Au+Au collisions at√sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), arXiv:1805.04400 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[30]

B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Hyperon global polarization in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √sNN=200GeV, Phys. Lett. B870, 139891 (2025), arXiv:2505.05046 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025
[32]

K. H. Ackermannet al.(STAR), STAR detector overview, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 624 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[33]

M. Andersonet al., The Star time projection chamber: A Unique tool for studying high multiplicity events at RHIC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 659 (2003), arXiv:nucl- ex/0301015

View on Pith 2003
[34]

W. J. Llope (STAR), Multigap RPCs in the STAR experiment at RHIC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A661, S110 (2012)

View on Pith 2012
[35]

J. Adamset al., The STAR Event Plane Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A968, 163970 (2020), arXiv:1912.05243 [physics.ins- det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[36]

W. J. Llopeet al., The STAR Vertex Position Detector, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A759, 23 (2014), arXiv:1403.6855 [physics.ins- det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[37]

F. Shen, S. Wang, F. Kong, S. Bai, C. Li, F. Videbæk, Z. Xu, C. Zhu, Q. Xu, and C. Yang, MWPC prototyping and perfor- mance test for the STAR inner TPC upgrade, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A896, 90 (2018), arXiv:1805.03938 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[38]

C. Adler, H. Strobele, A. Denisov, E. Garcia, M. Murray, and S. White, The RHIC zero-degree calorimeters, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A461, 337 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[39]

L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Inclusive charged hadron elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =7.7 - 39 GeV, Phys. Rev. C86, 054908 (2012), arXiv:1206.5528 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[40]

J. R. Adams and M. A. Lisa, Decorrelation of participant and spectator angular momenta in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C106, 064904 (2022), arXiv:2109.14726 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[41]

A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. V oloshin, Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[42]

S. A. V oloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, Col- lective phenomena in non-central nuclear collisions, Landolt- Bornstein23, 293 (2010), arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[43]

S. Gorbunov, On-line reconstruction algorithms for the cbm and alice experiments, GSI Report (2013), phD thesis, Goethe Uni- versity Frankfurt

View on Pith 2013
[44]

M. Zyzak, Online selection of short-lived particles on many- core computer architectures in the cbm experiment at fair, GSI Report (2016), phD thesis, Goethe University Frankfurt

View on Pith 2016
[45]

I. Kisel (CBM), Event Topology Reconstruction in the CBM Experiment, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1070, 012015 (2018)

View on Pith 2018
[46]

P. A. Zylaet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP2020, 083C01 (2020)

View on Pith 2020
[47]

T. D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, General Partial Wave Analysis of the Decay of a Hyperon of Spin 1/2, Phys. Rev.108, 1645 (1957)

View on Pith 1957
[48]

K. B. Luket al.(E756), Search for direct CP violation in non- leptonic decays of charged Xi and Lambda hyperons, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4860 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/0007030. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[49]

M. Huanget al.(HyperCP), New measurement ofΞ −→Λπ − decay parameters, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 011802 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[50]

K. B. Luket al., New Measurements of Properties of theΩ − Hyperon, Phys. Rev. D38, 19 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[51]

J. Kim, J. Lee, J. S. Shim, and H. S. Song, Polarization effects in spin 3/2 hyperon decay, Phys. Rev. D46, 1060 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[52]

M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), GlobalΛ-hyperon polarization in Au+Au collisions at√sNN =3 GeV, Phys. Rev. C104, L061901 (2021), arXiv:2108.00044 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2021
[53]

G.-H. Li, C. Yi, X.-Y . Wu, S. Pu, and G.-Y . Qin, Global polar- ization ofΛ,Ξ −, andΩ− hyperons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC BES-II energies, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.10341 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026
[54]

D.-X. Wei, W.-T. Deng, and X.-G. Huang, Thermal vorticity and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C99, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1810.00151 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[55]

Y . Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, and H. Zhang, Hyperon polarization from the vortical fluid in low-energy nuclear col- lisions, Phys. Rev. C104, L041902 (2021), arXiv:2105.13481 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[56]

Z.-T. Liang, J. Song, I. Upsal, Q. Wang, and Z.-B. Xu, Rapidity dependence of global polarization in heavy ion collisions, Chin. Phys. C45, 014102 (2021), arXiv:1912.10223 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[57]

Y . Sun and C. M. Ko,Λhyperon polarization in relativistic heavy ion collisions from a chiral kinetic approach, Phys. Rev. C96, 024906 (2017), arXiv:1706.09467 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[58]

Y . Xie, D. Wang, and L. P. Csernai, Fluid dynamics study of the Λpolarization for Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 39 (2020), arXiv:1907.00773 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

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] [31]

STAR Collaboration, Global polarization ofΛ,Ξ, andΩhyper- ons in Au+Au collisions from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan-II, arXiv:arXiv:XXXX.XXXXX [nucl-ex] (2026), Companion pa- per XXX

View on Pith 2026

[2] [1]

J. Adamset al.(STAR), Experimental and theoretical chal- lenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Col- laboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC col- lisions, Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[3] [2]

K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[4] [3]

I. Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Quark gluon plasma and color glass condensate at RHIC? The Perspective from the BRAHMS experiment, Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[5] [4]

B. B. Backet al.(PHOBOS), The PHOBOS perspective on dis- coveries at RHIC, Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl- ex/0410022

View on Pith 2005

[6] [5]

S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 813 (2024), arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[7] [6]

Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Globally polarized quark-gluon plasma in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[8] [7]

J.-H. Gao, S.-W. Chen, W.-T. Deng, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Global quark polarization in non-central A+A collisions, Phys. Rev. C77, 044902 (2008), arXiv:0710.2943 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[9] [8]

F. Becattini, F. Piccinini, and J. Rizzo, Angular momentum con- servation in heavy ion collisions at very high energy, Phys. Rev. C77, 024906 (2008), arXiv:0711.1253 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[10] [9]

B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Global polarization measurement in Au+Au collisions, Phys. Rev. C76, 024915 (2007), [Erratum: 11 Phys.Rev.C 95, 039906 (2017)], arXiv:0705.1691 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[11] [10]

L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), GlobalΛhyperon polarization in nuclear collisions: evidence for the most vortical fluid, Nature 548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[12] [11]

M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Pattern of global spin alignment ofϕand K ∗0 mesons in heavy-ion collisions, Nature614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

View on Pith arXiv 2023

[13] [12]

F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Spin polarization in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430006 (2024), arXiv:2402.04540 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[14] [13]

I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Study ofΛpolarization in rela- tivistic nuclear collisions at √sNN =7.7 –200 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 213 (2017), arXiv:1610.04717 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[15] [14]

O. Vitiuk, L. V . Bravina, and E. E. Zabrodin, Is differentΛand ¯Λpolarization caused by different spatio-temporal freeze-out picture?, Phys. Lett. B803, 135298 (2020), arXiv:1910.06292 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[16] [15]

V . V oronyuk, N. S. Tsegelnik, and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Hyperon global polarization in heavy-ion collisions at energies available at the JINR Nuclotron-based Ion Collider fAcility: Feed-down effects and the role ofΣ0 hyperons, Phys. Rev. C111, 034907 (2025), arXiv:2305.10792 [nucl-th]

View on Pith arXiv 2025

[17] [16]

C. Yi, X.-Y . Wu, J. Zhu, S. Pu, and G.-Y . Qin, Spin polarization ofΛhyperons along the beam direction in p+Pb collisions at√sNN=8.16 TeV using hydrodynamic approaches, Phys. Rev. C 111, 044901 (2025), arXiv:2408.04296 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[18] [17]

X.-L. Sheng, F. Becattini, X.-G. Huang, and Z.-H. Zhang, Spin polarization of fermions at local equilibrium: Second- order gradient expansion, Phys. Rev. C110, 064908 (2024), arXiv:2407.12130 [hep-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[19] [18]

S. Fang, S. Pu, and D.-L. Yang, Spin polarization and spin alignment from quantum kinetic theory with self-energy cor- rections, Phys. Rev. D109, 034034 (2024), arXiv:2311.15197 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[20] [19]

F. Becattini and M. A. Lisa, Polarization and V orticity in the Quark–Gluon Plasma, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 395 (2020), arXiv:2003.03640 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[21] [20]

T. Niida and S. A. V oloshin, Polarization phenomenon in heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430010 (2024), arXiv:2404.11042 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[22] [21]

J. Chenet al., Properties of the QCD matter: review of selected results from the relativistic heavy ion collider beam energy scan (RHIC BES) program, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2024

[23] [22]

X.-Y . Wu, C. Yi, G.-Y . Qin, and S. Pu, Local and global po- larization ofΛhyperons across RHIC-BES energies: The roles of spin hall effect, initial condition, and baryon diffusion, Phys. Rev. C105, 064909 (2022), arXiv:2204.02218 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[24] [23]

J. Chenet al., Selected Highlights from STAR Experiment, Chin. Phys. Lett.43, 030102 (2026), arXiv:2601.12977 [nucl- ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2026

[25] [24]

Y . Guo, S. Shi, S. Feng, and J. Liao, Magnetic Field Induced Polarization Difference between Hyperons and Anti-hyperons, Phys. Lett. B798, 134929 (2019), arXiv:1905.12613 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[26] [25]

F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal, and S. V oloshin, Global hyperon polarization at local thermodynamic equilib- rium with vorticity, magnetic field and feed-down, Phys. Rev. C95, 054902 (2017), arXiv:1610.02506 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[27] [26]

M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Global polarization ofΛand ¯Λhyperons in Au+Au collisions at √sNN=19.6 and 27 GeV, Phys. Rev. C108, 014910 (2023), arXiv:2305.08705 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[28] [27]

H. Li, X.-L. Xia, X.-G. Huang, and H. Z. Huang, Global spin polarization of multistrange hyperons and feed-down ef- fect in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Lett. B827, 136971 (2022), arXiv:2106.09443 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[29] [28]

J. Adamet al.(STAR), Global Polarization ofΞandΩHyper- ons in Au+Au Collisions at√sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162301 (2021), arXiv:2012.13601 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2021

[30] [29]

J. Adamet al.(STAR), Global polarization ofΛhyperons in Au+Au collisions at√sNN =200 GeV, Phys. Rev. C98, 014910 (2018), arXiv:1805.04400 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[31] [30]

B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Hyperon global polarization in isobar Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at √sNN=200GeV, Phys. Lett. B870, 139891 (2025), arXiv:2505.05046 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2025

[32] [32]

K. H. Ackermannet al.(STAR), STAR detector overview, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 624 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[33] [33]

M. Andersonet al., The Star time projection chamber: A Unique tool for studying high multiplicity events at RHIC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499, 659 (2003), arXiv:nucl- ex/0301015

View on Pith 2003

[34] [34]

W. J. Llope (STAR), Multigap RPCs in the STAR experiment at RHIC, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A661, S110 (2012)

View on Pith 2012

[35] [35]

J. Adamset al., The STAR Event Plane Detector, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A968, 163970 (2020), arXiv:1912.05243 [physics.ins- det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[36] [36]

W. J. Llopeet al., The STAR Vertex Position Detector, Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A759, 23 (2014), arXiv:1403.6855 [physics.ins- det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[37] [37]

F. Shen, S. Wang, F. Kong, S. Bai, C. Li, F. Videbæk, Z. Xu, C. Zhu, Q. Xu, and C. Yang, MWPC prototyping and perfor- mance test for the STAR inner TPC upgrade, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A896, 90 (2018), arXiv:1805.03938 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[38] [38]

C. Adler, H. Strobele, A. Denisov, E. Garcia, M. Murray, and S. White, The RHIC zero-degree calorimeters, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A461, 337 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[39] [39]

L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Inclusive charged hadron elliptic flow in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =7.7 - 39 GeV, Phys. Rev. C86, 054908 (2012), arXiv:1206.5528 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[40] [40]

J. R. Adams and M. A. Lisa, Decorrelation of participant and spectator angular momenta in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C106, 064904 (2022), arXiv:2109.14726 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[41] [41]

A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. V oloshin, Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1671 (1998), arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[42] [42]

S. A. V oloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, Col- lective phenomena in non-central nuclear collisions, Landolt- Bornstein23, 293 (2010), arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[43] [43]

S. Gorbunov, On-line reconstruction algorithms for the cbm and alice experiments, GSI Report (2013), phD thesis, Goethe Uni- versity Frankfurt

View on Pith 2013

[44] [44]

M. Zyzak, Online selection of short-lived particles on many- core computer architectures in the cbm experiment at fair, GSI Report (2016), phD thesis, Goethe University Frankfurt

View on Pith 2016

[45] [45]

I. Kisel (CBM), Event Topology Reconstruction in the CBM Experiment, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1070, 012015 (2018)

View on Pith 2018

[46] [46]

P. A. Zylaet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, PTEP2020, 083C01 (2020)

View on Pith 2020

[47] [47]

T. D. Lee and C.-N. Yang, General Partial Wave Analysis of the Decay of a Hyperon of Spin 1/2, Phys. Rev.108, 1645 (1957)

View on Pith 1957

[48] [48]

K. B. Luket al.(E756), Search for direct CP violation in non- leptonic decays of charged Xi and Lambda hyperons, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4860 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/0007030. 12

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[49] [49]

M. Huanget al.(HyperCP), New measurement ofΞ −→Λπ − decay parameters, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 011802 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[50] [50]

K. B. Luket al., New Measurements of Properties of theΩ − Hyperon, Phys. Rev. D38, 19 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[51] [51]

J. Kim, J. Lee, J. S. Shim, and H. S. Song, Polarization effects in spin 3/2 hyperon decay, Phys. Rev. D46, 1060 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[52] [52]

M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), GlobalΛ-hyperon polarization in Au+Au collisions at√sNN =3 GeV, Phys. Rev. C104, L061901 (2021), arXiv:2108.00044 [nucl-ex]

View on Pith arXiv 2021

[53] [53]

G.-H. Li, C. Yi, X.-Y . Wu, S. Pu, and G.-Y . Qin, Global polar- ization ofΛ,Ξ −, andΩ− hyperons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC BES-II energies, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2606.10341 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2026

[54] [54]

D.-X. Wei, W.-T. Deng, and X.-G. Huang, Thermal vorticity and spin polarization in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C99, 014905 (2019), arXiv:1810.00151 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[55] [55]

Y . Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, and H. Zhang, Hyperon polarization from the vortical fluid in low-energy nuclear col- lisions, Phys. Rev. C104, L041902 (2021), arXiv:2105.13481 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[56] [56]

Z.-T. Liang, J. Song, I. Upsal, Q. Wang, and Z.-B. Xu, Rapidity dependence of global polarization in heavy ion collisions, Chin. Phys. C45, 014102 (2021), arXiv:1912.10223 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[57] [57]

Y . Sun and C. M. Ko,Λhyperon polarization in relativistic heavy ion collisions from a chiral kinetic approach, Phys. Rev. C96, 024906 (2017), arXiv:1706.09467 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[58] [58]

Y . Xie, D. Wang, and L. P. Csernai, Fluid dynamics study of the Λpolarization for Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 39 (2020), arXiv:1907.00773 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020