pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24811 · v1 · pith:F2JK47I4new · submitted 2026-06-23 · ✦ hep-ph

Hyperon-pair spin tomography beyond scalar spin correlations

Lei Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords hyperon pairsspin correlationsdensity matrixentanglementtomographyLambda anti-Lambdaweak decaysPPT criterion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scalar spin correlation in Lambda pairs leaves degeneracy between separable and entangled states.

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

The paper develops a tomography method that uses the weak decay angles of Lambda and anti-Lambda to extract the full two-spin density matrix instead of only its scalar trace. This shows that the published scalar correlation from STAR data can be produced by both separable tensor completions and completions that violate the positive-partial-transpose criterion. The framework identifies the transverse and longitudinal tensor components together with their anisotropy as the missing observables needed to resolve the ambiguity. Feed-down effects must be handled as a tensor response rather than a uniform scalar factor. The same approach applied to e+e- collisions yields a concrete prediction for the anisotropy that can be tested with existing detector statistics.

Core claim

The published scalar P_ΛΛ̄ leaves a continuous density-matrix degeneracy: separable tensor completions and completions that violate the positive-partial-transpose criterion can have the same trace. The missing observables are the transverse and longitudinal tensor components and their anisotropy A_C. A local ³P₀ string-breaking benchmark turns the STAR trace into the falsifiable pattern C_⊥>0, C_∥<0, and A_C>0. Feed-down must be treated as a tensor response rather than as a universal scalar dilution. A claim of entanglement requires the reconstructed two-spin density matrix, not the scalar trace alone, to violate the PPT bound.

What carries the argument

Two-spin tensor tomography in which the weak-decay angles of the Lambda and anti-Lambda determine the full density matrix components.

If this is right

  • Transverse and longitudinal tensor components plus the anisotropy A_C become the observables required to resolve the density-matrix degeneracy.
  • Feed-down corrections must be applied as a tensor response rather than a scalar dilution factor.
  • The ³P₀ string-breaking model converts the STAR scalar value into the specific pattern C_⊥>0, C_∥<0, A_C>0.
  • In Belle II e+e- kinematics the benchmark predicts a centrally enhanced A_C of order 0.3 measurable with roughly 10^4 selected pairs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The tomography framework could be applied to other hyperon-pair channels to map how spin information survives hadronization.
  • If the reconstructed matrix violates the PPT bound, it would indicate that entanglement can persist through the confinement process in a measurable way.
  • Comparison of the predicted anisotropy pattern against data from different collision energies would test the local ³P₀ assumption against alternative production mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The weak-decay angles of the Lambda and anti-Lambda fully determine the two-spin tensor components without additional model-dependent corrections beyond the stated feed-down treatment.

What would settle it

A measurement in the short-range STAR region that finds C_⊥ ≤ 0 or C_∥ ≥ 0 or A_C ≤ 0 would falsify the local ³P₀ benchmark applied to the existing scalar trace.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24811 by Lei Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Trace degeneracy in the axially symmetric tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows how the STAR trace fixes the normal￾ization of this benchmark while leaving the spin-transfer ratio r as the relevant phenomenological uncertainty. For positive PΛΛ¯ , the signs C⊥ > 0 and C∥ < 0 are stable throughout the physical region r < 2, whereas the mag￾nitude of AC and the PPT witness grow as longitudinal transfer becomes stronger. The model therefore makes a falsifiable tensor prediction. A … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. STAR worked example. Left: scalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Trace-degenerate tensor hypotheses from the STAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Tensor-level feed-down map for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Belle II tensor-component prediction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Belle II prediction for the tensor anisotropy and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spin correlations measured after hadronization probe how quantum information is transported through confinement. We formulate a process-independent spin-tomography framework for $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ pairs in which the weak-decay angles determine the full two-spin tensor rather than only its scalar trace. Applied to the short-range STAR correlation in unpolarized $pp\to\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}X$, the framework shows that the published scalar $P_{\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}}$ leaves a continuous density-matrix degeneracy: separable tensor completions and completions that violate the positive-partial-transpose (PPT) criterion can have the same trace. The missing observables are the transverse and longitudinal tensor components and their anisotropy $A_C=C_\perp-C_\parallel$. A local ${}^{3}P_0$ string-breaking benchmark turns the STAR trace into the falsifiable pattern $C_\perp>0$, $C_\parallel<0$, and $A_C>0$. We further show that feed-down must be treated as a tensor response rather than as a universal scalar dilution. In the complementary $e^+e^-$ calibration channel, the same benchmark predicts a centrally enhanced $A_C$ of order $0.3$ in Belle II kinematics, measurable with about $10^4$ selected pairs for nominal spin-transfer parameters. A claim of entanglement requires the reconstructed two-spin density matrix, not the scalar trace alone, to violate the PPT bound.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a process-independent spin-tomography framework for ΛΛ̄ pairs in which weak-decay angles are used to reconstruct the full two-spin density matrix (including transverse/longitudinal components C_⊥, C_∥ and anisotropy A_C) rather than only the scalar trace P_ΛΛ̄. Applied to STAR pp data, it shows that the published scalar correlation permits a continuous degeneracy between separable and PPT-violating tensor completions; a ³P₀ string-breaking benchmark supplies falsifiable sign predictions (C_⊥>0, C_∥<0, A_C>0) and a central A_C≈0.3 expectation for Belle II e⁺e⁻ kinematics. Feed-down is required to be treated as a tensor response rather than scalar dilution. Entanglement claims are stated to require the reconstructed matrix, not the trace alone.

Significance. If the angular-to-tensor mapping is robust, the work usefully demonstrates that scalar hyperon-pair correlations are insufficient for entanglement claims and supplies concrete, falsifiable predictions from an external ³P₀ benchmark together with a tensorial feed-down prescription. These elements strengthen the manuscript’s utility for guiding analyses at existing and future facilities.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and reconstruction section] Abstract and the reconstruction section: the central degeneracy argument (that the scalar trace P_ΛΛ̄ alone permits both separable and PPT-violating completions) is load-bearing and rests on the claim that the nine independent tensor components are fully and model-independently determined by the weak-decay angles after the stated feed-down treatment. No explicit inversion, acceptance-corrected angular distributions, or sensitivity matrix is shown that would confirm all components (including the transverse/longitudinal split) are independently accessible; residual production-mechanism or polarization-transfer dependence would leave the reconstructed matrix under-determined and preserve the degeneracy in practice.
minor comments (1)
  1. The definition and normalization of the anisotropy A_C = C_⊥ − C_∥ should be stated explicitly with the range of possible values under positivity and PPT constraints.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the need to strengthen the explicit demonstration of the reconstruction procedure. We address the major comment below and will incorporate the requested material in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and reconstruction section] Abstract and the reconstruction section: the central degeneracy argument (that the scalar trace P_ΛΛ̄ alone permits both separable and PPT-violating completions) is load-bearing and rests on the claim that the nine independent tensor components are fully and model-independently determined by the weak-decay angles after the stated feed-down treatment. No explicit inversion, acceptance-corrected angular distributions, or sensitivity matrix is shown that would confirm all components (including the transverse/longitudinal split) are independently accessible; residual production-mechanism or polarization-transfer dependence would leave the reconstructed matrix under-determined and preserve the degeneracy in practice.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of the angular-to-tensor mapping strengthens the manuscript. The joint decay angular distribution for a ΛΛ̄ pair is given by the standard form 1 + α_Λ P_Λ · n_Λ + α_Λ̄ P_Λ̄ · n_Λ̄ + α_Λ α_Λ̄ n_Λ · C · n_Λ̄ (with known decay parameters α), which directly encodes the full 3×3 correlation tensor C. Because this relation follows solely from the decay matrix elements and the definition of the rest-frame decay directions, the mapping from observed angles to the nine tensor components is model-independent and does not depend on the production mechanism; the latter only sets the numerical values of C. The transverse/longitudinal decomposition is obtained by projecting C onto the beam axis after boosting to the appropriate frames. To address the referee’s concern we will add an appendix containing (i) the explicit linear inversion from binned angular moments to the elements of C, (ii) the acceptance-corrected distributions used for the STAR analysis, and (iii) a sensitivity matrix demonstrating that all nine components remain independently accessible once statistics exceed a few thousand pairs. We will also clarify in the text that any residual polarization-transfer effects are absorbed into the measured values of C and do not render the reconstruction under-determined. These additions will be included in the revised version. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation uses external benchmark and standard density-matrix properties

full rationale

The paper's central steps consist of (i) formulating a tomography framework in which weak-decay angles reconstruct the full two-spin tensor, (ii) observing that the published scalar trace P_ΛΛ̄ mathematically permits a continuous family of tensor completions (some separable, some PPT-violating), and (iii) feeding the STAR trace into an external 3P0 string-breaking model to obtain falsifiable signs for C_⊥, C_∥ and A_C. None of these steps reduces by definition or by self-citation to the input data; the 3P0 benchmark is invoked as an independent, testable model rather than a fit, and the degeneracy statement follows directly from the properties of two-qubit density matrices. No load-bearing equation equates a derived quantity to a fitted parameter or to a prior result by the same author.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are quantified. The framework rests on the domain assumption that decay angles encode the full tensor.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Weak-decay angles determine the full two-spin tensor rather than only its scalar trace
    Stated as the foundation of the spin-tomography framework in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5770 in / 1340 out tokens · 23196 ms · 2026-06-25T23:09:02.294004+00:00 · methodology

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

93 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    A pair analysis would extend the same weak-decay likelihood toC ij, separating local single-spin polarization, collec- tive backgrounds, and genuine pair-spin correlations

    constrain the single-spin vectorsPi and ¯Pi. A pair analysis would extend the same weak-decay likelihood toC ij, separating local single-spin polarization, collec- tive backgrounds, and genuine pair-spin correlations. In hemisphere-taggede +e− →q¯q→Λ ¯ΛX, the hard spin tensor is calculable before fragmentation. At leading or- der for photon exchange, C e+...

  2. [2]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  3. [3]

    Schrödinger, Math

    E. Schrödinger, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555 (1935)

    1935

  4. [4]

    J. S. Bell, Physics1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  5. [5]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  6. [6]

    R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  7. [7]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  9. [9]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  10. [10]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  11. [11]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Phys. Rept.474, 1 (2009), arXiv:0811.2803 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    Hradil, Phys

    Z. Hradil, Phys. Rev. A55, R1561 (1997)

    1997

  14. [14]

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    G. Tóth, W. Wieczorek, D. Gross, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 250403 (2010), arXiv:1005.3313 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    G.MahlonandS.J.Parke,Phys.Rev.D53,4886(1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  17. [17]

    Bernreuther, A

    W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z. G. Si, and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 242002 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0107086

    arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    Bernreuther and Z.-G

    W. Bernreuther and Z.-G. Si, Nucl. Phys. B837, 90 (2010), arXiv:1003.3926 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  19. [19]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 212001 (2012), arXiv:1203.4081 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    CMSCollaboration,Phys.Rev.Lett.112,182001(2014), arXiv:1311.3924 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 754 (2020), arXiv:1903.07570 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. M. de Nova, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 907 (2021), arXiv:2003.02280 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161801 (2021), arXiv:2102.11883 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Severi, M

    C. Severi, M. Boschi, F. Maltoni, and M. Sioli, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 285 (2022), arXiv:2110.10112 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. A. Casas, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 666 (2022), arXiv:2205.00542 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, L. Marzola, and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. D109, L031104 (2024), arXiv:2302.00683 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, and L. Marzola, arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2402.07972 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Nature633, 542 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    CMS Collaboration, Rept. Prog. Phys.87, 117801 (2024), arXiv:2406.03976 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, JHEP 2023(12), 017, arXiv:2203.05619 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Fucilla, Y

    M. Fucilla, Y. Hatta, and B.-W. Xiao, arXiv e-prints (2026), arXiv:2604.11697 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev.108, 1645 (1957)

    1957

  33. [33]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys.7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  34. [34]

    J. W. Cronin and O. E. Overseth, Phys. Rev.129, 1795 (1963)

    1963

  35. [35]

    J. F. Donoghue and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 162 (1985)

    1985

  36. [36]

    Tandean and G

    J. Tandean and G. Valencia, Phys. Rev. D67, 056001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  37. [37]

    N. A. Törnqvist, Found. Phys.11, 171 (1981)

    1981

  38. [38]

    Belle Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D72, 091101 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0507063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    BESIII Collaboration, Nature Phys.15, 631 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    BESIII Collaboration, Nature606, 64 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    BESIII Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 131801 (2022), arXiv:2204.11058 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    BESIII Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D108, L031106 (2023), arXiv:2306.02025 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Zheng, A

    W. Zheng, A. Kupsc, S. Pacetti, F. Rosini, N. Salone, X. Wang, and S.-s. Fang, Chin. Phys. Lett.42, 041201 (2025), arXiv:2501.11205 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Li and H.-F

    H.-B. Li and H.-F. Shen, inProceedings of the Inter- national Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy and Struc- ture (HADRON2025),Proc.Sci.(2025)arXiv:2509.06304 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    G. L. Kane, J. Pumplin, and W. Repko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1689 (1978)

    1978

  46. [46]

    Burkardt and R

    M. Burkardt and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2537 10 (1993)

    1993

  47. [47]

    R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D54, R6581 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9605456

    arXiv 1996

  48. [48]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D57, 5811 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  49. [49]

    Artru and M

    X. Artru and M. Mekhfi, Z. Phys. C45, 669 (1990)

    1990

  50. [50]

    P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B461, 197 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9510301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  51. [51]

    D. Boer, R. Jakob, and P. J. Mulders, Nucl. Phys. B504, 345 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  52. [52]

    D. Boer, P. J. Mulders, and F. Pijlman, Nucl. Phys. B 667, 201 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  53. [53]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mul- ders, and M. Schlegel, JHEP2007(02), 093, arXiv:hep- ph/0611265

    arXiv

  54. [54]

    Metz and A

    A. Metz and A. Vossen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.91, 136 (2016), arXiv:1607.02521 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    BelleCollaboration,Phys.Rev.Lett.122,042001(2019), arXiv:1808.05000 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    D’Alesio, F

    U. D’Alesio, F. Murgia, and M. Zaccheddu, Phys. Rev. D102, 054001 (2020), arXiv:2003.01128 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    D’Alesio, F

    U. D’Alesio, F. Murgia, and M. Zaccheddu, Phys. Rev. D104, 054006 (2021), arXiv:2104.01146 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Anselmino, R

    M. Anselmino, R. Kishore, and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D100, 014029 (2019), arXiv:1905.02777 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Micu, Nucl

    L. Micu, Nucl. Phys. B10, 521 (1969)

    1969

  60. [60]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pène, and J.-C. Raynal, Hadron Transitions in the Quark Model(Gordon and Breach, 1988)

    1988

  61. [61]

    R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, Nucl. Phys. B136, 1 (1978)

    1978

  62. [62]

    Artru and G

    X. Artru and G. Mennessier, Nucl. Phys. B70, 93 (1974)

    1974

  63. [63]

    Casher, J

    A. Casher, J. B. Kogut, and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 10, 732 (1974)

    1974

  64. [64]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjös- trand, Phys. Rept.97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  65. [65]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. Söderberg, Z. Phys. C20, 317 (1983)

    1983

  66. [66]

    Andersson,The Lund Model(Cambridge University Press, 1998)

    B. Andersson,The Lund Model(Cambridge University Press, 1998)

    1998

  67. [67]

    Ilten, S

    T.Sjöstrand, S.Ask, J.R.Christiansen, R.Corke, N.De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun.191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  68. [68]

    OPAL Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C2, 49 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9708027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  69. [69]

    Kotzinian, A

    A. Kotzinian, A. Bravar, and D. von Harrach, Eur. Phys. J. C2, 329 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9701384

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  70. [70]

    Z.-t.LiangandC.Boros,Phys.Rev.D61,117503(2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9803225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  71. [71]

    STAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D98, 112009 (2018), arXiv:1808.07634 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    STAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D109, 012004 (2024), arXiv:2309.14220 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    STAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D98, 091103 (2018), arXiv:1808.08000 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Callos, Z.-B

    D. Callos, Z.-B. Kang, and J. Terry, Phys. Rev. D102, 096007 (2020), arXiv:2003.04828 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    D’Alesio, F

    U. D’Alesio, F. Murgia, and M. Zaccheddu, JHEP2022 (10), 078, arXiv:2209.11670 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  76. [76]

    STAR Collaboration, Nature650, 65 (2026), arXiv:2506.05499 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    S. A. Voloshin, arXiv e-prints (2004), arXiv:nucl- th/0410089

    arXiv 2004

  78. [78]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-t. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  79. [79]

    Becattini, L

    F. Becattini, L. P. Csernai, and D. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C88, 034905 (2013), arXiv:1304.4427 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [80]

    STAR Collaboration, Nature548, 62 (2017)

    2017

Showing first 80 references.