Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Extraction of baryon number susceptibilities at finite density from heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the first Bayesian extraction of the second-order QCD baryon susceptibility from heavy-ion collision data, matching lattice QCD at baryon chemical potentials up to 300 MeV and showing a fluctuation enhancement at higher…

desk verdict A credible, genuinely new extraction of chi_2^B from BES data, with the low-energy enhancement still hostage to unmodeled volume fluctuations. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10238 v1 pith:KRHJTKF6 submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Grégoire Pihan , Roman Poberezhniuk , Volodymyr A. Kuznietsov , Volodymyr Vovchenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords baryonnumbersusceptibilityheavy-ioncollisionsnet-protoncumulantsmaximum-entropyfreeze-outexactbaryon-numberconservationBayesianextractionQCDequationofstatechemicalline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the event-by-event fluctuations of (net-)protons measured in central gold-gold collisions can be turned into a direct measurement of the baryon number susceptibilities of strongly interacting matter at freeze-out. It does this by building a forward model that starts from arbitrary equation-of-state susceptibilities on hydrodynamic freeze-out surfaces, passes them through maximum-entropy freeze-out, maps baryons onto accepted protons, and enforces exact baryon-number conservation. From the data, the second-order susceptibility normalized by the ideal hadron resonance gas value is constrained to 5-10 percent. The extracted values agree with lattice-QCD-based estimates along the chemical freeze-out line up to a baryon chemical potential of about 300 MeV, and rise above them at larger potentials. A striking by-product is that the nonmonotonic peak in the measured third-order proton factorial cumulant ratio can be reproduced without any irreducible three- or four-baryon correlations, as an interplay between the energy dependence of the second-order susceptibility and exact baryon-number conservation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a four-step forward map. Maximum-entropy freeze-out, the least-prejudiced assignment of hadronic fluctuations consistent with the local baryon susceptibilities, converts local equation-of-state susceptibilities, parametrized by $\gamma=(\chi_2^B/\bar\chi_2^B, \chi_3^B/\chi_1^B, \chi_4^B/\chi_2^B)$, into joint baryon-antibaryon factorial cumulants on every hydrodynamic hypersurface element. Independent binomial thinning with the local proton-to-baryon fraction and the kinematic acceptance maps those cumulants onto accepted (net-)proton cumulants, and the subensemble acceptance method (SAM-3.0) then imposes exact global baryon-number conservation. The whole chain is linear in the three susceptibility deviations before the conservation step, so a Bayesian posterior over the three ratios can be evaluated on a grid and marginalized. This is what lets the extracted $\chi_2^B$ be compared with lattice QCD along a freeze-out line.

What would settle it

If centrality-bin-width or more complete volume-fluctuation corrections revise the measured cumulants so that the extracted $\chi_2^B/\bar\chi_2^B$ at the lowest collider energy drops back into the lattice band, or if the nonmonotonic peak in $\hat{C}_3/\hat{C}_1$ vanishes when the same framework is applied to fixed-target data, then the central claim of a data-driven low-energy enhancement and of a conservation-driven peak would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the measured cumulants and factorial cumulants of (net-)protons in Au-Au collisions can be inverted into the baryon number susceptibilities $\chi_2^B$, $\chi_3^B$, and $\chi_4^B$ along the chemical freeze-out line, rather than being compared with pre-selected equations of state. The second-order ratio $\chi_2^B/\bar\chi_2^B$ is tightly constrained and shows a non-monotonic energy dependence: near the ideal-gas value at 7.7 GeV, a suppression around 0.73-0.82 at 11.5-19.6 GeV, and a flat suppression at high energies. In absolute terms $\chi_2^B$ agrees with lattice-based estimates for $\mu_B \lesssim 300$ MeV and is enhanced by up to about 50% at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 7.7$ GeV. The third- and fourth-order susceptibilities remain weakly constrained, but a scenario retaining only the irreducible two-baryon correlation describes the measured $\hat{C}_3/\hat{C}_1$ peak, meaning the data do not require genuine multi-baryon correlations of order three or four.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-energy rise in the extracted fluctuation strength is a property of equilibrium QCD matter, not an artifact of event-to-event volume or baryon-stopping fluctuations that the model leaves out; the paper itself flags this as the main caveat.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The second-order baryon susceptibility along the chemical freeze-out line becomes a data-driven observable, and its agreement with lattice QCD at $\mu_B\lesssim300$ MeV supports the idea that baryon-number fluctuations equilibrate locally at freeze-out.
  • At $\mu_B\gtrsim300$ MeV the data point to enhanced baryon-number fluctuations, up to about 50% above the lattice/HRG baseline at 7.7 GeV, which, if confirmed, would signal attractive correlations not present in the noncritical baseline.
  • The measured nonmonotonic peak in $\hat{C}_3/\hat{C}_1$ near 11 GeV is reproduced without irreducible three- or four-baryon correlations; it is generated by the energy dependence of $\chi_2^B$ combined with exact baryon-number conservation.
  • Third- and fourth-order susceptibilities are too weakly constrained to discriminate critical-point scenarios; definite conclusions about genuine multi-baryon correlations will require reduced experimental uncertainties or new observables.
  • The two complementary extractions, from proton factorial cumulants and from net-proton cumulants, agree within uncertainties, providing an internal consistency check of the forward model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to apply the same forward map at fixed-target energies; the extraction predicts that if the low-energy enhancement persists once volume fluctuations are controlled, it is a thermodynamic property, whereas if it moves, it was a modeling artifact.
  • Because the framework treats baryons and antibaryons as a two-species system with only the baryon-density mode fluctuating, an observable that is invariant under baryon-to-proton dilution and conservation corrections would be needed to isolate genuine critical correlations; the current factorial cumulant ratios are not such observables.
  • The same inversion strategy could be applied to strangeness or electric-charge fluctuations: data on kaon or pion cumulants could yield the corresponding susceptibilities along the freeze-out line, provided the analogous conservation laws are imposed.
  • If the framework were applied at another centrality or acceptance and the extracted $\chi_2^B/\bar\chi_2^B$ stayed unchanged, that would validate the uniform susceptibility-ratio assumption; if it drifted, the effective single-order-parameter reduction would be too coarse.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Bayesian extraction of baryon number susceptibilities from STAR measurements of proton factorial cumulant ratios and net-proton cumulant ratios in 0–5% central Au–Au collisions at √sNN = 7.7–200 GeV. The forward model combines event-averaged MUSIC hydrodynamic hypersurfaces with maximum-entropy freeze-out, binomial thinning to accepted (anti)protons, and the SAM-3.0 exact baryon-number-conservation correction. The authors report tight constraints on χ2B/¯χ2B, quantitative agreement with lattice-QCD-based estimates for μB ≲ 300 MeV, an upward deviation at larger μB, and a demonstration that the nonmonotonic energy dependence of the proton factorial cumulant ratio Ĉ 3/Ĉ 1 can be reproduced without irreducible three- or four-baryon correlations.

Significance. The approach is novel: it converts heavy-ion fluctuation data into a data-driven determination of QCD baryon susceptibilities along the freeze-out line, rather than comparing data with a single assumed equation of state. The forward map is transparent and the supplemental material supplies explicit formulas for the MaxEnt mapping, binomial thinning, and the SAM-3.0 correction. The two independent extractions (proton factorial cumulants and net-proton cumulants) cross-validate each other, and the variation of the switching energy density is a useful robustness check. The two-baryon-dominance scenario makes a concrete, falsifiable statement about the origin of the Ĉ 3/Ĉ 1 peak. However, the current significance is bounded by the paper's own admissions that model systematics are not propagated and that volume fluctuations, initial-state fluctuations, and baryon-stopping fluctuations are neglected; these effects are largest exactly where the most interesting deviations appear.

major comments (3)
  1. [Bayesian inference and Fig. 3] The quoted uncertainties propagate only experimental errors; the hydrodynamic input, initial state, transport coefficients, switching energy density, and freeze-out prescription are held fixed (Bayesian inference paragraph and footnote [40]). The abstract's claim of 'tight constraints' and the quantitative agreement with lattice-QCD estimates for μB ≲ 300 MeV are therefore conditional on this fixed setup. Because the central claim is a comparison with lattice QCD, the absence of model systematics leaves open the possibility that the agreement, or the low-energy enhancement, is partly a consequence of the chosen hydrodynamic baseline. The paper should either estimate and propagate model uncertainties or state unambiguously in the abstract that the constraints are conditional on the hydrodynamic model.
  2. [Comparison with lattice QCD, caveats paragraph] The extraction uses event-averaged hypersurfaces and includes only the centrality-bin-width correction for volume fluctuations; the paper itself states that volume-fluctuation, initial-state, and baryon-stopping effects 'are expected to become increasingly important at the lowest collision energies' and that the extraction 'should be revisited' if more complete corrections revise the cumulants. The observed enhancement of χ2B/¯χ2B at 7.7 GeV and the nonmonotonic Ĉ 3/Ĉ 1 peak near 11 GeV lie precisely in this regime. As a result, the claimed deviation from lattice at large μB and the two-baryon-dominance interpretation of Ĉ 3/Ĉ 1 are not yet robust; the manuscript must either include a quantitative estimate of these effects or present the large-μB enhancement as an explicitly model-dependent hint rather than an extracted result.
  3. [Bayesian inference, footnote [40]] The Gaussian likelihood neglects correlations among the three measured ratios because the experimental covariance matrices are unavailable. This affects the size of the 68% credible intervals and, in particular, the 2.3σ preference for negative χ4B/χ2B at 19.6 GeV ('Extracted susceptibilities' section). Since the ratios are constructed from the same event samples, their correlations are likely non-negligible; without an estimate, statements of statistical significance for the higher-order susceptibilities are not supported. The authors should either obtain or estimate the covariances, or refrain from quoting significances.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'tight constraints' should be qualified as 'conditional tight constraints' given the fixed hydrodynamic setup; similarly, 'indicate an enhancement' should be flagged as model-dependent.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The upper axis converts √sNN to μB using the freeze-out parametrization of Ref. [43]; this mapping carries model uncertainty and should be mentioned in the caption or in the text.
  3. [Table I] The 200 GeV entry for χ3B/χ1B uses a widened prior and the posterior 'was verified to saturate'; this entry should be clearly marked as unconstrained or removed from the table of extracted values.
  4. [Two-baryon correlation dominance] The statement that Ĉ 3/Ĉ 1 can be described 'without irreducible three- or four-baryon correlations' is correct, but the higher-order susceptibilities in the scenario are nonzero through the induced relations in Eqs. (A7)–(A8); consider wording that makes this distinction clearer, e.g., 'without irreducible multi-baryon correlations beyond second order'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the extraction is an inverse fit by design, the C3/C1 test is a cross-validated model scenario, and self-cited tools are supporting and explicitly constructed.

full rationale

The paper's central operation is a Bayesian inference of the susceptibility ratios gamma1, gamma2, gamma3 from STAR cumulant data, so the extracted values are by definition the fitted parameters of the forward model. That is the stated goal of the paper, not a hidden circularity. The lattice comparison is external: chi2^B is put on an absolute scale using QMHRG2020 and compared with 4D-TExS and HotQCD results, neither of which is derived from the fitted parameters. The two-baryon dominance scenario is also not circular in the prohibited sense. The paper sets bDelta chi3^B = bDelta chi4^B = 0, takes gamma1 from the net-proton cumulant fit, and then computes the proton factorial cumulant ratio C3/C1. That ratio is a different observable set from the net-proton cumulants used to constrain gamma1, and the match is presented as a cross-validation with the STAR data; it is not an identity following from the fit by construction. The self-cited elements are supporting tools: SAM-3.0 is a parameter-free conservation-correction method whose cumulant construction is described in the Supplemental Material, and the baryon-conservation-generated C3/C1 effect is computed explicitly in the stage-by-stage decomposition, not merely asserted from a self-citation. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no known result is renamed as a new prediction. The paper's own caveats about unmodeled volume fluctuations at low energies are modeling limitations, not circular reasoning. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction rests on a chain of modeling assumptions: independent grand-canonical hypersurface elements in MaxEnt, binomial baryon-to-proton thinning with ideal-HRG fractions, uniform gamma ratios across the surface, event-averaged hydro, and exact baryon conservation via SAM-3.0. The only free parameters actually inferred from data are the three susceptibility ratios at each energy; all other ingredients are taken from prior work, mostly by the same group. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma_1(E) = chi_2^B / bar chi_2^B at each collision energy = 7.7 GeV: 1.074/1.060; 11.5: 0.765/0.781; 19.6: 0.770/0.819; 200: 0.848/0.857 (factorial/net-p medians, Table I)
    Primary target of the Bayesian extraction; flat prior [0.5,1.5] at every energy. These are fit parameters, not predictions.
  • gamma_2(E) = chi_3^B / chi_1^B at each collision energy = Mostly within [-3,3] except 200 GeV (large uncertainty); weakly constrained by prior [-15,15] ([-60,60] at 200 GeV)…
    Higher-order susceptibility ratio inferred from the same fits; posterior is prior-dominated at most energies.
  • gamma_3(E) = chi_4^B / chi_2^B at each collision energy = Weakly constrained; largest deviation at 19.6 GeV: -34 +/- 28 (factorial) and -33 +/- 14 (net-p), see Table I
    Fourth-order ratio; flat prior [-300,300], mostly prior-dominated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each hypersurface element is an independent grand-canonical subsystem; only local baryon-density fluctuations are retained in MaxEnt, so baryon-antibaryon factorial cumulants take the factorized form of Eq. (2).
    Invoked in the Framework section after Eq. (1): 'we regard each hypersurface element x in Sigma as an independent grand-canonical subsystem.'
  • domain assumption Baryon-to-proton mapping is independent binomial sampling with probability alpha_p(x)=q+(x)p(x) set by ideal-HRG proton fractions and Cooper-Frye acceptance.
    Invoked in the Framework section: 'For each hypersurface element x the sampling probability is alpha...' and formalized in Eq. (A16).
  • domain assumption The three susceptibility ratios gamma are uniform across the hypersurface at each collision energy, making them effective hypersurface-averaged quantities.
    Stated after Eq. (1): 'the ratios gamma are assumed uniform at each collision energy... should be interpreted as effective hypersurface-averaged quantities.'
  • domain assumption Event-averaged hydrodynamic hypersurfaces from MUSIC with constant energy density particlization (eps_sw = 0.26 GeV/fm3) and neglect of volume fluctuations beyond centrality-bin-width correction are adequate.
    Stated in the Bayesian inference section: 'the quoted uncertainties are conditional on the fixed hydrodynamic and freeze-out setup', and in the caveats paragraph before the lattice comparison.
  • domain assumption The measured cumulant ratios enter a Gaussian likelihood with statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature and correlations among the three ratios neglected.
    Stated in the Bayesian inference section: 'Because the corresponding experimental covariance matrices are unavailable, correlations among the three measured ratios are neglected in the likelihood.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extraction of baryon number susceptibilities at finite density from heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRHJTKF6

@misc{pith2026260810238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extraction of baryon number susceptibilities at finite density from heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRHJTKF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10238}
}
abstract

We present, to our knowledge, the first Bayesian extraction of baryon number susceptibilities of QCD matter at finite baryon density from heavy-ion collision data on proton number cumulants. The framework embeds arbitrary equation-of-state susceptibilities $\chi_n^B$ into realistic hydrodynamic particlization hypersurfaces through maximum-entropy freeze-out, maps the resulting (anti)baryon fluctuations onto protons, applies the experimental kinematic acceptance, and accounts for exact baryon number conservation. Applying the framework to measurements of (net-)proton number fluctuations in 0--5\% central Au-Au collisions from the RHIC Beam Energy Scan in the collider mode, we extract, at each collision energy, the second-order susceptibility normalized by the hadron resonance gas value, $\chi_{2}^B/\bar{\chi}_{2}^B$, and the higher-order susceptibility ratios $\chi_{3}^B/\chi_{1}^B$ and $\chi_{4}^B/\chi_{2}^B$. We obtain tight constraints on $\chi_{2}^B$, with extracted values in quantitative agreement with lattice QCD based estimates along the chemical freeze-out line for $\mu_B \lesssim 300$~MeV. At larger $\mu_B$, the extracted values indicate an enhancement of baryon number fluctuations relative to the noncritical lattice-based extrapolation and HRG baseline considered here. The third- and fourth-order susceptibilities are only weakly constrained. In particular, we find that the observed nonmonotonic collision-energy dependence of the proton factorial cumulant ratio $\hat{C}_{3}/\hat{C}_{1}$ can be described without irreducible three- or four-baryon correlations. This behavior emerges from the interplay between the energy dependence of $\chi_{2}^B$ and exact baryon number conservation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10238 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Collision energy dependence of the extracted baryon number susceptibility ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Collision energy dependence of the proton factorial cu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The second-order baryon number susceptibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    A2 in the Supplemental Material [37]

    Because the corresponding experimental covariance matri- ces are unavailable, correlations among the three measured ratios are neglected in the likelihood Separately, we cross- validate the framework by using the posterior inferred from each observable set to predict the other set, see Fig. A2 in the Supplemental Material [37]

    work page

  2. [1]

    M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 032301 (2009), arXiv:0809.3450 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  3. [2]

    Bzdak, S

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V . Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Phys. Rept.853, 1 (2020), arXiv:1906.00936 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 052301 (2011), arXiv:1104.1627 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [4]

    Bazavovet al., Phys

    A. Bazavovet al., Phys. Rev. D95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, S. K. Katz, K. K. Szabo, A. Pasztor, I. Portillo, and C. Ratti, JHEP10, 205, arXiv:1805.04445 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Bollweg, J

    D. Bollweg, J. Goswami, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, and P. Scior (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D104, 074512 (2021), arXiv:2107.10011 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, S. D. Katz, P. Parotto, A. Pasztor, D. Pesznyak, K. K. Szabo, and C. H. Wong, Phys. Rev. D110, L011501 (2024), arXiv:2312.07528 [hep- lat]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Bollweg, D

    D. Bollweg, D. A. Clarke, J. Goswami, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, and S. Sharma (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D108, 014510 (2023), arXiv:2212.09043 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Basar, Phys

    G. Basar, Phys. Rev. C110, 015203 (2024), arXiv:2312.06952 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    D. A. Clarke, P. Dimopoulos, F. Di Renzo, J. Goswami, C. Schmidt, S. Singh, and K. Zambello, Phys. Rev. D112, L091504 (2025), arXiv:2405.10196 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    H. Shah, M. Hippert, J. Noronha, C. Ratti, and V . V ovchenko, Phys. Rev. C113, L012201 (2026), arXiv:2410.16206 [hep-ph]

    2026

  5. [12]

    Abuali, S

    A. Abuali, S. Bors ´anyi, Z. Fodor, J. Jahan, M. Kahangirwe, P. Parotto, A. P´asztor, C. Ratti, H. Shah, and S. A. Trabulsi, Phys. Rev. D112, 054502 (2025), arXiv:2504.01881 [hep- lat]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Y . Lu, F. Gao, Y .-x. Liu, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 113, 054019 (2026), arXiv:2504.05099 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  7. [14]

    C. S. Fischer and J. M. Pawlowski, Phase structure and ob- servables at high densities from first principles QCD (2026), arXiv:2603.11135 [hep-ph]

    2026

  8. [15]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V . Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4816 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806219

    1998 arXiv

  9. [16]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V . Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D60, 114028 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903292

    1999 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Asakawa, S

    M. Asakawa, S. Ejiri, and M. Kitazawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 262301 (2009), arXiv:0904.2089 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Athanasiou, K

    C. Athanasiou, K. Rajagopal, and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D82, 074008 (2010), arXiv:1006.4636 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 092301 (2021), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 139902 (2025)], arXiv:2001.02852 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  13. [20]

    B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 142301 (2025), arXiv:2504.00817 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Braun-Munzinger, B

    P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Friman, K. Redlich, A. Rusta- mov, and J. Stachel, Nucl. Phys. A1008, 122141 (2021), arXiv:2007.02463 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    V ovchenko, V

    V . V ovchenko, V . Koch, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C105, 014904 (2022), arXiv:2107.00163 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    R.-z. Zhao, S. Yin, S. Wu, L. Du, X. Luo, and W.-j. Fu, Critical net-proton number fluctuations with hydrodynamics (2026), arXiv:2607.26912 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [24]

    S. A. Basset al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41, 255 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9803035

    1998 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Bleicheret al., J

    M. Bleicheret al., J. Phys. G25, 1859 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9909407

    1999

  19. [26]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C82, 014903 (2010), arXiv:1004.1408 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Paquet, C

    J.-F. Paquet, C. Shen, G. S. Denicol, M. Luzum, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C93, 044906 (2016), arXiv:1509.06738 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    G. S. Denicol, C. Gale, S. Jeon, A. Monnai, B. Schenke, and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C98, 034916 (2018), arXiv:1804.10557 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Shen and S

    C. Shen and S. Alzhrani, Phys. Rev. C102, 014909 (2020), arXiv:2003.05852 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    [29] by performing additional MUSIC simulations at BES-II energies, √sNN = 9.2,11.5, and17.3GeV

    Here we supplement Ref. [29] by performing additional MUSIC simulations at BES-II energies, √sNN = 9.2,11.5, and17.3GeV

  24. [31]

    M. S. Pradeep and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 162301 (2023), arXiv:2211.09142 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. M. Karthein, K. Rajagopal, M. S. Pradeep, M. Stephanov, and Y . Yin, Phys. Rev. D113, 074010 (2026), arXiv:2508.19237 [nucl-th]

    2026

  26. [33]

    Kitazawa and M

    M. Kitazawa and M. Asakawa, Phys. Rev. C85, 021901 (2012), arXiv:1107.2755 [nucl-th]. 6

    2012 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Poberezhniuk, V

    R. Poberezhniuk, V . A. Kuznietsov, G. Pihan, and V . V ovchenko, Subensemble Acceptance Method 3.0: Gen- eral Corrections to Cumulants from Exact Conservation Constraints (2026), arXiv:2607.01783 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  28. [35]

    V ovchenko and H

    V . V ovchenko and H. Stoecker, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Therefore, by construction,χ B 1 = ¯χB 1

  30. [37]

    See Supplemental Material for the explicit construction of the joint cumulants entering the SAM-3.0 correction, poste- rior distributions and cross-validation of the two extractions, and tabulated extracted values

  31. [38]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C104, 024902 (2021), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 111, 029902 (2025)], arXiv:2101.12413 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  32. [39]

    We used a widened prior range of[−60,60]for √sNN = 200GeV due to large extracted uncertainty

  33. [41]

    [2] to denote ordinary and factorial cumulants while the STAR publication [20] uses the opposite notation

    We use the notation from Ref. [2] to denote ordinary and factorial cumulants while the STAR publication [20] uses the opposite notation

  34. [42]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V . Koch, and V . V ovchenko, Phys. Rev. C112, 024901 (2025), arXiv:2503.16405 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    V ovchenko, V

    V . V ovchenko, V . V . Begun, and M. I. Gorenstein, Phys. Rev. C93, 064906 (2016), arXiv:1512.08025 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Friman, K

    B. Friman, K. Redlich, and A. Rustamov, JHEP07, 20, arXiv:2508.18879 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V . Koch, Phys. Rev. C86, 044904 (2012), arXiv:1206.4286 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    We obtain essentially the same result using an alternative freeze-out line from [56]

  39. [47]

    Jahanet al., Studying the QCD Matter produced in Heavy-Ion Collisions using the MUSES Calculation Engine (2026), arXiv:2606.26326 [nucl-th]

    J. Jahanet al., Studying the QCD Matter produced in Heavy-Ion Collisions using the MUSES Calculation Engine (2026), arXiv:2606.26326 [nucl-th]

    2026 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jahan, P

    J. Jahan, P. Parotto, and H. Shah, 4D-TExS:T ′-expansion scheme equation of state, NSF MUSES GitLab repository (2025), version 1.0.4

    2025

  41. [49]

    Bollweg, J

    D. Bollweg, J. Goswami, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, and P. Scior (HotQCD), Phys. Rev. D105, 074511 (2022), arXiv:2202.09184 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. Luo, J. Xu, B. Mohanty, and N. Xu, J. Phys. G40, 105104 (2013), arXiv:1302.2332 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Wang and X

    Z. Wang and X. Luo, Phys. Lett. B871, 139984 (2025), arXiv:2505.03666 [physics.data-an]

    2025

  44. [52]

    V ovchenko, R

    V . V ovchenko, R. V . Poberezhnyuk, and V . Koch, JHEP10, 089, arXiv:2007.03850 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V ovchenko, Phys

    V . V ovchenko, Phys. Rev. C106, 064906 (2022), arXiv:2208.13693 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Braun-Munzinger, K

    P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, JHEP08, 113, arXiv:2312.15534 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    V ovchenko, Phys

    V . V ovchenko, Phys. Rev. C110, L061902 (2024), arXiv:2409.01397 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl- th]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    V ovchenko and V

    V . V ovchenko and V . Koch, Phys. Rev. C103, 044903 (2021), arXiv:2012.09954 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G. M. Constantine and T. H. Savits, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 348, 503 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    V ovchenko, Phys

    V . V ovchenko, Phys. Rev. C105, 014903 (2022), arXiv:2106.13775 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Comtet,Advanced Combinatorics(D

    L. Comtet,Advanced Combinatorics(D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1974)

    1974

  53. [61]

    V ovchenko, O

    V . V ovchenko, O. Savchuk, R. V . Poberezhnyuk, M. I. Gorenstein, and V . Koch, Phys. Lett. B811, 135868 (2020), arXiv:2003.13905 [hep-ph]. Supplemental Material MaxEnt mapping from baryon susceptibilities to baryon–antibaryon cumulants For each hypersurface elementx∈Σ, the i...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.