Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Baselines for Abelian Charge Fluctuations in Nuclear Collisions:Theory and Comparison with Experimental Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global baryon-number conservation alone cannot describe the measured proton factorial cumulant ratios; repulsive two-proton and attractive three-proton correlations are needed.

desk verdict The analytic core — Eq. (37), arbitrary-order factorial cumulants under exact baryon conservation — is new and solid; the empirical 'decisive correlations' claim is a tuned fit without out-of-sample validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18879 v1 pith:TYW74OC2 submitted 2025-08-26 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Bengt Friman , Krzysztof Redlich , Anar Rustamov This is my paper
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords canonicalensemblebaryonnumberconservationfactorialcumulantsnet-protonfluctuationsheavy-ioncollisionsbeamenergyscanmultiparticlecorrelationsSTARBES-II
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 exact conservation of baryon number, the usual non-critical baseline for fluctuation measurements, is not enough to explain the proton factorial cumulant ratios recently measured by STAR (BES-II) and HADES. The authors derive closed-form expressions for factorial cumulants of arbitrary order in a subsystem of a canonically conserved charge, expressing them through cumulants of the total baryon number. They then add local correlations to this canonical framework: repulsive two-proton interactions at high collision energies and attractive three-proton interactions at low energies. If correct, the measured ratios—often read as possible critical-point signals—already contain a strong, energy-dependent multiparticle-correlation component, so the non-critical baseline must include it before any critical interpretation. The same framework also generates synthetic events, letting theory be compared directly with experimental acceptances.

What carries the argument

The analytic engine is the canonical partition function of an Abelian charge, written in integral form with a modified Bessel function so that net-baryon number is exactly conserved. From it, Eq. (37) gives arbitrary-order subsystem factorial cumulants F^(n,m)—factorial cumulants being the cumulants of factorial moments that isolate true multiparticle correlations—in terms of the total-system baryon cumulants c_k and generalized combinatorial coefficients. On top of this canonical baseline, a stochastic event generator imposes local correlations through a short-range exponential repulsive potential and a power-law attractive multi-particle potential, producing full events with definite rapid

What would settle it

Compute the proton factorial cumulant ratios for STAR FXT Au+Au collisions at 3.0, 3.2, 3.5, and 3.9 GeV using the canonical baseline plus the repulsive two-proton model: if those data follow the repulsion-only baseline, the claimed low-energy attraction is not present. Alternatively, a finite-hadron-volume or volume-fluctuation model that reproduces both BES-II and HADES ratios without the tuned multiparticle potentials would falsify the claim that multiparticle interactions are essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, within a canonical ensemble enforcing exact net-baryon conservation, the factorial cumulants of baryon and antibaryon multiplicities in a subsystem of any order are determined by the cumulants of the total baryon number. The central result is Eq. (37), a closed-form expression for F^(n,m), the mixed factorial cumulants in the subsystem, built from generalized combinatorial coefficients and the total-system cumulants c_k. This analytic result extends earlier work that was limited to sixth order. The authors then go beyond global conservation by coupling the canonical ensemble to local multi-particle correlations: short-range exponential repulsion between proton pai

Load-bearing premise

The key premise is that the two interaction potentials, with strengths chosen to match the data they are compared with, actually represent the physics that produces the measured cumulant ratios; if other mechanisms such as finite hadron volumes can reproduce the same ratios, the paper's central conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, comparisons of proton fluctuation data with non-critical baselines must include local proton correlations in addition to global baryon-number conservation; the conservation-only baseline is insufficient.
  • Repulsive two-proton interactions describe the rapidity-dependent STAR BES-II factorial cumulant ratios at √s_NN = 8.8, 17.3, and 62.4 GeV, with energy-independent parameters.
  • Attractive three-proton interactions are required to describe the HADES Ag+Ag data at 2.55 GeV; two-proton attraction alone does not reproduce the shape of the measured ratios.
  • The framework generates synthetic events (millions of them), so theory predictions can be folded into the same rapidity, transverse-momentum, and centrality acceptances as the data.
  • The energy dependence of the deviations from the canonical baseline indicates a crossover from repulsion-dominated correlations at high energies to attraction-dominated correlations at low energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cleaner implication for critical-point searches: the non-critical baseline should itself be energy-dependent, containing canonical conservation plus these multiparticle correlations; only deviations above such a baseline would be an unambiguous critical signal.
  • A decisive test would be to apply the same machinery to STAR FXT Au+Au data at 3.0–3.9 GeV, where the authors state baselines are not yet computed and where the repulsion-attraction boundary is expected to lie.
  • If the repulsion-to-attraction crossover is real, the ratio F^(2,0)/F^(1,0) should develop non-monotonic energy dependence between 2.5 and 8.8 GeV; a fine scan in that window could localize the crossover.
  • Alternative mechanisms, such as finite hadron volumes, could in principle generate the same fluctuation patterns; a head-to-head comparison of those baselines with the present one on the same datasets would decide whether multiparticle interactions are specifically required.
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 paper studies fluctuations of an Abelian conserved charge (baryon number) in the canonical ensemble, with exact global conservation, and derives closed-form expressions for arbitrary-order factorial cumulants and cumulants in a subsystem. The central analytic result is Eq. (37), expressing subsystem factorial cumulants F^{(n,m)} in terms of the cumulants c_k of the total-system baryon number, using multivariate Faà di Bruno formulas and generalized Stirling numbers. The paper then introduces a phenomenological Metropolis-model framework with repulsive and attractive multi-particle interactions [Eqs. (58), (59)] and compares computed proton factorial cumulant ratios F^{(n,0)}/F^{(1,0)} with STAR BES-I/BES-II, STAR FXT, and HADES data. The authors conclude that global baryon-number conservation alone is insufficient and that repulsive two-proton interactions (at high energies) and attractive three-proton interactions (at low energies) are essential to describe the data.

Significance. If the empirical conclusion holds, this work provides an important non-critical baseline for interpreting fluctuation measurements in heavy-ion collisions and constrains critical-point searches. The analytical part is a genuine contribution: Eq. (37) generalizes known low-order results (Refs. [25, 44]) to arbitrary order, and the derivation via multivariate Bell polynomials and generalized Stirling numbers is self-contained and internally consistent, with low-order limits matching known expressions. The negative claim, that the canonical global-conservation-only baseline fails to describe the measured proton factorial cumulant ratios, appears well supported by the figures. However, the positive claim that specific multiparticle interactions are 'essential' is currently underdetermined: the interaction potentials are ad hoc, tuned to reproduce the same data they are compared with, no goodness-of-fit or out-of-sample validation is provided, and the paper itself notes that baselines for the STAR FXT points are still missing. The analytic core and the empirical interpretation therefore should be judged separately.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI.B, Eqs. (58)-(59), Fig. 4] The central 'essential correlations' conclusion rests on a Metropolis model whose interaction parameters (α_r=35, ρ_r=1; α_a=1000, β_a=1) are fixed by requiring that the same STAR BES-II/HADES data be 'satisfactorily reproduced'. No goodness-of-fit, parameter scan, or out-of-sample test is reported. Because the potentials are ad hoc and the model has enough freedom to move the ratios through the plotted range, the agreement shown in Figs. 1-4 is an in-sample fit and does not by itself establish that repulsive two-proton or attractive three-proton interactions are the physical origin of the deviations. I recommend either reporting a quantitative fit criterion, comparing with an alternative non-critical baseline (e.g., the finite-volume hydrodynamics of Ref. [51]), or softening the 'essential/decisive role' wording.
  2. [Section VI.B, Fig. 4] The abstract and conclusions claim a description 'over a broad range of collision energies, from sqrt(s_NN)=17.3 GeV down to 2.5 GeV'. However, the STAR FXT data points at 3.0–3.9 GeV are plotted (purple stars) without a computed baseline; the text explicitly states that 'to draw firm conclusions, baselines for the STAR FXT data must also be calculated. At present, our low-energy baseline calculations are available only for the HADES data.' Thus the paper's own limitation statement contradicts the breadth of the central claim. Provide the missing FXT baselines or restrict the conclusion to the HADES energy.
  3. [Section VI.A, Fig. 3] The discrimination between two- and three-particle attraction is qualitative. The text notes that two-proton attraction could be tuned to describe F^{(2,0)}/F^{(1,0)} at some Δy values but would overshoot other points by more than two standard deviations; the preference for three-proton attraction is a shape judgement with no reported test statistics. Moreover, the 'three-particle' attractive potential is constructed as a sum over pairs [Eq. (60)], so it is not a genuinely irreducible three-body mechanism. To support the claim that attractive three-particle correlations are essential, a dedicated three-body term or a model-selection test is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (57)] The joint probability density is written P(y1,y1); the second argument should be y2.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption lists '62.4 GeV' in the text but the panel (c) label says '64 GeV'. The collision energy should be 62.4 GeV consistently.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The displayed formula for F_n has a typographical error: 'Fn = kX k=1' should read F_n = sum_{k=1}^{n} s(n,k) C_k.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (12)] The notation (z/2 d/dz)^{k-1} c1 could be clarified for k=1 by stating that the operator acts as the identity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Analytical factorial-cumulant derivation is self-contained; however, the 'essential correlations' conclusion rests on potentials tuned to the same STAR BES-II and HADES data used for validation, making the decisive-role claim an in-sample fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI.B, parameter determination for repulsive interactions (around Fig. 4)]
    "The parameters for two-particle repulsive interactions (Eq. 58) were determined with the Metropolis algorithm under the condition that the STAR BESII results are satisfactorily reproduced. This procedure yields αr = 35 and ρr = 1, which are used independently of the collision energy. ... The inclusion of repulsive interactions significantly improves the agreement with the STAR BES-II data."

    The repulsion parameters are explicitly tuned to the STAR BES-II results, and the same STAR BES-II data are then shown in Fig. 4 as being 'significantly improved' by repulsive interactions. The paper uses this in-sample agreement as evidence that repulsive two-proton correlations are essential at high energies. No out-of-sample test or alternative-baseline comparison is provided, so the agreement is a restatement of the fitting condition rather than an independent confirmation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section VI.B, parameter determination for attractive interactions (Figs. 3 and 4)]
    "At the HADES energy, the parameters for two- and three-particle attractive interactions (Eq. 60) were obtained as αa = 1000 and βa = 1. ... Simulations including pairwise attractive correlations are represented by open black boxes in Fig. 4. At the HADES energy, the result with three-proton (rather than two-proton) attraction are shown by the open red boxes. The latter provides a better description of the HADES data."

    The attractive-interaction parameters are fixed to the HADES measurement, and then the same HADES data are cited as evidence that attractive three-particle correlations are essential at low energies. The comparison is in-sample: the model was adjusted to reproduce these data, so the observation that it describes them does not independently establish the necessity of three-particle attraction. The conclusion that multiparticle interactions play a 'decisive role' is therefore not supported by an independent prediction.

full rationale

Eq. (37) and the associated Bell-polynomial derivation are internally self-contained: given the canonical partition function and the total-system cumulants c_k, the subsystem factorial cumulants follow by differentiation, with no feedback from the measured proton factorial cumulants. The canonical baseline itself uses externally measured baryon rapidity distributions (NA49/BRAHMS/HADES) as inputs, so it is not circular. The circularity is confined to the phenomenological comparison. In Section VI.B the authors state that the repulsive parameters (αr=35, ρr=1) 'were determined ... under the condition that the STAR BESII results are satisfactorily reproduced,' and the attractive parameters (αa=1000, βa=1) were likewise 'obtained' at the HADES energy. These same STAR BES-II and HADES data are then presented in Figs. 3-4 as evidence that repulsive two-proton and attractive three-proton correlations are 'essential' and play a 'decisive role.' That agreement is an in-sample fit, not an independent confirmation; absent an out-of-sample test or a computed alternative baseline (e.g., the finite-volume hydrodynamics of Ref. [51] is mentioned but not evaluated), the 'essential correlations' conclusion reduces to the tuning condition. The paper also admits that baselines for the STAR FXT points are missing, further weakening the broad-energy claim. The analytical core therefore merits a low circularity score, but the comparison-based central claim is partially circular, yielding score 6.

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

The analytical cumulant result is essentially parameter-free on top of the canonical partition function inputs. The empirical part of the paper rests on free parameters: the repulsive potential strengths alpha_r, rho_r fitted to STAR BES-II, the attractive potential parameters alpha_a, beta_a fitted to HADES, and the target correlation coefficient rho in the alternative scheme. The domain assumptions (exact conservation, Boltzmann approximation, binomial acceptance, S-matrix ideal-gas form) are standard in this line of work, while the interaction potentials are ad hoc model ingredients. No new particles or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_r, rho_r (repulsive potential parameters) = alpha_r = 35, rho_r = 1
    Determined with the Metropolis algorithm under the condition that STAR BES-II results are satisfactorily reproduced (Section VI.B). Applied at all collision energies.
  • alpha_a, beta_a (attractive potential parameters) = alpha_a = 1000, beta_a = 1
    Obtained for the HADES energy to describe the low-energy factorial cumulant ratios (Section VI.B).
  • Rho target (alternative cost-function scheme) = rho = 0.8
    Target correlation coefficient used in Eq. (61) for the alternative Metropolis parametrization; tuned so the resulting rapidity correlations match the HADES data (Section VI.B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Exact net-baryon number conservation in the full system, with the canonical partition function of Eq. (2) in the Boltzmann approximation.
    Invoked throughout Section II as the defining feature of the canonical ensemble. The paper notes it also holds under local Poisson multiplicities (footnote 2).
  • domain assumption S-matrix approach justifies an ideal-gas-like leading-order fugacity expansion, with baryon-baryon interactions neglected at the level of the partition function (added later via the phenomenological correlations).
    Stated in the opening of Section II and used to write Z_B in the modified-ideal-gas form of Eq. (1). If meson-baryon and baryon-baryon interactions cannot be subsumed this way, the baseline cumulant expressions change.
  • domain assumption Acceptance is described by fixed probabilities alpha_B and alpha_Bbar (binomial folding) for each baryon species.
    Used in Eq. (28) for the subsystem generating function and in the efficiency-folding of Section VI. This ignores rapidity and pT dependence of the acceptance within the window.
  • ad hoc to paper The interaction potentials of Eqs. (58) and (59) and the cluster cost function of Eq. (61) generate correlations representative of the physical proton dynamics.
    Introduced in Section V with no derivation from QCD or hadronic amplitudes; the parameters are fixed by fitting the data in Section VI.B.
  • standard math Multivariate Faà di Bruno formula and the algebra of Bell polynomials and generalized Stirling numbers.
    Used in Appendices A and B to derive Eq. (37) and the net-baryon cumulant expressions. These are established results invoked in the derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baselines for Abelian Charge Fluctuations in Nuclear Collisions:Theory and Comparison with Experimental Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYW74OC2

@misc{pith2026250818879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baselines for Abelian Charge Fluctuations in Nuclear Collisions:Theory and Comparison with Experimental Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYW74OC2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18879}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate fluctuations in the canonical ensemble of an Abelian charge, such as baryon number. Our focus is on cumulants and factorial cumulants of baryon and antibaryon multiplicity distributions, including their sum and difference, in both the full phase space and subsystems. In particular, we establish a correlation between net-baryon number fluctuations within a subsystem, which is pertinent for fluctuation analyses in nucleus-nucleus collisions, and fluctuations of baryon and antibaryon numbers in the total system. We derive analytical expressions for factorial cumulants of arbitrary order and present concise results in terms of the cumulants of the total baryon number. To account for dynamics beyond global conservation, we introduce local attractive and repulsive multi-particle interactions within a phenomenological framework. A comparison of calculated and generated cumulants with STAR and HADES data indicates that multiparticle interactions play a decisive role in the description of observed fluctuation patterns. At high collision energies, the data are well-reproduced by incorporating repulsive two-proton interactions, while at lower energies, attractive three-particle interactions become essential. Furthermore, our framework facilitates realistic event generation, enabling a direct comparison with experimental measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18879 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the dependence on the rapidity gap of the factorial cumulant ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The dependence on the rapidity gap of factorial cumulant ratios for proton number distributions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The dependence on the rapidity gap of the factorial cumulant ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratios of proton factorial cumulants, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The transition from attractive to repulsive correlations with increasing collision energy for the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Sequential Clusterization of Light Nuclei and Hypernuclei in Heavy-Ion Collisions within a Wigner Function Coalescence Framework

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coalescence model with realistic hyperspherical wave functions in PHQMD extracts species-dependent coalescence times for light nuclei and hypernuclei at 3 GeV, improves A=4 yields via extra channels, and predicts heav...

  2. Exploring the QCD phase diagram through correlations and fluctuations

    nucl-th 2025-12 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    A synthesis of the QCD critical point search: theoretical estimates cluster at T_C≈100–120 MeV, μ_B≈550–650 MeV, and BES-II cumulant data match non-critical baselines above 10 GeV while 7.7–9 GeV deviations remain une...

  3. Search for the QCD Critical Point in High Energy Nuclear Collisions: A Status Report

    nucl-ex 2026-02 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    Recent net-proton cumulant ratios from RHIC BES-II data are compared to non-critical models from Lattice QCD, HRG, hydrodynamics and UrQMD, with volume fluctuation effects noted at fixed-target energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [25]

    Factorial cumulants from global baryon number conservation

    M. Barej and A. Bzdak, Factorial cumulants from global baryon number conservation, Phys. Rev. C 102, 064908 (2020), arXiv:2006.02836 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [51]

    Vovchenko, V

    V. Vovchenko, V. Koch, and C. Shen, Proton number cumulants and correlation functions in Au-Au collisions at sNN=7.7–200 GeV from hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014904 (2022), arXiv:2107.00163 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [44]

    Braun-Munzinger, B

    P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Friman, K. Redlich, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, Relativistic nuclear collisions: Establishing a non-critical baseline for fluctuation measurements, Nucl. Phys. A 1008, 122141 (2021), arXiv:2007.02463 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [1]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Cumulants and correlation functions of net-proton, proton, and antiproton multiplicity distri- butions in Au+Au collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024902 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 111, 029902 (2025)], arXiv:2101.12413 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [2]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Nonmonotonic Energy Dependence of Net-Proton Number Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 092301 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 134, 139902 (2025)], arXiv:2001.02852 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [3]

    Precision measurement of (net-)proton number fluctuations in au+au collisions at rhic, (2025), arXiv:2504.00817 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [4]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. (HADES), Proton-number fluctuations in √sN N=2.4 GeV Au + Au collisions studied with the High-Acceptance DiElectron Spectrometer (HADES), Phys. Rev. C 102, 024914 (2020), arXiv:2002.08701 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [5]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Global baryon number conservation encoded in net-proton fluctuations measured in Pb–Pb collisions at sNN=2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135564 (2020), arXiv:1910.14396 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 82 references
  1. [6]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Closing in on critical net-baryon fluctuations at LHC energies: Cumulants up to third order in Pb–Pb collisions, Phys. Lett. B 844, 137545 (2023), arXiv:2206.03343 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Adhikary et al

    H. Adhikary et al. (NA61/SHINE), Search for the critical point of strongly-interacting matter in 40Ar + 45Sc collisions at 150A Ge V /c using scaled factorial moments of protons, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 881 (2023), arXiv:2305.07557 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [8]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Signatures of the tricritical point in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4816 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806219

    1998 arXiv

  4. [9]

    M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Event-by-event fluctuations in heavy ion collisions and the QCD critical point, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114028 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903292

    1999 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Asakawa and K

    M. Asakawa and K. Yazaki, Chiral Restoration at Finite Density and Temperature, Nucl. Phys. A 504, 668 (1989)

    1989

  6. [11]

    Friman, F

    B. Friman, F. Karsch, K. Redlich, and V. Skokov, Fluctuations as probe of the QCD phase transition and freeze-out in heavy ion collisions at LHC and RHIC, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1694 (2011), arXiv:1103.3511 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Ejiri, C

    S. Ejiri, C. R. Allton, M. Doring, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and K. Redlich, Fluctuations in the vicinity of the phase transition line for two flavor QCD, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140, 505 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0409033

    2005 arXiv

  8. [13]

    C. R. Allton, M. Doring, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, and K. Redlich, Thermodynamics of two flavor QCD to sixth order in quark chemical potential, Phys. Rev. D 71, 054508 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0501030

    2005 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Ejiri, F

    S. Ejiri, F. Karsch, and K. Redlich, Hadronic fluctuations at the QCD phase transition, Phys. Lett. B 633, 275 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0509051

    2006 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Karsch, S

    F. Karsch, S. Ejiri, and K. Redlich, Hadronic fluctuations in the QGP, Nucl. Phys. A 774, 619 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0510126

    2006

  11. [16]

    Karsch and K

    F. Karsch and K. Redlich, Probing freeze-out conditions in heavy ion collisions with moments of charge fluctuations, Phys. Lett. B 695, 136 (2011), arXiv:1007.2581 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Sasaki, B

    C. Sasaki, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Density fluctuations in the presence of spinodal instabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 232301 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702254

    2007 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Sasaki, B

    C. Sasaki, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Susceptibilities and the Phase Structure of a Chiral Model with Polyakov Loops, Phys. Rev. D 75, 074013 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611147

    2007 arXiv

  14. [19]

    Bzdak, S

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Mapping the Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics with Beam Energy Scan, Phys. Rept. 853, 1 (2020), arXiv:1906.00936 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [20]

    V. A. Kuznietsov, O. Savchuk, M. I. Gorenstein, V. Koch, and V. Vovchenko, Critical point particle number fluctuations from molecular dynamics, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044903 (2022), arXiv:2201.08486 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Braun-Munzinger, A

    P. Braun-Munzinger, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, QCD under extreme conditions, (2022), arXiv:2211.08819 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Gross et al

    F. Gross et al. , 50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1125 (2023), arXiv:2212.11107 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Rustamov, Overview of fluctuation and correlation measurements, Nucl

    A. Rustamov, Overview of fluctuation and correlation measurements, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121858 (2021), arXiv:2005.13398 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Rustamov, Deciphering the phases of QCD matter with fluctuations and correlations of conserved charges, EPJ Web Conf

    A. Rustamov, Deciphering the phases of QCD matter with fluctuations and correlations of conserved charges, EPJ Web Conf. 276, 01007 (2023), arXiv:2210.14810 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Bialas, Correlations and fluctuations: Generalized factorial moments, Phys

    A. Bialas, Correlations and fluctuations: Generalized factorial moments, Phys. Rev. C 75, 024904 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0701074

    2007

  21. [27]

    Bzdak and V

    A. Bzdak and V. Koch, Mapping the QCD phase diagram with statistics friendly distributions, Phys. Rev. C 100, 051902 (2019), arXiv:1811.04456 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Barej and A

    M. Barej and A. Bzdak, Factorial cumulants from short-range correlations and global baryon number conservation, Phys. Rev. C 106, 024904 (2022), arXiv:2205.05497 [hep-ph]. 24

    2022 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Energy Dependence of Moments of Net-proton Multiplicity Distributions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 032302 (2014), arXiv:1309.5681 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Luo (STAR), Energy Dependence of Moments of Net-Proton and Net-Charge Multiplicity Distributions at STAR, PoS CPOD2014, 019 (2015), arXiv:1503.02558 [nucl-ex]

    X. Luo (STAR), Energy Dependence of Moments of Net-Proton and Net-Charge Multiplicity Distributions at STAR, PoS CPOD2014, 019 (2015), arXiv:1503.02558 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Luo, Exploring the QCD Phase Structure with Beam Energy Scan in Heavy-ion Collisions, Nucl

    X. Luo, Exploring the QCD Phase Structure with Beam Energy Scan in Heavy-ion Collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 956, 75 (2016), arXiv:1512.09215 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Rustamov (ALICE), Net-baryon fluctuations measured with ALICE at the CERN LHC, Nucl

    A. Rustamov (ALICE), Net-baryon fluctuations measured with ALICE at the CERN LHC, Nucl. Phys. A 967, 453 (2017), arXiv:1704.05329 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Arslandok (ALICE), Recent results on conserved charge fluctuations in ALICE, Nucl

    M. Arslandok (ALICE), Recent results on conserved charge fluctuations in ALICE, Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121979 (2021), arXiv:2002.03906 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Skokov, B

    V. Skokov, B. Friman, and K. Redlich, Volume Fluctuations and Higher Order Cumulants of the Net Baryon Number, Phys. Rev. C 88, 034911 (2013), arXiv:1205.4756 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Braun-Munzinger, A

    P. Braun-Munzinger, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, Bridging the gap between event-by-event fluctuation measurements and theory predictions in relativistic nuclear collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 960, 114 (2017), arXiv:1612.00702 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Sugiura, T

    T. Sugiura, T. Nonaka, and S. Esumi, Volume fluctuation and multiplicity correlation in higher-order cumulants, Phys. Rev. C 100, 044904 (2019), arXiv:1903.02314 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Rustamov, J

    A. Rustamov, J. Stroth, and R. Holzmann, A model-free procedure to correct for volume fluctuations in E-by-E analyses of particle multiplicities, Nucl. Phys. A 1034, 122641 (2023), arXiv:2211.14849 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Holzmann, V

    R. Holzmann, V. Koch, A. Rustamov, and J. Stroth, Controlling volume fluctuations for studies of critical phenomena in nuclear collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 1050, 122924 (2024), arXiv:2403.03598 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Braun-Munzinger, K

    P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, The imprint of conservation laws on correlated particle production, JHEP 08, 113, arXiv:2312.15534 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  34. [40]

    Bzdak, V

    A. Bzdak, V. Koch, and V. Skokov, Baryon number conservation and the cumulants of the net proton distribution, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014901 (2013), arXiv:1203.4529 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Braun-Munzinger, A

    P. Braun-Munzinger, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, Experimental results on fluctuations of conserved charges confronted with predictions from canonical thermodynamics, Nucl. Phys. A 982, 307 (2019), arXiv:1807.08927 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Braun-Munzinger, A

    P. Braun-Munzinger, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel, The role of the local conservation laws in fluctuations of conserved charges, (2019), arXiv:1907.03032 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [43]

    V. V. Begun, M. Gazdzicki, M. I. Gorenstein, and O. S. Zozulya, Particle number fluctuations in canonical ensemble, Phys. Rev. C 70, 034901 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0404056

    2004 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Vovchenko, O

    V. Vovchenko, O. Savchuk, R. V. Poberezhnyuk, M. I. Gorenstein, and V. Koch, Connecting fluctuation measurements in heavy-ion collisions with the grand-canonical susceptibilities, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135868 (2020), arXiv:2003.13905 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Vovchenko, R

    V. Vovchenko, R. V. Poberezhnyuk, and V. Koch, Cumulants of multiple conserved charges and global conservation laws, JHEP 10, 089, arXiv:2007.03850 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  40. [47]

    C. A. Pruneau, Role of baryon number conservation in measurements of fluctuations, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034905 (2019), arXiv:1903.04591 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Zachary (STAR), Quark matter 2025 presentation, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2025 (2025) to be published

    S. Zachary (STAR), Quark matter 2025 presentation, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2025 (2025) to be published

    2025

  42. [49]

    Yige (STAR), Quark matter 2025 presentation, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2025 (2025) to be published

    H. Yige (STAR), Quark matter 2025 presentation, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2025 (2025) to be published

    2025

  43. [50]

    Marvin (HADES), Quark matter 2025 presentation, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2025 (2025) to be published

    N. Marvin (HADES), Quark matter 2025 presentation, in Proceedings of Quark Matter 2025 (2025) to be published

    2025

  44. [52]

    Friman and K

    B. Friman and K. Redlich, Fluctuations in the canonical ensemble of an Abelian charge, (2022), arXiv:2205.07332 [nucl-th (this manuscript has not been submitted for publication)]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Dashen, S.-K

    R. Dashen, S.-K. Ma, and H. J. Bernstein, S Matrix formulation of statistical mechanics, Phys. Rev. 187, 345 (1969)

    1969

  46. [54]

    Venugopalan and M

    R. Venugopalan and M. Prakash, Thermal properties of interacting hadrons, Nucl. Phys. A 546, 718 (1992)

    1992

  47. [55]

    Weinhold, B

    W. Weinhold, B. Friman, and W. Norenberg, Thermodynamics of Delta resonances, Phys. Lett. B 433, 236 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9710014

    1998 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Giacosa, V

    F. Giacosa, V. Begun, and W. Broniowski, Irrelevance of f0(500) in bulk thermal properties, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 9, 213 (2016), arXiv:1603.07687 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. M. Lo, S-matrix formulation of thermodynamics with N-body scatterings, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 533 (2017), arXiv:1707.04490 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. Dash, S. Samanta, and B. Mohanty, Thermodynamics of a gas of hadrons with attractive and repulsive interactions within an S -matrix formalism, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044919 (2019), arXiv:1806.02117 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Friman, P

    B. Friman, P. M. Lo, M. Marczenko, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, Strangeness fluctuations from K − π interactions, Phys. Rev. D 92, 074003 (2015), arXiv:1507.04183 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    P. M. Lo, Density of states of a coupled-channel system, Phys. Rev. D 102, 034038 (2020), arXiv:2007.03392 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Braun-Munzinger, K

    P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Particle production in heavy ion collisions, , 491 (2003), arXiv:nucl- th/0304013

    2003

  54. [62]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy, Nature 561, 321 (2018), arXiv:1710.09425 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Cleymans, P

    J. Cleymans, P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, and N. Sharma, Multiplicity dependence of (multi)strange baryons in the canonical ensemble with phase shift corrections, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014904 (2021), arXiv:2009.04844 [hep-ph]. 25

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Friman, P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, The thermal proton yield anomaly in Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC and its resolution, Phys. Lett. B 792, 304 (2019), arXiv:1808.03102 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. , The QCD Equation of State to O(µ6 B) from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054504 (2017), arXiv:1701.04325 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Noronha-Hostler, P

    J. Noronha-Hostler, P. Parotto, C. Ratti, and J. M. Stafford, Lattice-based equation of state at finite baryon number, electric charge and strangeness chemical potentials, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064910 (2019), arXiv:1902.06723 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    P. M. Lo, B. Friman, K. Redlich, and C. Sasaki, S-matrix analysis of the baryon electric charge correlation, Phys. Lett. B 778, 454 (2018), arXiv:1710.02711 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Almasi, A

    G. Almasi, A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Friman, P. M. Lo, K. Redlich, C. Sasaki, and J. Stachel, Exploring chiral symmetry restoration in heavy-ion collisions with fluctuation observables, Nucl. Phys. A 982, 295 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Goswami, F

    J. Goswami, F. Karsch, C. Schmidt, S. Mukherjee, and P. Petreczky, Comparing conserved charge fluctuations from lattice QCD to HRG model calculations, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 14, 251 (2021), arXiv:2011.02812 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Kitazawa and X

    M. Kitazawa and X. Luo, Properties and uses of factorial cumulants in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 96, 024910 (2017), arXiv:1704.04909 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Riordan, Derivatives of composite functions, Bull

    J. Riordan, Derivatives of composite functions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 52, 664 (1946)

    1946

  64. [72]

    Comtet, Advanced Combinatorics (D

    L. Comtet, Advanced Combinatorics (D. Riedel, Dordrecht, 1974)

    1974

  65. [73]

    Schumann, Multivariate Bell Polynomials and Derivatives of Composed Functions, (2019), arXiv:1903.03899 [math-CA]

    A. Schumann, Multivariate Bell Polynomials and Derivatives of Composed Functions, (2019), arXiv:1903.03899 [math-CA]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    E. T. Bell, Exponential polynomials, Annals of Mathematics, Second Series 35, 258 (1934)

    1934

  67. [75]

    R. A. Buckingham, The classical equation of state of gaseous helium, neon and argon, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 168, 264 (1938)

    1938

  68. [76]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. (HADES), Centrality determination of Au + Au collisions at 1.23A GeV with HADES, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 85 (2018), arXiv:1712.07993 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Anticic et al

    T. Anticic et al. , Phase-space dependence of particle-ratio fluctuations in Pb + Pb collisions from 20 A to 158 A GeV beam energy, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054902 (2014), arXiv:1310.3428 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Relative particle yield fluctuations in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 236 (2019), arXiv:1712.07929 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Rustamov, Fuzzy logic for reconstructing arbitrary moments of multiplicity distributions, Phys

    A. Rustamov, Fuzzy logic for reconstructing arbitrary moments of multiplicity distributions, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064910 (2024), arXiv:2409.09814 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Nonaka, M

    T. Nonaka, M. Kitazawa, and S. Esumi, More efficient formulas for efficiency correction of cumulants and effect of us- ing averaged efficiency, Phys. Rev. C 95, 064912 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 103, 029901 (2021)], arXiv:1702.07106 [physics.data-an]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    E. T. Bell, Annals of Mathematics, Second Series 29, 38 (1927)

    1927

  74. [82]

    Luo, Unified description of efficiency correction and error estimation for moments of conserved quantities in heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    X. Luo, Unified description of efficiency correction and error estimation for moments of conserved quantities in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 91, 034907 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 94, 059901 (2016)], arXiv:1410.3914 [physics.data-an]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.