Recent Progress in Antimatter Research with Heavy-Ion Collisions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this short review, the authors discussed the measurement of the antimatter nuclei produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. It provides a useful summary on the experimental search of antimatter nuclei produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions for the community. The discoveries of antimatter nuclei with antiLambda hyperon as well as their life times at RHIC and LHC are highlighted. Some points needs to be addressed before I can recommend the paper for publication.
1) The measurment of the interaction between antiprotons is completely neglected in this review. The previous study which extracted the interaction between antiprotons using the HBT correlation method should be discussed and properly cited.
2) The discussions on the results summarized in Fig. 8 indiate that there is no inconsistency for the measured life times of hypernuclei and antihyperon nuclei. As far as I remember, there do exist some inconsistencies/puzzles with respect to the difference between the life times of free Lambda hyperons and hypernuclei, or those measured at RHIC and LHC. I hope that the authors may discuss about that if this is case.
3) For the ease of reading by people who are not familiar with experimental instruments, I suggest that the authors give full names of the components in the detector in Figs. 2 and 3. Some of them are given but some of them are still missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review article summarizes the production of antimatter measured by the STAR and ALICE collaborations. The topic is timely and of interest to the community. Before publication, however, several points require clarification and correction.
* In Fig. 4, it is unclear which data points correspond to U+U, Au+Au, and Ru+Ru collisions. The authors should clearly indicate this in the figure or caption.
* The statement that ``all yield ratios between antiparticles and their corresponding particles are less than unity'' does not appear to be generally valid. For example,
the ratio (^{4}_{\Lambda}\overline{\mathrm{H}} / {}^{4}\mathrm{He}) seems to exceed unity and is reported to be consistent with thermal model calculations. The authors should clarify this apparent exception and explain the underlying reason.
* It is unclear how the ratios quoted in line 166 are obtained. The manuscript states that it is based on the coalescence model, but the cited references [31,32] do not appear to provide these ratios explicitly. This point should be clarified. In addition, some of the quoted ratios seem inconsistent with available experimental data.
* The manuscript states that both the thermal model and the coalescence model can reproduce the data. However, no comparison with coalescence model calculations is shown in the manuscript, making this statement difficult to assess. Moreover, the production mechanisms of the two models are fundamentally different, and their apparent agreement with data requires further discussion.
Reference [32] discusses the differences between the thermal and coalescence
approaches and should be properly cited in this context. In fact, according to
Ref. [27], the coalescence model tends to underestimate the data and has not
provided predictions for anti-hypernuclei yields. See also ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 858 (2024) 138943.
Furthermore, Ref. [44] does not include a comparison with the coalescence model, and therefore may not be appropriate to cite in line 154.
* Figure 7 shows (^{4}*{\Lambda}\mathrm{He}) and (^{4}*{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}). It is unclear whether this figure refers to antimatter or matter. This should be clarified.
* In line 191, the expression for (N(t)) does not contain the variable (t) on the right-hand side. The notation should be corrected, for example by replacing (\tau) with (t), or by consistently writing (N(\tau)). In addition, the variable (\tau) should be clearly defined.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have properly responsed to my comments and made corresponding changes in the manuscript.. I recommend publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI accept this manuscript for publication.
