logo

Femtoscopy reveals how (anti-)deuteron is formed at the LHC

RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT

Femtoscopy reveals how (anti-)deuteron is formed at the LHC

Kai-jia Sun
Nuclear Science and TechniquesVol.37, No.4Article number 64Published in print Apr 2026Available online 29 Jan 2026
19800

The production of light (anti-)nuclei in high-energy collisions has long posed an apparent paradox: how can loosely-bound systems such as the anti-deuteron with a binding energy of only 2.23 MeV be formed and survive in the extreme hot and dense hadronic environment emerging from proton-proton (pp) and heavy-ion collisions, where characteristic thermal energies exceed 100 MeV? A new femtoscopy analysis published on Nature [1] by the ALICE Collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) delivers the clearest answer to date. By measuring pion-deuteron momentum correlations in high-multiplicity pp collisions at TeV, the experiment demonstrated that most (anti-)deuterons are not produced directly at hadronization, but instead originating from meson-catalyzed reactions [2] following the decay of short-lived baryonic resonances, most notably the Δ(1232). This result provides long-sought microscopic insight into how fragile (anti-)nuclei emerge in ultra-relativistic hadronic environments, from collider events to cosmic rays.

Light nuclei and antinuclei, such as deuterons (d), tritons (3H), helium-3 (3He), helium-4 (4He), and their antiparticles, have been measured with increasing precision across collision systems and energies, from heavy-ion collisions to pp collisions [3-11]. This phenomenon, known as ‘little bang nucleosynthesis’ [2, 12] or ‘snowballs in hell’ [13, 14], connects directly to fundamental questions about matter-antimatter symmetry [15], phase transitions in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) [16, 17], and dark-matter searches [18, 19].

While their integrated yields are often described surprisingly well by the statistical hadronization model of quark-gluon plasma [20], their microscopic formation remains far from settled [21-24]. The deuteron’s binding energy is two orders of magnitude smaller than the temperature of hadronic matter produced in pp or Pb+Pb collisions. In such an environment, “direct” emission from the hadronization of quark-gluon plasma or the chemical freeze-out hypersurface appears implausible, and any loosely-bound system produced early would almost certainly be destroyed by subsequent hadronic rescatterings. Final-state coalescence models offer a different scenario in which nucleons close in phase space can merge into bound states at the very late kinetic freeze-out [25-28]. In the microscopic transport approach, it has been shown that pion-catalyzed reactions (e.g. , ) do not significantly change the deuteron production in central Pb+Pb and Au+Au collisions [29], but reduce the triton and Helium-3 yield by approximately a factor of 1.8 [2]. For the forward pion-catalyzed reaction , it can be viewed as a two-step process of πN → Δ and ΔN → πd, and a deuteron is produced via nucleon fusion following a N decay. The decay pion is kinematically correlated with the nucleon that subsequently participates in forming the deuteron. This correlation manifests as a distinct Δ resonant structure in the pion-deuteron correlation function in momentum space, as the reaction rate reaches maximum at relative momenta reflecting the Δ mass and decay kinematics [2].

The ALICE measurement exploits this signature through pion-deuteron (π-d) femtoscopy [1]. Femtoscopy analyzes momentum correlations at relative distances down to order of 1 fm (10-15 m) [30-33] and has become a precision tool for studying strong interactions [34-37] and exotic hadrons [38]. The new ALICE data reveal a pronounced resonance peak associated with Δ decay, providing direct evidence that (anti-)deuterons form predominantly through resonance-fed secondary processes.

The key experimental observable is the momentum correlation function,pic(1)where k* is the momentum of either particle in the pair rest frame. denotes the distribution of relative momenta for particle pairs from the same event, while provides an uncorrelated reference constructed by combining particles from different events. The factor normalizes the correlation function so that C(k*) approaches unity at large k*.

Intriguing correlations can arise from final-state strong and Coulomb interactions [39, 40], quantum statistics [39], or resonance decays [40]. In general, attractive interactions enhance C(k*) at low k*, whereas repulsive interactions suppress it.

ALICE measures π+-d and correlations in high-multiplicity pp collisions at TeV with excellent particle identification, achieving purities of 99–100%. The correlation functions are shown in Fig. 1 exhibit a prominent peak associated with Δ resonance decay. The data are then modeled usingpic(2)where ϵ(k*) accounts for momentum resolution, B(k*) for residual backgrounds, and λgen for the fraction of genuine pairs. The genuine correlation function includes Coulomb and strong interactions plus the Δ contribution, and is computed via CATS [41] assuming an effective source radius fm.

Fig. 1
(Color online) Measured π--d (upper panel) and π+-d (lower panel) correlation functions compared with model fits. The brown cross-hatched bands show the contributions from the Δ resonance, the blue bands the Coulomb interaction, and the teal diagonally hatched bands the residual background. The magenta bands represent the total fit. Figure taken from Ref. [1]
pic

Final-state Coulomb and strong interactions generate a monotonic enhancement (suppression) for π- -d (π+-d) pairs at low relative momentum (k* < 50 MeV/c), while the Δ resonance produces strong peaks around MeV/c in both correlation functions.

By integrating the Δ peak, ALICE finds that of detected deuterons contain a nucleon produced in a Δ decay. Accounting for all short-lived resonances yields a total resonance-fed fraction of . Thus, meson-catalyzed fusion with resonance-decay nucleons overwhelmingly dominates (anti-)deuteron formation at the LHC.

This conclusion is reinforced by a recent theoretical study [42] that reproduces the observed resonant structure in both pion-proton (π-p) and pion-deuteron (π-d) correlation functions by solving relativistic kinetic equations for on an event-by-event basis. The model–data comparison further indicates a downward in-medium shift of the Δ(1232) mass by approximately 70 MeV/c2 [1]. Such a reduction, from GeV/c2 to 1.162 GeV/c2 may reflect strong in-medium modifications, possibly linked to partial chiral-symmetry restoration [43]. Traditional coalescence models reproduce only about half of the observed peak, and statistical hadronization fails to generate any resonance structure, highlighting the unique discriminatory power of pion-nucleus femtoscopy for unraveling (anti-)nuclei production mechanisms.

In summary, ALICE has uncovered the dominant mechanism of (anti-)deuteron formation at the LHC using the novel technique of pion-nucleus correlation femtoscopy. The measurement provides the first compelling evidence that most (anti-)deuterons originate from resonance decays followed by pion-catalyzed fusion rather than direct emission. This finding resolves a long-standing puzzle in light-nucleus production and establishes a clear microscopic pathway for (anti-)nucleosynthesis in high-energy collisions.

A complete understanding of these results calls for further studies on the in-medium properties of light nuclei and advances in relativistic kinetic theory that incorporate multi-body correlations and off-shell quantum effects at high temperatures [44, 45]. Extending femtoscopy measurements to heavier (hyper-)nuclei will open new opportunities to probe their formation mechanisms and may even help constrain the production of exotic hadronic states [38, 46-48] in hot and dense matter.

References
1.S. Acharya, A. Agarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella et al.,

Observation of deuteron and antideuteron formation from resonance-decay nucleons

. Nature 648, 306-311 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09775-5
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
2.K.J. Sun, R. Wang, C.M. Ko et al.,

Unveiling the dynamics of little- bang nucleosynthesis

. Nat. Commun. 15, 1074 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45474-x
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
3.B.I. Abelev, M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed et al.,

Observation of an antimatter hypernucleus

. Science 328, 58-62 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183980
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
4.H. Agakishiev, M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, et al.,

Observation of the antimatter helium-4 nucleus

. Nature 473, 353 (2011). [Erratum: Nature 475, 412 (2011)]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10079
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
5.M. Abdallah, B. Aboona, J. Adam et al.,

Measurements of Λ3H and Λ4H lifetimes and yields in Au+Au collisions in the high Baryon density region

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202301 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
6.S. Acharya, D. Adamová, A. Adler et al.,

Hypertriton production in p-Pb collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 252003 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.252003
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
7.S. Acharya, D. Adamová, A. Adler et al.,

Measurement of the lowenergy antideuteron inelastic cross section

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 162001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.162001
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
8.S. Acharya, D. Adamová, A. Adler et al.,

Enhanced deuteron coalescence probability in jets

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 042301 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.042301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
9.M. Abdulhamid, B. Aboona, J. Adam et al.,

Observation of the antimatter hypernucleus Λ¯4H¯

. Nature 632, 1026-1031 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07823-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
10.S. Acharya, A. Agarwal, G. Aglieri Rinella et al.,

First measurement of A = 4 hypernuclei and antihypernuclei at the LHC

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 162301 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
11.T. Shao, J. Chen, J. Pochodzalla et al.,

Measurement of 6H ground state energy in an electron scattering experiment at MAMI-A1

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 162501 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.162501
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
12.M. Bleicher,

Nucleosynthesis in the little bang

. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 35, 129 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-024-01477-3
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
13.P. Braun-Münzinger, B. Dönigus, N. Löher,

ALICE investigates ‘snowballs in hell’

. CERN Courier 55. https://cerncourier.com/a/alice-investigates-snowballs-in-hell/
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
14.E. Braaten, K. Ingles, J. Pickett,

Explaining snowball-in-hell phenomena in heavy-ion collisions using a novel thermodynamic variable

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 252301 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/7cjr-fgdw
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
15.ALICE Collaboration,

Precision measurement of the mass difference between light nuclei and anti-nuclei

. Nature Phys. 11, 811-814 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3432
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
16.K.J. Sun, L.W. Chen, C.M. Ko et al.,

Probing QCD critical fluctuations from light nuclei production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Lett. B 774, 103-107 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.056
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
17.M. Abdulhamid, B. Aboona, J. Adam et al.,

Beam energy dependence of triton production and yield ratio (Nt×Np/Nd2) in Au+Au collisions at RHIC

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 202301 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.202301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
18.P. von Doetinchem, K. Perez, T. Aramaki et al.,

Cosmic-ray antinuclei as messengers of new physics: status and outlook for the new decade

. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08, 035 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/035
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
19.S. Acharya, D. Adamová, A. Adler et al.,

Measurement of anti- 3He nuclei absorption in matter and impact on their propagation in the Galaxy

. Nat. Phys. 19, 61-71 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01804-8
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
20.A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich et al.,

Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy

. Nature 561, 321-330 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0491-6
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
21.S.T. Butler, C.A. Pearson,

Deuterons from high-energy proton bombardment of matter

. Phys. Rev. 129, 836-842 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.129.836
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
22.L.P. Csernai, J.I. Kapusta,

Entropy and cluster production in nuclear collisions

. Phys. Rep. 131, 223-318 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(86)90031-1
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
23.P. Braun-Munzinger, B. Dönigus,

Loosely-bound objects produced in nuclear collisions at the LHC

. Nucl. Phys. A 987, 144-201 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.02.006
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
24.J. Chen, D. Keane, Y.G. Ma et al.,

Antinuclei in heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Rep. 760, 1-39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2018.07.002
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
25.R. Scheibl, U. Heinz,

Coalescence and flow in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 59, 1585-1602 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.59.1585
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
26.F. Bellini, K. Blum, A.P. Kalweit et al.,

Examination of coalescence as the origin of nuclei in hadronic collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 103, 014907 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.014907
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
27.K.J. Sun, C.M. Ko, B. Dönigus,

Suppression of light nuclei production in collisions of small systems at the Large Hadron Collider

. Phys. Lett. B 792, 132-137 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.033
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
28.K.J. Sun, D.N. Liu, Y.P. Zheng et al.,

Deciphering hypertriton and antihypertriton spins from their global polarizations in heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 022301 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.022301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
29.D. Oliinychenko, L.G. Pang, H. Elfner et al.,

Microscopic study of deuteron production in PbPb collisions at s=2.76 TeV via hydrodynamics and a hadronic afterburner

. Phys. Rev. C 99, 044907 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044907
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
30.R. Hanbury Brown, R.Q. Twiss,

A Test of a new type of stellar interferometer on Sirius

. Nature 178, 1046-1048 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1038/1781046a0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
31.R. Lednicky, V.L. Lyuboshits,

Final state interaction effect on pairing correlations between particles with small relative momenta

. Yad. Fiz. 35, 1316-1330 (1981)
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
32.U.W. Heinz, B.V. Jacak,

Two particle correlations in relativistic heavy ion collisions

. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 529-579 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.49.1.529
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
33.M.A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz et al.,

Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion collisions

. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 357-402 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151533
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
34.L. Adamczyk, J. Adkins, G. Agakishiev et al.,

Measurement of interaction between antiprotons

. Nature 527, 345-348 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15724
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
35.A. Collaboration, et al.,

Unveiling the strong interaction among hadrons at the LHC

. Nature 588, 232-238 (2020). [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3001-6
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
36.S. Acharya, D. Adamová, S.P. Adhya et al.,

Scattering studies with low-energy kaon-proton femtoscopy in proton-proton collisions at the LHC

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 092301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.092301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
37.D. Si, S. Xiao, Z. Qin et al.,

Extracting neutron-neutron interaction strength and spatiotemporal dynamics of neutron emission from the two-particle correlation function

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 222301 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.222301
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
38.M.Z. Liu, Y.W. Pan, Z.W. Liu et al.,

Three ways to decipher the nature of exotic hadrons: multiplets, three-body hadronic molecules, and correlation functions

. Phys. Rep. 1108, 1-108 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.001
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
39.S.E. Koonin,

Proton pictures of high-energy nuclear collisions

. Phys. Lett. B 70, 43-47 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(77)90340-9
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
40.U.A. Wiedemann, U.W. Heinz,

Resonance contributions to HBT correlation radii

. Phys. Rev. C 56, 3265-3286 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.56.3265
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
41.D.L. Mihaylov, V. Mantovani Sarti, O.W. Arnold et al.,

A femtoscopic correlation analysis tool using the Schröinger equation (CATS)

. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 394 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5859-0
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
42.L.Y. Zhang, C.M. Ko, Y.G. Ma, et al.,

Shedding light on (anti-) nuclei production with pion-nucleus femtoscopy

. arXiv: 2511.10298
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
43.J.M. Torres-Rincon, B. Sintes, J. Aichelin,

Flavor dependence of baryon melting temperature in effective models of QCD

. Phys. Rev. C 91, 065206 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.065206
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
44.R. Wang, Y.G. Ma, L.W. Chen et al.,

Kinetic approach of lightnuclei production in intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions

. Phys. Rev. C 108, L031601 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.L031601
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
45.Z. Tang, B. Wu, A. Hanlon et al.,

Quarkonium spectroscopy in the quark-gluon plasma

. Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 142302 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/7zby-gy46
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
46.F.K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.G. Meißer, et al.,

Hadronic molecules

. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015004 (2018). [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)]. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015004
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
47.J.H. Chen, J. Chen, F.K. Guo et al.,

Production of exotic hadrons in pp and nuclear collisions

. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 36, 55 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-025-01664-w
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar
48.Z.W. Liu, J.M. Xie, J.X. Lu, et al.,

Probing the di-J∕Ψ interaction and the nature of X(6200) with femtoscopic correlation functions

. arXiv: 2512.10459
Baidu ScholarGoogle Scholar