{"id":"4d04852a-fce4-4768-8c0a-ca8925cb6323","arxiv_id":"2505.06844","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":6.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":2,"one_line_summary":"A coupled-channel Green's function calculation reproduces the 6Li(K-,pi-) pion spectrum and attributes the 13.8 MeV peak of 6_Lambda-Li to interference between 5Li(3/2+) and 5Li(1/2+) core-Lambda components, while identifying the 3.8 MeV bump as a continuum effect.","lead":"This paper calculates the full energy spectrum of Lambda particles produced when a kaon beam strikes a lithium-6 target, including bound, resonant, and unbound states, and it matches the measured data reasonably well. The authors attribute a sharp peak at 13.8 MeV to interference between two cluster configurations of the 5Li core plus Lambda, and argue a broad 3.8 MeV bump is a continuum effect rather than a true resonance.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"Decoupling of (3He-d)-Λ from (α-p)-Λ channels is assumed, not shown; open α+p+Λ continuum could broaden the 13.8 MeV 1+ state.","rationale":"The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is appropriate. Among the issues raised, the neglect of channel coupling is the most load-bearing because it directly determines whether the calculated narrow 1+ peak at 13.8 MeV is physical. The D parameter fit is a circularity but affects the peak position, not its width or interference nature; the normalization inconsistency affects the quantitative claim but not the structural interpretation. A fully coupled calculation is the decisive test; until it is performed, the central interpretation remains conditional. The paper is otherwise transparent and uses standard methods, with the EOFA and Green's function machinery well matched to the problem. Therefore the verdict should remain CONDITIONAL.","tokens_in":17036,"tokens_out":6893,"duration_ms":67759,"concrete_test":"Perform a fully coupled CC calculation for J^P=1+ that includes the coupling between the (3He-d)-Λ and (α-p)-Λ channels in Eq. (8), with U_cc' built from the overlap of the 5Li cluster wave functions (α-p and 3He-d) and the same ΛN folding interaction. Recompute the S-matrix poles and the inclusive spectrum near EΛ=13.8 MeV. If the 1+1 resonance width exceeds ~2 MeV or the narrow peak is washed out, the decoupling approximation in Sec. V.C is invalid; if the width remains <~1 MeV, the interpretation is robust. A cheaper diagnostic: evaluate the ratio |U_cc'|/|U_cc| for the relevant channels; if it is not below ~10%, the neglected coupling cannot be assumed small.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central structural claim—that the 13.8 MeV peak is a narrow 1+ quasi-bound state produced by interference between 5Li(3/2+)⊗0sΛ and 5Li(1/2+)⊗0sΛ components (Sec. V.A.2, Fig. 9)—rests on the approximation, stated in Sec. V.C, that couplings between the (3He-d)-Λ and (α-p)-Λ spaces can be neglected. This is load-bearing because at EΛ=13.7 MeV the α+p+Λ channels are open (threshold ≈1.96 MeV relative to 5Li(g.s.)+Λ), so any finite coupling would give the 1+1 state an escape width into α+p+Λ, potentially broadening it beyond the observed Γ≈0.7±1.0 MeV. The paper's supporting evidence is indirect: Majling et al. [14] is a shell-model symmetry argument; the small imaginary part of the t+d optical potential [13,34] concerns the width of the 3He-d channel itself, not the α-p continuum coupling; and the reduction of proton-coincidence events [12] is qualitative. No estimate of the actual coupling matrix elements U_cc' between the two spaces is given. If this coupling is not small, the pole at 13.7−i0.1 MeV would acquire a large width and the interference-narrowing mechanism described in Sec. V.A.2 would not survive. Related fragilities—the fitted shrinkage distance D=1.8 fm (Sec. III) and the internal contradiction on absolute normalization between Sec. IV.B and Summary item (3)—further weaken the 'agrees well' claim, but the decoupling assumption is the most direct threat to the paper's central interpretation.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","summary":"This paper reports a theoretical analysis of the 6Li(K−,π−) reaction at pK−=790 MeV/c and θlab=0°, aiming to reproduce the inclusive π− spectrum and to interpret the two prominent features at EΛ≈3.8 and 13.8 MeV. The calculation combines the distorted-wave impulse approximation with the extended optimal Fermi-averaging (EOFA) K−n→π−Λ amplitude and a coupled-channel Green's function treatment of the 5Li+Λ system. The 5Li core is described by α-p and 3He-d cluster wave functions, and the Λ-nucleus potential is obtained by folding a Gaussian ΛN interaction over the 5Li densities. The authors find a 1− ground state and a 2− excited state below threshold, they interpret the 3.8 MeV bump as a continuum enhancement influenced by nearby S-matrix poles rather than a broad resonance, and they attribute the 13.8 MeV peak to a quasi-bound 1+ state formed from 5Li(3/2+)⊗0sΛ and 5Li(1/2+)⊗0sΛ components near the 3He+d+Λ threshold, with a narrow width produced by interference between the two amplitudes. The paper concludes that the calculated spectrum agrees well with experiment and that continuum and spin effects are essential for reading (K−,π−) spectra in light hypernuclei.","tokens_in":17280,"tokens_out":6848,"duration_ms":64022,"significance":"If correct, the paper gives a useful demonstration that a Green's function continuum treatment with explicit spin couplings can describe hypernuclear production spectra in a light nucleus, and the interpretation of the 3.8 MeV structure as non-resonant continuum is a valuable corrective to bound-state approximations. The strengths of the manuscript are the explicit inclusion of Λ continuum states, the EOFA treatment of the elementary amplitude, the coupled-channel handling of the spin structure, and the careful comparison with earlier cluster-model calculations. However, the independent-prediction value is limited by two fitted parameters and by an untested decoupling assumption, as detailed below. The paper is therefore a promising phenomenological framework rather than a parameter-free test of the underlying dynamics.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The inter-cluster distance D in the (3He-d)-Λ space is adjusted to fit the experimental 6ΛLi(1+) spectrum, and the ΛN strength v0_ΛN is adjusted to reproduce the 6ΛLi(g.s.) binding energy. Thus the agreement at EΛ=13.8 MeV in Fig. 7 is partly an input of the calculation rather than an independent prediction. The authors should state this explicitly and provide a sensitivity study, for example by varying D over the range of rms distances quoted from the 3He+d+Λ three-body model (⟨R2⟩1/2 between 2.02 and 2.44 fm) and showing how the position and width of the 13.8 MeV peak change. Without such a study, the central 'agrees well' claim cannot be evaluated as a test of the model.","section":"Sec. III, Eq. (14), Fig. 7"},{"comment":"The narrow 1+1 pole at EΛ=13.7−i0.1 MeV and the associated interference-narrowing mechanism depend on neglecting couplings between the (α-p)-Λ and (3He-d)-Λ channel spaces. At EΛ=13.7 MeV the α+p+Λ channels are open (the α+p threshold is only about 1.96 MeV relative to 5Li(g.s.)+Λ), so any finite coupling between the two spaces should generically give the 1+1 state an escape width into α+p+Λ. The paper offers only indirect evidence: the spatial-symmetry argument of Majling et al., the small imaginary part of the t+d optical potential, and the reduction of proton-coincidence events. No estimate of the inter-space coupling matrix elements U_cc' is presented. Please compute or bound these couplings and show that the induced width remains small compared with Γ_exp≈0.7±1.0 MeV; as written, the decoupling is an assumption, not a demonstrated consequence of the model.","section":"Sec. V.C and Sec. IV.A, Table II"},{"comment":"The manuscript contains an internal contradiction about the absolute normalization. In Sec. IV.B the calculated magnitude is stated to be 'approximately half smaller than that suggested by the experimental data,' which I read as a factor-of-two underestimate, whereas Summary item (3) states that 'the absolute values of these cross sections agree well with the experimental data.' This is load-bearing because the paper's central assertion is that the calculated spectrum agrees well with experiment. The authors should decide which statement is correct, report the actual calculated-to-experimental normalization ratio as a function of EΛ, and restrict the agreement claim accordingly (e.g., to spectral shape if the absolute scale is off by a factor of two).","section":"Sec. IV.B vs. Summary item (3)"}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The text says the narrow 1+ peak appears 'near the 4ΛHe+d threshold,' but Table II and Fig. 2 place the 1+1 pole at EΛ=13.7 MeV, which is 2.7 MeV below the 3He+d+Λ threshold; presumably '3He+d+Λ threshold' is intended.","section":"Sec. V.A.2"},{"comment":"The phrase 'approximately half smaller than that suggested by the experimental data' is awkward and ambiguous; please rephrase as, for example, 'about a factor of two smaller than the experimental data,' and reconcile this wording with the Summary.","section":"Sec. IV.B"},{"comment":"The caption lists the curves as 'contributions of the total, 0p−1, and 0s−1,' but 'total' is not a neutron-hole contribution; please reword to 'the total spectrum and the separate 0p−1 and 0s−1 neutron-hole contributions.'","section":"Fig. 7 caption"},{"comment":"The notation '1+1' and '1+2' for the two 1+ states is easy to confuse with the spin-parity superscript; consider using subscripts written as 1+_1 and 1+_2 in the text and table.","section":"Table II and Sec. IV.A"},{"comment":"The artificial variation of the relative phase φ in Fig. 9 is a useful illustration, but the text should state explicitly that the reported physical spectrum uses the DWIA-determined phase φ0 and that no phase freedom is being fitted to the data.","section":"Eq. (16) and Fig. 9"}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The paper is a serious phenomenological contribution, but the normalization contradiction and the fitted D parameter must be addressed before the central agreement claim can be accepted. The decoupling assumption is the most consequential physics issue; a quantitative estimate of the inter-space coupling width would substantially strengthen the paper and is likely feasible within the present framework. I would be willing to review a revised version."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","letter":"The take-home: this is a competent and unusually transparent application of the Green's-function DWIA to 6Li(K−,π−), and it makes a genuinely new structural claim—the 3.8 MeV bump is continuum enhancement near poles rather than a broad resonance, and the 13.8 MeV peak is an interference-shaped quasi-bound state in the (3He-d)-Λ channel. If you work on hypernuclear spectroscopy, this is worth reading.\n\nThe new part is the combination: earlier cluster-model treatments (Motoba et al., Ohkura et al.) used bound-state approximations, and Auerbach–Van Giai omitted the 5Li core spin structure. This paper puts the continuum in via a coupled-channel Green's function and includes the 5Li(3/2+)⊗0sΛ / 5Li(1/2+)⊗0sΛ coupling. That is the right tool for this problem, and the pole analysis (Riemann sheets, virtual-state shift near threshold) is done carefully. The EOFA treatment of the Fermi-averaged K−n→π−Λ amplitude is standard and properly referenced.\n\nWhere the soft spots are, roughly in order of seriousness:\n\nFirst, the calculation is partially calibrated to the very thing it claims to reproduce. The paper says in Sec. III that the 3He–d distance D=1.8 fm 'should be adjusted to fit the experimental data of 6ΛLi(1+)'. The 13.8 MeV agreement is therefore not an independent prediction. A sensitivity study of D—how much the peak position and width move when D is varied within a reasonable range—would tell us how much of the agreement is constructed. That is the single most important missing number.\n\nSecond, the decoupling of the (3He-d)-Λ and (α-p)-Λ channels is explicitly assumed in Sec. V.C, not shown. Because α+p+Λ is open at EΛ=13.7 MeV, a finite coupling would give the narrow 1+ state an escape width; the cited evidence (Majling et al.'s symmetry argument, the small imaginary part of the t+d optical potential, reduced proton-coincidence counts) is indirect. The authors should at least estimate the coupling matrix elements or the resulting broadening before resting the main interpretation on it.\n\nThird, there is a direct internal contradiction on normalization: Sec. IV.B says the calculated magnitude is 'approximately half smaller' than the data, while Summary item (3) says the absolute values 'agree well' with experiment. Both cannot be true; the paper needs a unified statement about what EOFA does to the absolute scale.\n\nMinor: the 2− bound-state peak is not reproduced, and there are no uncertainties on any of the quoted energies or widths. Neither is fatal, but both limit how strongly one can read the 'good agreement.'\n\nThe citation pattern is fair; the comparison with Motoba, Ohkura, and Auerbach–Van Giai is actually useful. This is a serious paper by people who know the reaction theory. It deserves a real referee, but the referee should ask for a D-sensitivity study, an estimate of the neglected channel coupling, and a fix to the normalization inconsistency before it is accepted.\n\nWho it's for: hypernuclear spectroscopists and reaction theorists working on (K−,π−) spectra. I'd bring it to my reading group, and I'd probably cite it for the Green's function treatment—but I'd cite it as 'this is what the calculation says,' not as an established structural conclusion.","headline":"A competent and transparent Green's-function DWIA calculation that makes a plausible new structural claim about the two 1+ peaks in 6ΛLi, but a fitted 3He–d distance and an unquantified channel-decoupling assumption keep the quantitative conclusions from being fully established.","tokens_in":17979,"tokens_out":3330,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":32115,"reading_group":"yes","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"rs_alignment":null,"lean_confirmation":null,"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":[],"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","headline":"The paper argues that the narrow 13.8 MeV peak in $^{6}_{\\Lambda}\\mathrm{Li}$ from $^{6}\\mathrm{Li}(K^-,\\pi^-)$ comes from interference between $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}(3/2^+)\\otimes(0s_{1/2})_\\Lambda$ and…","keywords":["hypernuclei","continuum states","Lambda-nucleus potential","distorted-wave impulse approximation","Fermi averaging","Green's function method","6Li(K-,pi-) reaction","spin-orbit coupling in hypernuclei"],"falsifier":"A full coupled-channel calculation that keeps the $\\alpha$-$p$-$\\Lambda \\leftrightarrow {}^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$-$\\Lambda$ coupling, instead of dropping it, would settle the claim: if the $1^+$ quasi-bound states mix strongly with the $\\alpha$-$p$ continuum, the predicted narrow 13.8 MeV peak broadens beyond the observed $\\sim1$ MeV width. Experimentally, a proton-coincidence measurement near $E_\\Lambda=13.8$ MeV could test the decoupling, since the paper expects the $\\alpha$-$p$-$\\Lambda$ yield there to be suppressed.","tokens_in":16693,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":13399,"duration_ms":106557,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper claims that the inclusive $\\pi^-$ spectrum of the $^{6}\\mathrm{Li}(K^-,\\pi^-)\\to{}^{6}_{\\Lambda}\\mathrm{Li}$ reaction at $p_{K^-}=790$ MeV/c and $0^\\circ$ can be reproduced by a calculation that treats $\\Lambda$ bound, resonant, and continuum states on equal footing. Using the distorted-wave impulse approximation with a Fermi-averaged $K^-n\\to\\pi^-\\Lambda$ amplitude and a coupled-channel Green's function, the authors find that the broad 3.8 MeV bump is not a broad resonance but a continuum enhancement shaped by nearby poles, while the narrow 13.8 MeV peak is a $J^P=1^+$ quasi-bound state near the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ threshold whose narrow width comes from interference between two spin components. A sympathetic reader would care because it changes how peaks in hypernuclear spectra should be read: some apparent structures are continuum effects, and spin structure has to be included to see that.","feed_headline":"Hypernuclear peak at 13.8 MeV is interference of two spin components","feed_subtitle":"The broad 3.8 MeV bump is a continuum effect rather than a genuine resonance.","key_machinery":"The central object is the coupled-channel Green's function $G_{cc'}(E_B)$ that enters the strength function $S(E_B)=-\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\mathrm{Im}\\sum_{cc'}\\int dr\\,dr'\\,F^{\\Lambda\\dagger}_c(r)G_{cc'}(E_B;r,r')F^\\Lambda_{c'}(r')$. It is built by solving the coupled-channel equation with a $\\Lambda$-nucleus folding potential derived from $\\alpha$-$p$ and $^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$ cluster densities, including the $I\\cdot S$ spin term. This Green's function automatically contains bound, resonance, and continuum contributions, so no separate bound-state approximation is needed; the $S$-matrix pole locations on the appropriate Riemann sheets then decide whether a peak is a resonance, a virtual state, or a continuum enhancement. The other load-bearing input is the EOFA Fermi-averaged $K^-n\\to\\pi^-\\Lambda$ amplitude, whose magnitude is roughly half the standard Fermi-averaged one and is needed to get the absolute cross section right.","core_discovery":"On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the full measured spectrum, not only the bound region, is described by the Green's function calculation with EOFA Fermi averaging and a $\\Lambda$-folding potential built from $\\alpha$-$p$ and $^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$ cluster densities. For $J^P=1^+$, two $S$-matrix poles at $E_\\Lambda=13.7$ and 16.3 MeV on the $[++]$ Riemann sheet behave as quasi-bound states below the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ threshold, and the interference term between the $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}(3/2^+)\\otimes(0s_{1/2})_\\Lambda$ and $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}(1/2^+)\\otimes(0s_{1/2})_\\Lambda$ production amplitudes narrows the computed peak to match the observed 13.8 MeV peak. The broad structure near 3.8 MeV, by contrast, comes from $p$-wave poles on the $[--]$ sheet that sit close to threshold or far from the physical axis; the paper concludes it is a continuum state influenced by nearby poles rather than a resonant state. This is the load-bearing shift: continuum and spin structure, not bound-state labels, determine what the spectrum shows.","pith_inferences":["If the paper's decoupling of the $\\alpha$-$p$-$\\Lambda$ and $^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$-$\\Lambda$ model spaces is relaxed, the two $1^+$ quasi-bound states could mix with the $\\alpha$-$p$ continuum; a full coupled calculation along the lines the paper lists as future work would test whether the narrow 13.8 MeV peak survives.","The $^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$ shrinkage distance $D=1.8$ fm is adjusted to reproduce the $1^+$ spectrum, so part of the 13.8 MeV agreement is built into the input; an independent determination of the $\\Lambda$-induced core shrinkage would make the prediction falsifiable.","A natural experimental extension is a higher-resolution or proton-tagged $(K^-,\\pi^-)$ measurement: the paper predicts a second quasi-bound $1^+$ state at $E_\\Lambda\\simeq16.3$ MeV, only 0.18 MeV below the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ threshold, which should appear as a narrow structure if the interference interpretation is right."],"forward_implications":["The 13.8 MeV peak in $^{6}_{\\Lambda}\\mathrm{Li}$ should be interpreted as a quasi-bound $1^+$ state just below the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ threshold, with its narrow width produced by interference, not as a simple substitutional shell-model resonance.","The 3.8 MeV enhancement is a continuum phenomenon: calculations that treat only bound states cannot reproduce it, and a Green's-function or equivalent continuum treatment is required.","Spin structure, namely the $I\\cdot S$ coupling and the relative phase of the $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}(3/2^+)$ and $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}(1/2^+)$ amplitudes, is essential for the shape of the spectrum.","The EOFA Fermi-averaged amplitude is necessary for the absolute cross section; standard Fermi averaging overestimates the yield by about a factor of two."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"It supplies the experimental inclusive $\\pi^-$ spectrum at $p_{K^-}=790$ MeV/c and $0^\\circ$ that the calculation is compared with, including the 3.8 and 13.8 MeV peaks.","marker":"[10]"},{"why":"It provides the Green's function method used to compute the strength function and cross section, including bound and continuum states.","marker":"[23]"},{"why":"It gives the EOFA Fermi-averaged $K^-n\\to\\pi^-\\Lambda$ amplitudes whose magnitude is essential for the absolute cross section.","marker":"[27]"},{"why":"It provides the elementary $K^-n\\to\\pi^-\\Lambda$ amplitudes that are Fermi-averaged for the in-medium reaction.","marker":"[40]"},{"why":"It justifies the small admixture between $(\\alpha$-$p)$-$\\Lambda$ and $({}^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d)$-$\\Lambda$ configurations, the assumption that keeps the 13.8 MeV peak narrow.","marker":"[14]"},{"why":"It supplies the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ cluster-model energies and widths for the high-lying $1^+$ states used for comparison.","marker":"[21]"},{"why":"It provides experimental energies, widths, and optical-potential information for $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}$ and $t+d$, used as input and as support for the decoupling approximation.","marker":"[34]"},{"why":"It reports proton-coincidence data from $^{5}_{\\Lambda}\\mathrm{He}$ decay indicating a reduced yield near 13.8 MeV, supporting weak $(\\alpha$-$p)$-$\\Lambda$ admixture.","marker":"[12]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["13.8 MeV hypernuclear peak is spin interference","3.8 MeV bump is continuum effect, not resonance","Full spectrum explained by Green's function with cluster densities","Interference narrows hypernuclear peak at 13.8 MeV"],"cache_read_input_tokens":3200,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The load-bearing assumption is that the $\\alpha$-$p$-$\\Lambda$ and $^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$-$\\Lambda$ model spaces are effectively decoupled, so the $1^+$ states near the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ threshold stay narrow; if that coupling is substantial, those states would mix with the $\\alpha$-$p$ continuum and the calculated narrow 13.8 MeV peak would not survive.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["13.8 MeV hypernuclear peak is spin interference","3.8 MeV bump is continuum effect, not resonance","Full spectrum explained by Green's function with cluster densities","Interference narrows hypernuclear peak at 13.8 MeV"]},"model":"deepseek-v4-flash","effort":"low","cost_usd":0.000893,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":3931,"prompt_tokens":1104,"completion_tokens":2827,"prompt_tokens_details":{"cached_tokens":384},"prompt_cache_hit_tokens":384,"prompt_cache_miss_tokens":720,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":2758}},"tokens_in":720,"tokens_out":2827,"duration_ms":20848,"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_tokens":2758,"cache_read_input_tokens":384,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-08-15T22:32:15.505298+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"deepseek-v4-flash"},"falsifier":"A full coupled-channel calculation that keeps the $\\alpha$-$p$-$\\Lambda \\leftrightarrow {}^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d$-$\\Lambda$ coupling, instead of dropping it, would settle the claim: if the $1^+$ quasi-bound states mix strongly with the $\\alpha$-$p$ continuum, the predicted narrow 13.8 MeV peak broadens beyond the observed $\\sim1$ MeV width. Experimentally, a proton-coincidence measurement near $E_\\Lambda=13.8$ MeV could test the decoupling, since the paper expects the $\\alpha$-$p$-$\\Lambda$ yield there to be suppressed.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Povh, Rep","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It supplies the experimental inclusive $\\pi^-$ spectrum at $p_{K^-}=790$ MeV/c and $0^\\circ$ that the calculation is compared with, including the 3.8 and 13.8 MeV peaks."},{"cited_title":"Motoba, H","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It provides the Green's function method used to compute the strength function and cross section, including bound and continuum states."},{"cited_title":"H¨ ufner, S","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It gives the EOFA Fermi-averaged $K^-n\\to\\pi^-\\Lambda$ amplitudes whose magnitude is essential for the absolute cross section."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It provides the elementary $K^-n\\to\\pi^-\\Lambda$ amplitudes that are Fermi-averaged for the in-medium reaction."},{"cited_title":"Bertini et al","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It justifies the small admixture between $(\\alpha$-$p)$-$\\Lambda$ and $({}^{3}\\mathrm{He}$-$d)$-$\\Lambda$ configurations, the assumption that keeps the 13.8 MeV peak narrow."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It supplies the $^{3}\\mathrm{He}+d+\\Lambda$ cluster-model energies and widths for the high-lying $1^+$ states used for comparison."},{"cited_title":"Kanada, T","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It provides experimental energies, widths, and optical-potential information for $^{5}\\mathrm{Li}$ and $t+d$, used as input and as support for the decoupling approximation."},{"cited_title":"Br¨ uckner et al","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"It reports proton-coincidence data from $^{5}_{\\Lambda}\\mathrm{He}$ decay indicating a reduced yield near 13.8 MeV, supporting weak $(\\alpha$-$p)$-$\\Lambda$ admixture."}],"review_version":1}