Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

$\phi$ meson in nuclear matter and atomic nuclei

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

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

Pith's one-line read The phi meson, normally narrow, is predicted to lose mass and widen tenfold inside nuclear matter, with oxygen-16 offering the cleanest bound-state signal.

desk verdict A competent, internally consistent model calculation whose headline O16 phi-mesic bound-state claim is not robust because the model omits direct phi N absorption channels the authors themselves cite, and the cutoff dependence is large. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08320 v1 pith:OTOLOS6L submitted 2025-02-12 nucl-th hep-ph

Arpita Mondal , Amruta Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords phimesonnuclearmatterphi-mesicboundstateskaon-antikaonloopquarkcouplingmodeldecaywidthbroadeningmeson-nucleuspotentialproductioncrosssection
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

The paper tries to establish that the phi meson, normally a narrow, nearly pure strange-antistrange state, is substantially reshaped by nuclear matter through its dominant kaon-antikaon decay channel. Using in-medium kaon and antikaon masses from the quark meson coupling model, it finds the phi mass drops by roughly 2\u20133% at normal nuclear density while its total decay width grows from about 3.5 MeV to 35\u201340 MeV. That broadening shortens the phi lifetime enough that phi mesons produced inside a nucleus should decay there, and the same in-medium attraction is predicted to bind phi mesons to several nuclei. The clearest predicted signal is a phi-oxygen-16 bound state with binding energy around \u221218 MeV and half-width about 8 MeV, a concrete target for current and planned experiments.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the phi-meson self-energy from $K^0\bar{K}^0$ and $K^+K^-$ loops, regularized with a dipole form factor whose cutoff $\Lambda_K$ is varied between 2 and 4 GeV. The real part of the self-energy shifts the phi mass through a dispersion relation, while the imaginary part gives the partial decay widths; these feed a Breit-Wigner spectral function for production cross-sections. For finite nuclei, the density-dependent mass shift and width are converted, via the local density approximation, into a complex optical potential, and the Klein-Gordon equation then yields the binding energies and absorption widths of phi-mesic states.

What would settle it

A measurement of the phi meson spectral line shape from a nuclear target with enough resolution to separate a 20\u201330 MeV downward mass shift from pure broadening would settle the matter: if the peak stays at the vacuum mass while the width grows substantially, the kaon-loop-only self-energy is incomplete. For the oxygen candidate, a low-momentum phi produced on oxygen-16 should appear in missing-mass spectra as a peak near \u221218 MeV with half-width about 8 MeV; absence of such a peak would rule out the predicted bound state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phi meson's in-medium behavior is governed by kaon-antikaon loop corrections built on the tree-level $\phi K\bar{K}$ Lagrangian, with kaon masses modified by the quark meson coupling model. In symmetric nuclear matter at $\rho_0$ the model yields a phi mass of roughly 986\u2013999 MeV depending on the kaon channel and the cutoff $\Lambda_K$, a 2\u20133% drop, and partial widths near 17\u201320 MeV per channel, totaling about 35\u201340 MeV. Carried into finite nuclei through a local-density complex potential and solved in the Klein-Gordon equation, the same mechanism predicts phi-mesic states in several nuclei; oxygen-16 is singled out as the most observable because it has a single clean state whose binding energy exceeds its half-width by about a factor of two.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the phi meson's only in-medium interaction is through pairs of kaons and antikaons, with a form-factor cutoff chosen between 2 and 4 GeV, and that no direct phi-nucleon coupling matters. If other absorption channels are significant, the predicted masses, widths, and the oxygen bound state are incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At normal nuclear matter density the phi mass drops by about 2\u20133% and its total $K\bar{K}$ decay width grows from roughly 3.5 MeV to 35\u201340 MeV, cutting the phi lifetime from about 55 fm to about 4.4 fm.
  • The production cross-section for both $K^0\bar{K}^0$ and $K^+K^-$ scattering shifts to lower invariant masses, broadens, and drops in height as density rises, with slightly weaker modifications in asymmetric than in symmetric nuclear matter.
  • The ratio of charged to neutral $K\bar{K}$ partial widths falls from about 1.45 in vacuum toward 1 at higher densities, implying the two channels acquire nearly equal phase space.
  • Among the seven nuclei studied, oxygen-16 is the cleanest phi-mesic bound-state candidate: at $\Lambda_K = 4$ GeV a 1s state appears with binding energy \u221218.02 MeV and half-width 8.03 MeV, with enough level separation to be observable.
  • Bound phi mesons sit mostly at the central nuclear density, so their binding energies and widths probe the dense interior of the nucleus rather than its surface.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If direct phi-nucleon absorption channels such as $\phi N \to K\Lambda$ and $K\Sigma$ contribute appreciably, the widths would be larger than this kaon-loop-only estimate and the oxygen-16 bound-state peak could become harder to resolve; the paper does not compute those channels.
  • The cutoff dependence $\Lambda_K = 2\unicode{}4$ GeV is the main systematic uncertainty; a precise measurement of one bound state would pin the cutoff and let the same framework make sharper predictions for the other nuclei.
  • The near-unity ratio of partial widths at high density could be interpreted as evidence for isospin restoration, but the paper attributes it to phase-space compensation; distinguishing these readings would require measuring the in-medium kaon and antikaon masses separately.
  • The same in-medium self-energy could be connected to compact-star phenomenology through strangeness-bearing matter, extending the result beyond mesic nuclei to the equation of state of dense matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 computes the in-medium mass and K-bar-K decay widths of the phi meson from a tree-level phi K bar-K loop self-energy, using in-medium kaon and antikaon masses from the authors' earlier QMC calculation. From these ingredients it constructs Breit-Wigner spectral functions and production cross sections in symmetric and asymmetric nuclear matter, and it builds a complex phi-nucleus potential through the local density approximation to solve the Klein-Gordon equation for phi-mesic bound states in 4He, 12C, 16O, 40Ca, 90Zr, 197Au, and 208Pb. The central claims are a mass drop of about 2-3% and a width broadening to 35-40 MeV at normal nuclear matter density, and in particular a "distinct signal" for a phi-16O bound state with binding energy about -18 MeV and half-width about 8 MeV at the largest cutoff considered.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide concrete predictions for ongoing and planned measurements at J-PARC, JLab, and PANDA, and the paper usefully extends the QMC-based approach to a wide range of nuclei. The authors are transparent about the cutoff dependence, giving tables for Lambda_K = 2, 3, and 4 GeV and comparing with several earlier calculations; this is a genuine strength. The qualitative direction of the results, namely mass reduction and width broadening from kaon-loop effects, is plausible and consistent with the general expectations in the field. The quantitative value of the paper is limited, however, by the strong sensitivity to the regulator and by the omission of direct phi N inelastic channels that the authors themselves mention.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eqs. (3)-(7) and Table I] The printed width formula is dimensionally inconsistent and does not reproduce the vacuum widths used to fix the couplings. Substituting the vacuum values for the neutral channel (g_1 = 3.3212, |q| = 110.5 MeV, m_phi = 1019.461 MeV) into Eq. (7) gives 3.1 x 10^3 MeV^2, not 1.44 MeV; the right-hand side has units of MeV^2 unless g carries an unstated mass dimension. Since every in-medium width, cross section, and bound-state half-width in Tables III and IV is built on this relation, the authors need to state the correct normalization of g_i and verify that Eq. (7) reproduces Table I.
  2. [Sec. II C, Eq. (12); Sec. III A; Table IV] The imaginary part of the phi-nucleus potential is taken solely from the K bar-K loop width, while the paper itself acknowledges in Sec. III A that the observed in-medium broadening "can also be attributed to" inelastic phi N channels such as phi N -> K Lambda, K Sigma, and Refs. [5,6] report large absorption without mass shift. Omitting these channels adds a systematic missing imaginary part to W in Eq. (12). The O16 state (Table IV: B = -18.02 MeV, Gamma/2 = 8.03 MeV at Lambda_K = 4 GeV) already has a half-width comparable to its binding energy; including direct absorption would likely make the state substantially broader and weaken the "distinct signal" claim. Please quantify the effect of these channels or explicitly restrict the claim to the K bar-K-loop mechanism.
  3. [Sec. III C, Table IV; Sec. II A, Eq. (6)] The bound-state predictions are extremely sensitive to the unconstrained cutoff Lambda_K. For 16O the 1s binding energy changes from -7.60 MeV at Lambda_K = 2 GeV to -18.02 MeV at Lambda_K = 4 GeV, and 12C becomes bound only for Lambda_K >= 3 GeV; the half-widths are almost as large as the binding energies in most cases. The choice Lambda_K = 2-4 GeV is motivated only by references to Refs. [28,29], and no uncertainty or selection criterion is given. A quantitative sensitivity statement, or a constraint on Lambda_K from independent observables, is needed before the O16 "distinct signal" can be considered robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B, Eq. (10)] The denominator of the Breit-Wigner spectral function appears to be missing a plus sign; the standard form is (M^2 - m*^2)^2 + (M Gamma*_tot)^2, not the product of the two terms as printed.
  2. [Sec. II B, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The normalization constant C_i is said to be fixed by the condition in Eq. (11), but the actual evaluation of that integral, in particular its dependence on the in-medium masses and widths, is not described; please specify how C_i is computed.
  3. [References] References [8] and [15] appear to be the same paper by E.Ya. Paryev (Nucl. Phys. A1032, 122624 (2023)); please merge them and cite only once.
  4. [Sec. III C, Table IV] Please clarify the criterion used to label states as unbound ("x"): whether no solution of Eq. (13) is found, or a solution with |B| < Gamma/2 is discarded; the text discusses both ideas in different places.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the phi mass shift, width broadening, and bound-state signal are computed from QMC in-medium kaon masses and vacuum-fitted couplings, not fitted to the predicted phi observables.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The phi coupling constants are fixed to the empirical vacuum partial widths (Table I), the bare phi mass is fixed so that Eq. (5) reproduces the vacuum phi mass, and the in-medium kaon masses are taken from the authors' QMC calculation (Ref. [13]) rather than fitted to phi data. The in-medium phi mass and decay widths then follow from the KKbar loop self-energy (Eqs. (3)-(7)), and the phi-nucleus potential (Eq. (12)) is defined directly from these outputs; the Klein-Gordon equation (Eq. (13)) is solved, not inverted, to obtain the binding energies and widths in Table IV. The cutoff Lambda_K is scanned over 2-4 GeV as an uncertainty band, not tuned to reproduce the bound-state results. The main self-citations (Refs. [13] and [22]) provide in-medium kaon masses and nuclear density distributions; these are independent inputs that do not contain the target phi bound-state result and are externally falsifiable, so they do not constitute a circular reduction. The paper explicitly flags the main omission: the width enhancement 'can also be attributed to the possibilities of inelastic phi N interactions, such as phi N to K Lambda, K Sigma' (Sec. III A), and the Summary notes that reaction cross-section estimates are still needed for detection feasibility. These are correctness/completeness caveats, not evidence that the phi predictions equal their inputs by construction.

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

The calculation is built on QMC in-medium kaon masses from the authors' prior work, a tree-level K Kbar loop with a variable cutoff, and a local-density approximation. No new fundamental entities are introduced; the main free parameters are the two couplings fitted to vacuum widths and the cutoff Lambda_K. The central predictions inherit all uncertainties from the QMC kaon masses and from the neglected direct phi-N channels.

free parameters (3)
  • g_phi K0 Kbar0 and g_phi K+ K- couplings = 3.3212 and 3.2281
    Adjusted to reproduce the vacuum partial decay widths in Table I; the in-medium widths scale as g^2, so these are load-bearing inputs.
  • cutoff momentum Lambda_K = 2-4 GeV (varied)
    Regularizes the K Kbar loop self-energy. No unique value is fixed, and mass shifts, widths, cross sections, and binding energies all depend on it (Tables II-IV).
  • QMC model parameters for in-medium kaon masses = not restated in this paper
    The in-medium K and Kbar masses are taken from the authors' previous QMC calculation (Ref. [13]) and are required inputs to the phi self-energy; their parameters are not specified here.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The phi meson interacts with nuclear matter only through K Kbar loop diagrams with tree-level phi K Kbar vertices.
    Introduced in Sec. II: phi has no light-quark constituents, so interaction is assumed to proceed via intermediate kaon loops; direct phi-N channels are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper A dipole form factor with cutoff Lambda_K in the range 2-4 GeV regularizes the loop integrals.
    Sec. II A and III A: Lambda_K is chosen from previous literature constraints and varied, but not derived independently for phi kinematics.
  • domain assumption The local density approximation maps infinite nuclear matter results to finite nuclei.
    Sec. II C: potentials at radius r use the QMC nuclear density rho(r); this assumes the in-medium results hold locally inside each nucleus.
  • standard math The Klein-Gordon equation with a complex potential describes phi-nucleus bound states.
    Sec. II C, Eq. (13): a standard relativistic treatment for meson-nucleus bound states.
  • domain assumption The QMC in-medium kaon masses from Ref. [13] are accurate.
    The in-medium K and Kbar mass shifts drive the phi self-energy; any error in those masses propagates directly into all phi observables.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\phi$ meson in nuclear matter and atomic nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OTOLOS6L

@misc{pith2026250208320,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\phi$ meson in nuclear matter and atomic nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OTOLOS6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08320}
}
abstract

The properties (masses and decay widths) of the $\phi$ meson are investigated in nuclear matter from the $\phi$ meson self-energy, using the tree-level $\phi K\bar{K}$ Lagrangian, and, incorporating in-medium masses of (anti)kaons calculated within the quark meson coupling (QMC) model. These mass shifts and decay widths are incorporated in the Breit-Wigner spectral function of the $\phi$ meson to calculate the production cross-section of $\phi$ in asymmetric nuclear matter. Considerable modifications to the production cross-section are observed at normal nuclear matter density, driven by the in-medium mass reduction and the increase in the decay width of $\phi$ meson. The potential experienced by $\phi$ meson in nuclear matter is used to study the possibility of formation of the $\phi$ mesic bound state with atomic nuclei. We explore the potential formation of $\phi$-mesic bound states in ${\rm{^{4}He}}$, ${\rm{^{12}C}}$, ${\rm{^{16}O}}$, ${\rm{^{40}Ca}}$, ${\rm{^{90}Zr}}$, ${\rm{^{197}Au}}$ and ${\rm{^{208}Pb}}$ nuclei by investigating their binding energies and absorption widths based on the corresponding $\phi$-nucleus potentials. Our study shows shallow bound states with the light nuclei and deeply bound states in heavy nuclei. Among the investigated nuclei, a particularly distinct signal for a $\phi$-mesic bound state is identified in ${\rm{^{16}O}}$, suggesting its potential experimental observability. The work provides valuable insights into $\phi$ meson interactions in infinite nuclear matter and the potential formation of exotic $\phi$-mesic nuclear states, offering promising probes for strongly interacting matter in the upcoming experiments at J-PARC, JLab, and ${\rm{\bar{P}}ANDA}$@FAIR physics program.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08320 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrams contributing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Feynman diagrams associated with (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a-b) Mass shifts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The mass shifts of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Total decay width of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Production cross-sections of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Behaviors of real and imaginary parts of the mesic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Binding energies and absorption widths for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig.9 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Probability densities (a-b), nuclear density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Polarization-dependent mass modifications of $\phi$ meson with finite momentum in nuclear matter

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In nuclear matter, the phi meson's longitudinal polarization mass decreases quadratically with momentum; the transverse polarization mass stays constant.

  2. Medium modifications of $1P$-wave charmonia $\chi_{cJ}(1P)$ in cold nuclear matter

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    χcJ(1P) masses drop by 34–97 MeV in nuclear matter in the QMC+unquenched-loop model, with the D*D̄* loop dominating χc2 and no D-D̄ threshold crossing below 3ρ0.

  3. $\phi$ meson properties in dense resonance matter at finite temperature

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The in-medium phi meson mass decreases and its decay width increases with baryon density and temperature, with the effect growing when strange decuplet resonance baryons are included.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 083C01 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Mutoet al.[KEK-PS-E325 collaboration], Phys

    R. Mutoet al.[KEK-PS-E325 collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 042501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Acharya, S., et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 172301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Aoki,et al., Few Body Syst.64, 63 (2023)

    K. Aoki,et al., Few Body Syst.64, 63 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Ishikawaet al., Phys

    T. Ishikawaet al., Phys. Lett. B608, 215 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    M. H. Woodet al.[CLAS collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 112301 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Polyanskiy, et al., Phys

    A. Polyanskiy, et al., Phys. Lett. B695, 74 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Paryev, Nucl

    E.Y. Paryev, Nucl. Phys. A1032, 122624 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Adamczewski-Musch et al

    J. Adamczewski-Musch et al. (HADES collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 022002 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Yokkaichi, et al

    S. Yokkaichi, et al. , P16, http://j- parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac0606/pdf/p16- Yokkaichi 2.pdf (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Finally, JLab’s proposal to studyϕ − 4He with 12 GeV upgrade offers additional avenues for such investi- gation [17]

    to study the in-medium modifications ofϕ inside the nucleus throughϕ → K +K − measurement with the E16 setup. Finally, JLab’s proposal to studyϕ − 4He with 12 GeV upgrade offers additional avenues for such investi- gation [17]. In this paper, we report our studies on the possi...

  4. [12]

    Sako, et al

    H. Sako, et al. , P88, http://j- parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac2107/pdf/P88 2021- 12.pdf (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Ohnishi, et al

    H. Ohnishi, et al. , P29, http://j- parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac1007/pdf/KEK J-PARC-PAC2010-02.pdf (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Mondal and A

    A. Mondal and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C 109, 025201 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Chizzali, Y

    E. Chizzali, Y. Kamiya, R. Del Grande, T. Doi, L. Fab- bietti, T. Hatsuda, Y. Lyu, Phys. Lett. B848, 138358 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Paryev, Nucl

    E.Ya. Paryev, Nucl. Phys. A1032, 122624 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Aoki, for the J-PARC E16 Collaboration, Contribu- tion to the Xth Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy (WPCF2014), arXiv:1502.00703 [nucl-th]

    K. Aoki, for the J-PARC E16 Collaboration, Contribu- tion to the Xth Workshop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy (WPCF2014), arXiv:1502.00703 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Paolone, Z

    M. Paolone, Z. E. Meziani, et al. , https://www.jlab.org/exp prog/PACpage/PAC42/PAC42 FINAL Report.pdf (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Krein, A

    G. Krein, A. W. Thomas, and K. Tsushima, Phys. Lett. B 697, 136 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Das,Lectures on quantum field theory, World Scien- tific, 10.1142/6938 (2008)

    A. Das,Lectures on quantum field theory, World Scien- tific, 10.1142/6938 (2008)

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Mishra and S

    A. Mishra and S. P. Misra, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 98 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. Kumar, and S. P. Misra, Phys. Rev. D110 014003 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Mondal and A

    A. Mondal and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C 110, 055201 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C96, 035201 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    J. J. Cobos-Martínez, K. Tsushima, G. Krein, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B771, 113 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas, K. Tsushima, and S. V. Wright, Phys. Rev. D64, 094502 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Klingl, N

    F. Klingl, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A624, 527 (1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    Klingl, T

    F. Klingl, T. Waas, and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B431, 254 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Yasui and K

    S. Yasui and K. Sudoh, Phys. Rev. D80, 034008 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    G. N. Zeminiani, J. J. Cobos-Martínez, and K. Tsushima, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 259 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Kumar, A

    R. Kumar, A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C102, 045206 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    C. M. Ko, P. Levai, X. J. Qiu, and C. T. Li, Phys. Rev. C 45, 1400 (1992)

    1992

  25. [33]

    E. Oset, A. Ramos, Nucl. Phys. A679, 616 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    A. M. Santos, P. K. Panda, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C 79, 045805 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    B. Liu, V. Greco, V. Baran, M. Colonna, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Rev. C65, 045201 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Tsushima, K

    K. Tsushima, K. Saito, A.W. Thomas, and S.V. Wright, Phys. Lett. B429, 239 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves, T. Inoue and E. Oset, Phys. Lett. B 550, 47 (2002)

    2002

  30. [38]

    García-Recio, J

    C. García-Recio, J. Nieves b, L. Tolos, Phys. Lett. B690, 369 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Toshimitsu Yamazaki, and Satoru Hirenzaki, Phys. Lett. B 557, 20 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.