Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Novel constraints on $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ interactions using correlation data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using ALICE femtoscopic correlation data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV, this paper extracts the first optical-potential-based scattering parameters for the $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ systems, finding distinct…

desk verdict The iCATS tool and the data analysis are a real step forward, but the paper's own equations have the wrong sign for the absorptive potential, so the imaginary parts of the scattering lengths are not established as published. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15411 v1 pith:JAY4DFLC submitted 2025-05-21 hep-ph

Valentina Mantovani Sarti This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords baryon–antibaryoninteractionfemtoscopyopticalpotentialscatteringlengthantihyperonannihilationcorrelationfunctioniCATS
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 aims to extract, for the first time, the scattering parameters of the $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ systems from femtoscopic correlation data measured by ALICE in proton-proton collisions. To do this it introduces iCATS, an extension of the CATS framework that solves the Schrödinger equation with complex optical potentials, whose imaginary part encodes annihilation. The fitted potential strengths translate into complex scattering lengths $a_0(\Lambda\bar{\Lambda})=(-1.54\pm0.03)+i(0.43\pm0.08)$ fm and $a_0(p\bar{\Lambda})=(-0.84\pm0.06)+i(0.16\pm0.09)$ fm. The difference in the imaginary parts indicates that the two pairs have different annihilation strengths, challenging the assumption of universal baryon–antibaryon dynamics. The same scattering amplitudes are shown to reproduce available $e^+e^-\to\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ cross-section data and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ invariant mass spectra, supporting the method.

What carries the argument

The central object is iCATS, an extension of the CATS correlation-analysis tool that solves the radial Schrödinger equation for two-particle systems in the presence of a complex potential. The wave function is split into real and imaginary parts, producing a system of coupled equations that is integrated numerically; the asymptotic matching to free or Coulomb waves yields the S-matrix and hence the complex phase shifts and scattering amplitude. The strong interaction is modelled by a central, spin-averaged s-wave optical potential $V_{\rm opt}(r)=[V_R+iV_I]e^{-(2m_\pi)^2 r^2}$, where $V_I$ represents annihilation into multi-meson final states, and the theoretical correlation function is built through the Koonin–Pratt integral using the Gaussian source sizes reported by ALICE. The two pairs are fitted simultaneously, with a bootstrap procedure covering source-size and background uncertainties.

What would settle it

Look for a cusp-like structure in the measured $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ correlation at the $\Sigma\bar{\Sigma}$ threshold ($k^*\approx 410$ MeV/$c$) with higher statistics; the single-channel extraction predicts no such cusp, so a visible cusp would indicate a non-negligible coupled-channel contribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that femtoscopic correlation functions measured in high-multiplicity pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV provide enough sensitivity to the short-range part of the baryon–antibaryon interaction to determine, model-dependently, the complex scattering lengths of the $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ systems. Using a spin-averaged s-wave optical potential $V_{\rm opt}(r)=[V_R+iV_I]e^{-(2m_\pi)^2 r^2}$ and exact solutions of the two-body Schrödinger equation, the author obtains $a_0(\Lambda\bar{\Lambda})=(-1.54\pm0.03)+i(0.43\pm0.08)$ fm and $a_0(p\bar{\Lambda})=(-0.84\pm0.06)+i(0.16\pm0.09)$ fm. The larger real part for $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ is compatible with a shallow sub-threshold bound state with binding energy around 30 MeV, and the imaginary parts differ by more than the quoted uncertainties, implying that the annihilation dynamics is not the same in the two systems. The extracted amplitudes are further compared with production cross sections and invariant mass spectra, where they give an overall consistent description without invoking additional resonances.

Load-bearing premise

The whole extraction rests on the assumption that the interaction is described by a single spin-averaged s-wave potential of fixed Gaussian shape with no coupled channels, so a different radial form, sizeable spin dependence, higher partial waves, or coupling to the $\Sigma\bar{\Sigma}$ channel would shift the extracted scattering lengths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The extracted scattering parameters give the first optical-potential-based constraints on the $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ interactions, replacing the Lednický–Lyuboshits parameters previously used for small-source femtoscopy.
  • The real parts of the scattering lengths are determined to 2–5% precision, compared with 20–50% from the Pb–Pb analysis, so pp femtoscopy can tightly constrain baryon–antibaryon dynamics.
  • The imaginary parts of the two scattering lengths differ beyond the quoted uncertainties, so annihilation strength is not universal across baryon–antibaryon pairs but appears to depend on strangeness content.
  • The $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ amplitude reproduces the near-threshold enhancement in $e^+e^-\to\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ without invoking new resonances, consistent with a shallow bound state of roughly 30 MeV binding.
  • The same FSI amplitudes describe the measured $p\bar{\Lambda}$ invariant mass spectra, so correlation data and production data can be combined to constrain $B\bar{B}$ interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to apply the same iCATS machinery to $\Xi\bar{\Xi}$ and $\Omega\bar{\Omega}$ correlations; if the strangeness dependence of annihilation is real, these pairs should show imaginary parts of the scattering length that continue the trend with strangeness content.
  • Because the fit is spin-averaged, the quoted $a_0$ values are not the singlet or triplet scattering lengths; a combined analysis with spin-filtered $e^+e^-\to\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ data could separate the two channels and would likely shift the binding-energy estimate.
  • The Gaussian shape of the optical potential is a chosen ansatz; re-fitting with a Yukawa radial form or with coupled $\Sigma\bar{\Sigma}$ channels would reveal how much of the 2–5% precision is tied to the parametrization rather than to the data.
  • If the consistency between femtoscopic constraints and production data holds at higher precision, future correlation measurements could effectively stand in for scattering experiments for antihyperon systems, which are otherwise experimentally scarce.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents iCATS, an extension of the CATS femtoscopy framework that solves the two-particle Schrödinger equation with complex optical potentials, and applies it to ALICE pp correlation data for Λ–Λ and p–Λ pairs. The author fits the two correlations simultaneously, modeling the strong interaction as a spin-averaged s-wave Gaussian optical potential, and extracts potential strengths VR and VI and the resulting complex scattering lengths a0, reported in Table 1: a0(Λ–Λ) = (-1.54 ± 0.03) + i(0.43 ± 0.08) fm and a0(p–Λ) = (-0.84 ± 0.06) + i(0.16 ± 0.09) fm. The extracted amplitudes are then compared, in shape, to e+e− → Λ–Λ production cross sections and to p–Λ invariant mass spectra. The paper concludes that the two baryon–antibaryon systems have different strong interactions and annihilation dynamics, challenging the assumption of universal B–B dynamics, and discusses a possible shallow Λ–Λ bound state.

Significance. If the extraction is valid, the paper provides the first optical-potential-based scattering parameters for Λ–Λ and p–Λ from femtoscopic data, together with a public tool (iCATS) that can be used for other inelastic pairs. The real parts of the scattering lengths are determined with high precision and are clearly different for the two systems, which is a useful constraint for B–B interaction models. The paper also makes an effort to compare with independent observables and includes bootstrap uncertainties and source-radius variations. However, the significance is tempered by the sign inconsistency in the solver equations, the model dependence of the assumed potential form, and the fact that the comparisons to cross sections are shape-only consistency checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (4) and Appendix A.3] The coupled equations as printed are not consistent with the potential defined in Eq. (8). Substituting Vopt = VR + i VI into Eq. (2) with u = uR + i uI gives uR'' = F1 uR − (2μVI) uI and uI'' = F1 uI + (2μVI) uR, with F1 = 2μVR + l(l+1)/r^2 − k^2. The printed system (Eq. 4 and A.3) has the opposite signs in the cross terms. Since Table 1 reports VI < 0, a literal implementation of Eq. (4) solves for V_eff = VR − i VI, which is an emissive (gain) potential rather than the absorptive potential claimed. The remark in Appendix A that the potential enters through its Hermitian conjugate V† does not resolve the issue unless the reported VI is explicitly the imaginary part of V† and a consistent convention for the scattering-length sign is stated. As written, the manuscript does not establish the imaginary parts of the scattering lengths in Table 1. Please correct the sign convention and add a benchmark test of iCATS against a known absorptive potential (for instance, reproducing the p–pbar scattering length) to demonstrate the relation between VI < 0, the solver, and Im a0 > 0.
  2. [Sec. 2.3 and Table 1] The quoted uncertainties on VR, VI, and a0 are from the bootstrap sampling and do not include the model-form uncertainty of the assumed spin-averaged, s-wave, single-Gaussian optical potential with range set by 2mπ and no coupled channels. The claim of 2–5% precision for Re a0 is therefore conditional on the model ansatz. Moreover, the extracted imaginary parts, which carry the annihilation-dynamics claim, differ by only 2.2σ (0.43±0.08 fm vs 0.16±0.09 fm). The statement of 'distinct annihilation characteristics' in the abstract and Sec. 3 is stronger than the data warrant. The paper should either quantify the sensitivity of the results to the model assumptions (e.g., by repeating the fits with a different potential range or with spin-dependent terms) or temper the conclusion about the annihilation difference.
  3. [Sec. 3, Figs. 3 and 4] The comparisons of the iCATS amplitude to e+e− → Λ–Λ cross sections and p–Λ invariant mass spectra use the same amplitude extracted from the correlation fit and are rescaled to the data by an overall normalization (footnote 5 and the text for Fig. 4). These comparisons therefore test only the energy dependence of the amplitude and are consistency checks, not independent validations. The abstract's statement that 'the consistency between femtoscopic constraints and other observables supports the use of this approach' overstates the evidential weight, since a common model bias in the optical potential could affect both the correlations and the predicted shapes. Please state this limitation explicitly when discussing the comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2) vs. Eq. (4)] Equation (2) uses 2μ for the reduced mass, while Eq. (4) and Appendix A use 2m; please use a single notation or define 2m = 2μ.
  2. [Sec. 3, second paragraph] The word 'sophysticated' should be 'sophisticated'.
  3. [References] References [32] and [36] are the same paper, as are [56] and [65]; consolidate them to avoid duplication.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The vertical gray line is not defined in the caption; please explain what it marks.
  5. [Appendix B.1, first sentence] The sentence 'Values of the effective emitting sources for these mT bins have been obtained via private communication with the ALICE analysers and reported here:' is incomplete; refer to Table 2 or the figure captions where the values are actually given.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scattering parameters are fitted extractions, and the auxiliary comparisons are explicitly consistency checks rather than independent predictions.

full rationale

The central results in Table 1 are obtained by fitting the parameters VR and VI of the optical potential in Eq. (8) to the ALICE correlation data; the paper consistently describes this as an extraction and a fit, not as a prediction, so the scattering lengths are data-derived outputs rather than circularly defined quantities. The comparisons in Sec. 3 reuse the same fitted scattering amplitude to compute e+e- cross-sections and p-Lambda invariant mass spectra, but the text explicitly labels these as comparisons and consistency checks and rescales the theoretical curves, so they are not claimed as independent predictions; the Pb-Pb correlation comparison in Fig. 7 is a genuine out-of-sample check. The self-citations to CATS [52] and related analyses are code and infrastructure references and are not load-bearing for the extraction. The bound-state indication is explicitly qualified as qualitative and is derived from the fitted a0 via the Efimov formula, so it is not presented as an independent prediction. A separate internal sign inconsistency between Eq. (4)/(A.3) and the reported negative VI values is a correctness concern, not a circularity, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction depends on the chosen optical-potential ansatz and the source-size input. The scattering lengths are model-dependent, and the quoted uncertainties are statistical/systematic within that single model; the potential form, spin dependence, and coupled channels are not varied. The paper does not introduce new particles or forces.

free parameters (5)
  • VR for Lambda-Lambdabar = -331.02 ± 8.63 MeV
    Real part of the optical potential for Lambda-Lambdabar, fitted to ALICE correlation data.
  • VI for Lambda-Lambdabar = -56.12 ± 9.61 MeV
    Imaginary annihilation part for Lambda-Lambdabar, fitted.
  • VR for p-Lambdabar = -675.35 ± 45.00 MeV
    Real part of the optical potential for p-Lambdabar, fitted.
  • VI for p-Lambdabar = -98.92 ± 66.48 MeV
    Imaginary annihilation part for p-Lambdabar, fitted; poorly constrained with 67% relative uncertainty.
  • Normalization ND for each pair = not reported
    Overall normalization in Eq. 9 left free in each fit; nuisance parameters not quoted.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Koonin-Pratt formula C(k*) = integral S(r) |Psi(k*,r)|^2 d^3r (Eq. 1)
    Core femtoscopy relation linking the correlation function to the source and the pair wave function.
  • domain assumption Schrodinger equation with a central complex potential (Eq. 2 and Eq. 4)
    Assumes the baryon-antibaryon interaction is central and can be represented by an optical potential.
  • domain assumption Gaussian source profile with radii from Ref. [48] (r0,p-Lambdabar = 1.15 fm, r0,Lambda-Lambdabar = 1.11 fm)
    Source size is an essential input for femtoscopy; values are taken from the ALICE analysis rather than fitted here.
  • ad hoc to paper Potential form Vopt(r) = [VR + iVI] exp(-(2m_pi)^2 r^2), s-wave only, spin-averaged (Eq. 8)
    Chosen for simplicity and because the author states there is no strong theoretical guidance on more complex forms; this form directly determines the extracted scattering lengths.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of coupled channels such as Lambda-Lambdabar to Sigma-Sigmabar and of higher partial waves
    The paper argues the transition is suppressed, but this is an untested modeling assumption that could affect the near-threshold region.
  • domain assumption Lambda parameters for genuine and residual correlations taken from Ref. [48]
    The weights lambda_gen and lambda_residual are inputs from the experimental analysis, not fitted or varied here.
  • domain assumption Migdal-Watson approximation for cross-section and invariant-mass comparisons (Sec. 3)
    Assumes the reaction amplitude near threshold is dominated by the s-wave scattering amplitude, and that other production dynamics can be ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel constraints on $\Lambda\bar{\Lambda}$ and $p\bar{\Lambda}$ interactions using correlation data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAY4DFLC

@misc{pith2026250515411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel constraints on $\Lambda\bar\Lambda$ and $p\bar\Lambda$ interactions using correlation data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAY4DFLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15411}
}
read the original abstract

The interaction between baryons and antibaryons remains a fundamental topic in hadronic physics, particularly due to its potential to reveal exotic bound states such as baryonia. While the proton-antiproton system has been extensively studied, mainly via scattering experiments, interactions involving antihyperons, such as proton-antilambda and lambda-antilambda, are still poorly constrained due to limited experimental data. High-precision measurements of these systems, especially at low relative momentum, have recently become available through femtoscopic analyses in proton-proton collisions at the LHC. In this work, we extract for the first time the scattering parameters for the lambda-antilambda and proton-antilambda systems using correlation data measured by the ALICE experiment. Our aim is to investigate potential differences between the elastic and annihilation components of the interaction potential. We employ a novel analysis framework, iCATS (imaginary CATS), which solves the Schr\"odinger equation with complex optical potentials to model the strong final-state interactions in systems dominated by inelastic processes. Our results indicate distinct annihilation characteristics between the two systems, challenging the assumption of universal baryon-antibaryon dynamics. The extracted scattering amplitudes are compared with available production cross sections and invariant mass spectra. The consistency between femtoscopic constraints and other observables supports the use of this approach for future explorations of the baryon-antibaryon sector.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Klempt, F

    E. Klempt, F. Bradamante, A. Martin, and J. M. Richard. Antinucleon nucleon interaction at low energy: Scatter- ing and protonium. Phys. Rept., 368:119–316, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00144-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(02)00144-8 2002

  2. [2]

    The Antinucleon-nucleon interaction at low energy : An- nihilation dynamics

    Eberhard Klempt, Chris Batty, and Jean-Marc Richard. The Antinucleon-nucleon interaction at low energy : An- nihilation dynamics. Phys. Rept., 413:197–317, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2005.03.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2005.03.002 2005

  3. [3]

    E. G. Auld et al. First Observation of X-rays From Anti- protonic Hydrogen. Phys. Lett. B , 77:454–460, 1978. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(78)90599-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90599-3 1978

  4. [4]

    Izycki et al

    M. Izycki et al. Results on the Measurement of K Series X-rays From Anti-protonic Hydrogen. Z. Phys. A, 297: 1–9, 1980. doi: 10.1007/BF01414237

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01414237 1980

  5. [6]

    Baglin et al

    C. Baglin et al. Search for the p Wave Singlet Charmo- nium State in ¯pp Annihilations at the CERN Intersecting Storage Rings. Phys. Lett. B, 171:135–141, 1986. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)91013-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91013-0 1986

  6. [7]

    Baglin et al

    C. Baglin et al. Formation of the χ(1) and χ(2) Char- monium Resonances in Anti-proton - Proton Anni- hilation and Measurements of Their Masses and To- tal Widths. Phys. Lett. B , 172:455–460, 1986. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)90289-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90289-3 1986

  7. [8]

    Low-energy anti- proton physics

    Claude Amsler and Fred Myhrer. Low-energy anti- proton physics. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 41:219–267,

  8. [9]

    Dover, T

    Carl B. Dover, T. Gutsche, M. Maruyama, and Amand Faessler. The Physics of nucleon - anti-nucleon annihi- lation. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 29:87–174, 1992. doi: 10.1016/0146-6410(92)90004-L

    work page doi:10.1016/0146-6410(92)90004-l 1992

Show all 96 references
  1. [10]

    Bruckner et al

    W. Bruckner et al. Measurements of the Anti-proton - Proton Annihilation Cross-section in the Beam Momen- tum Range Between 180-{MeV}/c and 600-{MeV}/c. Z. Phys. A, 335:217–229, 1990

    1990

  2. [11]

    anti-p p annihilation cross-section at very low-energy

    A Bertin et al. anti-p p annihilation cross-section at very low-energy. Phys. Lett. B, 369:77–85, 1996. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(95)01599-X

    1996 doi

  3. [12]

    Daren Zhou and Rob G. E. Timmermans. Energy- dependent partial-wave analysis of all antiproton-proton scattering data below 925 MeV/c. Phys. Rev., C86: 044003, 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.044003

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    Y . W. Chang et al. Observation of B0 — > Lambda anti-Lambda K0 and B0 to Lambda anti-Lambda K*0 at Belle. Phys. Rev. D, 79:052006, 2009. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.79.052006

    2009

  5. [14]

    J. P. Lees et al. Evidence for the baryonic decay ¯B0 → D0Λ ¯Λ. Phys. Rev. D, 89(11):112002, 2014. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.89.112002

    2014

  6. [15]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Measurements of the branching frac- tions for J/ψ and ψ ′ → Λ ¯Λ π0 and Λ ¯Λ η. Phys. Rev. D, 87(5):052007, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87. 052007

    2013 doi

  7. [16]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Measurement of ψ(3686)→ΛΛ¯η and ψ(3686)→ΛΛ¯π0 decays. Phys. Rev. D, 106(7): 072006, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.072006

    2022 doi

  8. [17]

    Study ofψ(3686)→ΛΛ¯ω

    Medina Ablikim et al. Study ofψ(3686)→ΛΛ¯ω. Phys. Rev. D, 106(11):112011, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD. 106.112011

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Measurement of e+e− → Λ ¯Λ η from 3.5106 to 4.6988 GeV and study of Λ ¯Λ mass threshold enhancement. Phys. Rev. D, 107(11):112001, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.112001

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    Observation of a near-threshold enhancement in the Λ ¯Λ mass spectrum from e+e− → φΛ ¯Λ at √s from 3.51 to 4.60 GeV

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation of a near-threshold enhancement in the Λ ¯Λ mass spectrum from e+e− → φΛ ¯Λ at √s from 3.51 to 4.60 GeV. Phys. Rev. D, 104 (5):052006, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.052006

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    Observation of a cross-section enhancement near mass threshold in e+e− → Λ ¯Λ

    Medina Ablikim et al. Observation of a cross-section enhancement near mass threshold in e+e− → Λ ¯Λ. Phys. Rev. D, 97(3):032013, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97. 032013

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Measurement of the e+e− → Λ ¯Λ cross section from threshold to 3.00 GeV using events with initial-state radiation. Phys. Rev. D, 107(7):072005,

  13. [22]

    Elec- tromagnetic Form Factors of Λ Hyperon in the Vec- tor Meson Dominance Model and a Possible Expla- nation of the Near-Threshold Enhancement of the Re- action

    Zhong-Yi Li, An-Xin Dai, and Ju-Jun Xie. Elec- tromagnetic Form Factors of Λ Hyperon in the Vec- tor Meson Dominance Model and a Possible Expla- nation of the Near-Threshold Enhancement of the Re- action. Chin. Phys. Lett. , 39(1):011201, 2022. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/39/1/011201

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    S. G. Salnikov and A. I. Milstein. Natural Explanation of Recent Results on e+e− → Λ ¯Λ. JETP Lett., 117(12): 905–907, 2023. doi: 10.1134/S0021364023601471

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Observation of a threshold en- hancement in the p anti-Lambda invariant mass spec- trum. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:112002, 2004. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.93.112002

    2004

  16. [25]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Measurements of ψ ′ → ¯pK+Σ 0 and χc j → ¯pK+Λ. Phys. Rev. D, 87(1):012007, 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.012007

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Study of the decays ψ(3686) → γ χcJ → γ ¯pK∗+Λ + c.c. and ψ(3686) → ¯pK∗+Λ + c.c.. Phys. Rev. D , 100(5):052010, 2019. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.100.052010

    2019

  18. [27]

    Johann Haidenbauer and Ulf-G. Meißner. p ¯Λ final-state interaction in the reactions e+e− → K−p ¯Λ and J/ψ → K−p ¯Λ. Eur. Phys. J. A, 60(5):119, 2024. doi: 10.1140/ epja/s10050-024-01345-z

    2024

  19. [28]

    The strangeness program at GlueX

    Peter Pauli. The strangeness program at GlueX. EPJ Web Conf., 271:02001, 2022. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/ 13 202227102001

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Schumacher

    Hao Li and Reinhard A. Schumacher. Baryon–anti- Baryon photoproduction. AIP Conf. Proc. , 2249(1): 030037, 2020. doi: 10.1063/5.0019415

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    Fabbietti, V

    L. Fabbietti, V . Mantovani Sarti, and O. Vazquez Doce. Study of the strong interaction among hadrons with cor- relations at the LHC. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 71:377– 402, 2021. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-034438

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion colli- sions

    Michael Annan Lisa, Scott Pratt, Ron Soltz, and Urs Wiedemann. Femtoscopy in relativistic heavy ion colli- sions. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 55:357–402, 2005. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151533

    2005

  23. [33]

    Common femtoscopic hadron- emission source in pp collisions at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Common femtoscopic hadron- emission source in pp collisions at the LHC. 11 2023

    2023

  24. [34]

    Investigating the p-π ± and p-p- π ± dynamics with femtoscopy in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Investigating the p-π ± and p-p- π ± dynamics with femtoscopy in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV. 2 2025

    2025

  25. [36]

    Search for a common baryon source in high-multiplicity pp collisions at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Search for a common baryon source in high-multiplicity pp collisions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 811:135849, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2020.135849

    2020

  26. [37]

    Exploring the NΛ–NΣ coupled system with high precision correlation techniques at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Exploring the NΛ–NΣ coupled system with high precision correlation techniques at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 833:137272, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j. physletb.2022.137272

    2022

  27. [38]

    First Observation of an At- tractive Interaction between a Proton and a Cascade Baryon

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. First Observation of an At- tractive Interaction between a Proton and a Cascade Baryon. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 123:112002, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.112002

    2019 doi

  28. [39]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. Unveiling the strong interaction among hadrons at the LHC. Nature, 588(7837):232–238, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-3001-6

    2020 doi

  29. [40]

    Study of the Λ-Λ interaction with femtoscopy correlations in pp and p–Pb collisions at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Study of the Λ-Λ interaction with femtoscopy correlations in pp and p–Pb collisions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 797:134822, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134822

    2019

  30. [41]

    First measurement of the Λ-Ξ interaction in proton–proton collisions at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. First measurement of the Λ-Ξ interaction in proton–proton collisions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B , page 137223, 2022. ISSN 0370-2693. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022. 137223. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0370269322003574

    2022 doi

  31. [42]

    Scattering studies with low- energy kaon–proton femtoscopy in proton-proton colli- sions at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Scattering studies with low- energy kaon–proton femtoscopy in proton-proton colli- sions at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:092301, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.092301

    2020 doi

  32. [43]

    Constraining the KN coupled channel dynamics using femtoscopic correlations at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Constraining the KN coupled channel dynamics using femtoscopic correlations at the LHC. Eur.Phys.J.C, 83, 5 2022. doi: 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11476-0

    2022 doi

  33. [44]

    Accessing the strong interac- tion between Λ baryons and charged kaons with the femtoscopy technique at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Accessing the strong interac- tion between Λ baryons and charged kaons with the femtoscopy technique at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 845: 138145, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138145

    2023

  34. [45]

    Studying the interaction between charm and light-flavor mesons

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Studying the interaction between charm and light-flavor mesons. Phys. Rev. D, 110(3): 032004, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.032004

    2024 doi

  35. [46]

    Experimental Evidence for an Attractive p-φ Interaction

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Experimental Evidence for an Attractive p-φ Interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 127(17): 172301, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.172301

    2021 doi

  36. [47]

    First study of the two-body scattering involving charm hadrons

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. First study of the two-body scattering involving charm hadrons. Phys. Rev. D, 106 (5):052010, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.052010

    2022 doi

  37. [48]

    Investigating the role of strangeness in baryon–antibaryon annihilation at the LHC

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Investigating the role of strangeness in baryon–antibaryon annihilation at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 829:137060, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j. physletb.2022.137060

    2022

  38. [49]

    Measurement of strange baryon–antibaryon interactions with femtoscopic cor- relations

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. Measurement of strange baryon–antibaryon interactions with femtoscopic cor- relations. Phys. Lett. B , 802:135223, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135223

    2020

  39. [50]

    Lednicky and V

    R. Lednicky and V . L. Lyuboshits. Final State Interac- tion Effect on Pairing Correlations Between Particles with Small Relative Momenta. Yad. Fiz., 35:1316–1330, 1981

    1981

  40. [51]

    Extracting baryon-antibaryon strong interaction poten- tials from p ¯Λ femtoscopic correlation functions

    Adam Kisiel, Hanna Zbroszczyk, and Maciej Szyma´nski. Extracting baryon-antibaryon strong interaction poten- tials from p ¯Λ femtoscopic correlation functions. Phys. Rev. C, 89(5):054916, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89. 054916

    2014 doi

  41. [52]

    D. L. Mihaylov, V . Mantovani Sarti, O. W. Arnold, L. Fabbietti, B. Hohlweger, and A. M. Mathis. A femto- scopic Correlation Analysis Tool using the Schrödinger equation (CATS). Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(5):394, 2018. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5859-0

    2018 doi

  42. [53]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Feijoo, J. Nieves, E. Oset, and I. Vi- daña. Femtoscopy correlation functions and mass distri- butions from production experiments. Phys. Rev. D , 110(11):114052, 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110. 114052

    2024 doi

  43. [54]

    Higher partial waves in femtoscopy

    Koichi Murase and Tetsuo Hyodo. Higher partial waves in femtoscopy. J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol., 3:100017,

  44. [55]

    Albaladejo, A

    M. Albaladejo, A. Garcia-Lorenzo, and J. Nieves. Fem- toscopy correlation functions and hadron-hadron scat- tering amplitudes in presence of Coulomb potential. 3 2025. 14

    2025

  45. [57]

    Mantovani Sarti, A

    V . Mantovani Sarti, A. Feijoo, I. Vidaña, A. Ramos, F. Giacosa, T. Hyodo, and Y . Kamiya. Constraining the low-energy S=-2 meson-baryon interaction with two- particle correlations. Phys. Rev. D , 110(1):L011505,

  46. [58]

    D. L. Mihaylov, J. Haidenbauer, and V . Mantovani Sarti. Constraining the pΛ interaction from a combined anal- ysis of scattering data and correlation functions. Phys. Lett. B, 850:138550, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024. 138550

    2024 doi

  47. [59]

    Milton Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Dover, New York City, ninth dover printing, tenth gpo printing edition, 1964

    1964

  48. [60]

    R. A. Bryan and R. J. N. Phillips. Nucleon anti-nucleon potential from single meson exchanges. Nucl. Phys. B, 5:201–219, 1968. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(68)90125-9

    1968 doi

  49. [61]

    C. B. Dover and J. M. Richard. Elastic, Charge Ex- change, and Inelastic anti-p p Cross-Sections in the Op- tical Model. Phys. Rev. C, 21:1466–1471, 1980. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.21.1466

    1980 doi

  50. [62]

    Kohno and W

    M. Kohno and W. Weise. Proton - Anti-proton Scattering and Annihilation Into Two Mesons. Nucl. Phys. A, 454: 429–452, 1986. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(86)90098-9

    1986 doi

  51. [63]

    Kohno and W

    M. Kohno and W. Weise. The anti-p p —> anti-Lambda Lambda Reaction Close to Threshold. Phys. Lett. B, 206: 584–587, 1988. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(88)90700-9

    1988 doi

  52. [64]

    Haidenbauer, K

    J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, and J. Speth. A Meson exchange model for the anti-hyperon - hyperon pro- duction. Nucl. Phys. A , 562:317–351, 1993. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(93)90202-9

    1993 doi

  53. [65]

    Indication of a p–φ bound state from a correlation function analysis

    Emma Chizzali, Yuki Kamiya, Raffaele Del Grande, Takumi Doi, Laura Fabbietti, Tetsuo Hatsuda, and Yan Lyu. Indication of a p–φ bound state from a correlation function analysis. Phys. Lett. B, 848:138358, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138358

    2024

  54. [66]

    Pierog, Iu

    T. Pierog, Iu. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner. EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. C , 92(3):034906, 2015. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.92.034906

    2015

  55. [67]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    Christian Bierlich et al. A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3. SciPost Phys. Codeb., 2022:8, 2022. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8

    2022 doi

  56. [68]

    p-p, p-Λ and Λ-Λ correlations studied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at √s = 7 TeV

    Shreyasi Acharya et al. p-p, p-Λ and Λ-Λ correlations studied via femtoscopy in pp reactions at √s = 7 TeV. Phys. Rev., C99:024001, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC. 99.024001

    2019 doi

  57. [69]

    Press, Saul A

    William H. Press, Saul A. Teukolsky, William T. Vet- terling, and Brian P. Flannery. Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing, pages 809–810. Cambridge University Press

  58. [70]

    Haidenbauer, K

    J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, V . Mull, and J. Speth. Meson exchange and quark - gluon transitions in the ¯pp → ¯ΛΛ process. Phys. Rev., C46:2158–2171, 1992. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.46.2158

    1992 doi

  59. [71]

    Haidenbauer, T

    J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen, K. Holinde, B. Holzenkamp, V . Mull, and J. Speth. The Re- action anti-p p —> anti-Lambda Lambda in the meson exchange picture. Phys. Rev. C, 45:931–946, 1992. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.45.931

    1992 doi

  60. [72]

    Johann Haidenbauer and Ulf-G. Meißner. Λ ¯Λ final-state interaction in the reactions e+e− → φΛ ¯Λ and e+e− → ηΛ ¯Λ. Eur. Phys. J. A, 59(6):136, 2023. doi: 10.1140/ epja/s10050-023-01017-4

    2023

  61. [73]

    Efimov Physics: a review

    Pascal Naidon and Shimpei Endo. Efimov Physics: a review. Rept. Prog. Phys., 80(5):056001, 2017. doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aa50e8

    2017 doi

  62. [74]

    Study of e+e− → Λ ¯Λ, Λ ¯Σ 0, Σ 0 ¯Σ 0 using initial state radiation with BABAR

    Bernard Aubert et al. Study of e+e− → Λ ¯Λ, Λ ¯Σ 0, Σ 0 ¯Σ 0 using initial state radiation with BABAR. Phys. Rev. D, 76:092006, 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.092006

    2007 doi

  63. [75]

    Haidenbauer and U

    J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meißner. The electromagnetic form factors of the Λ in the timelike region. Phys. Lett. B, 761:456–461, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08. 067

    2016 doi

  64. [76]

    Kenneth M. Watson. The Effect of final state interactions on reaction cross-sections. Phys. Rev., 88:1163–1171,

  65. [77]

    Krewald, Ulf-G

    Alexander Sibirtsev, Johann Haidenbauer, S. Krewald, Ulf-G. Meissner, and Anthony William Thomas. Near threshold enhancement of the p anti-p mass spectrum in j/psi decay. Phys. Rev. D , 71:054010, 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.054010

    2005 doi

  66. [78]

    Kerbikov, A

    B. Kerbikov, A. Stavinsky, and V . Fedotov. Model in- dependent view on the low mass proton anti-proton enhancement. Phys. Rev. C , 69:055205, 2004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.055205

    2004 doi

  67. [79]

    D. V . Bugg. Reinterpreting several narrow ‘resonances’ as threshold cusps. Phys. Lett. B, 598:8–14, 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2004.07.047

    2004 doi

  68. [80]

    Determination of Spin-Parity Quantum Numbers for the Narrow Structure near the pΛ¯ Threshold in e+e-→pK-Λ¯+c.c

    Medina Ablikim et al. Determination of Spin-Parity Quantum Numbers for the Narrow Structure near the pΛ¯ Threshold in e+e-→pK-Λ¯+c.c. Phys. Rev. Lett., 131(15):151901, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131. 151901

    2023 doi

  69. [81]

    J. Z. Bai et al. Observation of a near threshold enhance- ment in th p anti-p mass spectrum from radiative J / psi —> gamma p anti-p decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:022001,

  70. [82]

    Observation of B+- — > p anti-p K+-

    Kazuo Abe et al. Observation of B+- — > p anti-p K+-. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:181803, 2002. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.88.181803

    2002

  71. [83]

    Observation of anti-B0 — > D0(*) p anti-p

    Kazuo Abe et al. Observation of anti-B0 — > D0(*) p anti-p. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:151802, 2002. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.89.151802

    2002

  72. [84]

    Elec- tromagnetic form factors of Λ hyperon in the vector meson dominance model

    Yongliang Yang, Dian-Yong Chen, and Zhun Lu. Elec- tromagnetic form factors of Λ hyperon in the vector meson dominance model. Phys. Rev. D, 100(7):073007,

  73. [85]

    Higher strangeonium decays into light flavor baryon pairs like Λ ¯Λ, Σ ¯Σ, and Ξ ¯Ξ

    Zi-Yue Bai, Qin-Song Zhou, and Xiang Liu. Higher strangeonium decays into light flavor baryon pairs like Λ ¯Λ, Σ ¯Σ, and Ξ ¯Ξ. Phys. Rev. D, 108(9):094036, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094036

    2023 doi

  74. [86]

    A possible explanation of the threshold en- hancement in the process e+e− → Λ ¯Λ

    Li-Ye Xiao, Xin-Zhen Weng, Xian-Hui Zhong, and Shi- Lin Zhu. A possible explanation of the threshold en- hancement in the process e+e− → Λ ¯Λ. Chin. Phys. C, 43(11):113105, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/43/11/ 113105

    2019 doi

  75. [87]

    Ling-Yun Dai, Johann Haidenbauer, and Ulf-G. Meißner. Electromagnetic Form Factors of Hyperons in the Time- like Region: A Short Review. Chin. Phys. Lett., 42(3): 030202, 2025. doi: 10.1088/0256-307X/42/3/030202

    2025 doi

  76. [88]

    Caravita, A

    R. Caravita, A. Cridland Mathad, J. S. Hangst, M. Hori, B. M. Latacz, A. Obertelli, P. Perez, S. Ulmer, and E. Widmann. CERN AD/ELENA Antimatter Program. 3 2025

    2025

  77. [89]

    Probing small neutron skin variations in isotope pairs by hyperon-antihyperon production in antiproton–nucleus interactions

    Falk Schupp, Josef Pochodzalla, Michael Bölting, Mar- tin Christiansen, Theodoros Gaitanos, Horst Lenske, and Marcell Steinen. Probing small neutron skin variations in isotope pairs by hyperon-antihyperon production in antiproton–nucleus interactions. 11 2024

    2024

  78. [90]

    Aumann et al

    T. Aumann et al. PUMA, antiProton unstable matter annihilation. Eur. Phys. J. A, 58(5):88, 2022. doi: 10. 1140/epja/s10050-022-00713-x

    2022

  79. [91]

    Enhanced production of multi- strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton colli- sions

    Jaroslav Adam et al. Enhanced production of multi- strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton colli- sions. Nature Phys., 13:535–539, 2017. doi: 10.1038/ nphys4111

    2017

  80. [92]

    Fem- toscopic study on DD∗ and D ¯D∗ interactions for Tcc and X(3872)

    Yuki Kamiya, Tetsuo Hyodo, and Akira Ohnishi. Fem- toscopic study on DD∗ and D ¯D∗ interactions for Tcc and X(3872). Eur. Phys. J. A , 58(7):131, 2022. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00782-y

    2022 doi

  81. [93]

    P. D. Barnes et al. High statistics measurements of the anti-p p — > anti-Lambda Lambda and anti-p p — > Lambda Sigma0 + c.c. reactions at threshold. Phys. Rev. C, 62:055203, 2000. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.055203

    doi

  82. [1952]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.88.1163

    doi

  83. [1991]

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.ns.41.120191.001251

  84. [2003]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.022001. 15

    doi

  85. [2019]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.073007

    doi

  86. [2023]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.072005

    doi

  87. [2024]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L011505

    doi

  88. [2025]

    doi: 10.1016/j.jspc.2024.100017

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.