Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Kaon structure modifications in strange hadronic matter

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that dense, strangeness-rich matter measurably alters the kaon's internal quark distributions, form factors, and transverse charge density.

desk verdict Incremental but coherent extension of the authors' LCQM+CQMF program to strange matter; the new f_s dependence is worth knowing, but the headline effect rests on an untested fixed-beta_K assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19347 v1 pith:GCJ4YSE5 submitted 2025-06-24 hep-ph nucl-th

Manpreet Kaur , Abi Jebarson A , Dhananjay Singh , Navpreet Kaur , Suneel Dutt , Harleen Dahiya , Arvind Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords kaonstructurevalencequarkdistributionslight-conemodelchiralSU(3)meanfieldin-mediumelectromagneticformfactorsstrangehadronicmatterchargedensitypartialsymmetryrestoration
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 asks whether the internal quark structure of a kaon changes when the kaon is embedded in dense, strangeness-carrying hadronic matter of the kind formed in heavy-ion collisions and present in neutron-star cores. Working in the light-cone quark model, with in-medium quark masses supplied by the chiral SU(3) quark mean field model, it claims that as the baryon density $\rho_B/\rho_0$ and the strangeness fraction $f_s$ of the medium increase, the valence $u$-quark distribution flattens and broadens, the electromagnetic form factor of the $\bar{s}$ antiquark is suppressed, and the transverse charge density of the $\bar{s}$ antiquark develops a depleted core instead of a central peak. These effects are attributed to the density-dependent drop of the effective quark masses, i.e., to partial restoration of chiral symmetry. A sympathetic reader would care because this predicts observable, medium-specific changes in kaon structure that go beyond what happens in ordinary nuclear matter, where the antistrange form factor was previously found to stay unchanged.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the calculation is the two-particle light-cone wave function of the kaon, $\psi^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_K(x,k_\perp)=\Phi^{\lambda_1\lambda_2}_K(x,k_\perp)\varphi_K(x,k_\perp)$, with the BHL momentum-space wave function $\varphi_K$ of Eq. (6) containing the effective quark masses $m^*_q$ and the harmonic scale $\beta_K=0.393$. All three observables are overlap integrals or transforms of this wave function: the valence PDF squares it, the electromagnetic form factor is the zero-skewness GPD overlap, and the transverse charge density is the two-dimensional Fourier transform of the form factor. Because $\beta_K$ is held fixed, every density- or strangeness-dependent change in the results flows from the in-medium masses $m^*_q$ of Eq. (7), which drop as the scalar fields $\sigma$, $\zeta$, and $\delta$ respond to the medium.

What would settle it

Look at the antistrange form factor and charge density at $\rho_B/\rho_0 = 3$, $f_s = 0.5$: the paper predicts a visibly suppressed $|F^{\bar{s}}_K(Q^2)|^2$ and a charge density at $b_\perp = 0$ below its vacuum value. A lattice QCD calculation of the kaon form factor in a dense medium, or an electron-scattering measurement of $K^+$ in nuclear targets, that found no such density-dependent suppression, or found that the wave function scale changes with density, would settle the claim against this prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the valence structure of the $K^+$ is modified by a strange hadronic medium through the effective masses of its constituent quarks. In the light-cone quark model the kaon is described by a quark$-$antiquark Fock state with a Gaussian momentum-space wave function whose scale $\beta_K = 0.393$ is fixed by the free-space kaon decay constant; the medium enters only by replacing the vacuum quark masses with effective masses $m^*_q$ computed from the chiral SU(3) quark mean field model for a zero-temperature, isospin-asymmetric mixture of nucleons and hyperons. The paper reports that increasing $f_s$ at fixed $\rho_B/\rho_0 = 3$ lowers the $u$-quark PDF at small $x$ and raises it at large $x$, with the opposite pattern for the $\bar{s}$ antiquark, while increasing $\rho_B/\rho_0$ flattens and broadens both distributions. It reports that $|F^{\bar{s}}_K(Q^2)|^2$ is suppressed as $f_s$ grows and that both form factors fall more strongly with $\rho_B/\rho_0$, and that the Fourier transform of the $\bar{s}$ form factor, which is peaked at the origin in vacuum, develops a central depletion at $\rho_B/\rho_0 = 3$. The paper interprets all of these changes as signs of an internal restructuring driven by partial restoration of chiral symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the kaon's light-cone wave function keeps its vacuum Gaussian shape and fixed scale $\beta_K = 0.393$ inside the medium, so all medium effects enter only through the effective quark masses from the chiral SU(3) model; if the wave function itself also softens or reshapes with density, the predicted modifications would differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\rho_B/\rho_0 = 3$, raising the strangeness fraction $f_s$ from 0 to 0.7 transfers $u$-quark momentum from low to high $x$, while the $\bar{s}$ antiquark moves oppositely, so the medium hands the kaon's longitudinal momentum differently to its two constituents.
  • The $\bar{s}$ antiquark is the sensitive probe of strange matter: its form factor is suppressed by $f_s$ at fixed density, whereas the $u$-quark form factor is almost unchanged.
  • The transverse charge density of the $\bar{s}$ antiquark, which is centrally peaked in vacuum, shows a depleted core at high baryon density, a qualitative redistribution rather than a mere overall rescaling.
  • The in-medium effects are driven more strongly by baryon density than by strangeness fraction, since both form factors fall more with $\rho_B/\rho_0$ than with $f_s$.
  • The same mechanism predicts qualitatively similar medium modifications for the antikaon $K^-$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same mass-driven mechanism holds, the kaon's mean-square charge radius should grow with baryon density; the paper does not compute it, but a faster-falling form factor at small $Q^2$ is a direct consequence.
  • The flat, broadened valence PDFs at high density imply a softer distribution amplitude; allowing $\beta_K$ itself to vary with density would likely amplify the medium modifications, so the fixed-$\beta_K$ results are a conservative estimate.
  • The central depletion of the $\bar{s}$ charge density suggests the strange antiquark's wave function is pushed away from the center of momentum in dense strange matter, a picture that could be tested through processes sensitive to valence quark momentum distributions inside kaons, not just through form factors.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the valence u-quark and sbar-antiquark distributions, electromagnetic form factors (EMFFs), and impact-parameter charge densities of the K+ meson immersed in isospin-asymmetric strange hadronic matter at zero temperature. The framework combines the light-cone quark model (LCQM) with effective quark masses computed from the chiral SU(3) quark mean field (CQMF) model. The authors report that increasing baryon density rho_B/rho_0 and strangeness fraction f_s flattens and broadens the valence PDFs, suppresses the sbar EMFF, and redistributes the sbar charge density, including a depleted core at rho_B/rho_0 = 3. The central claim is that kaon valence structure is measurably modified in hyperon-rich matter.

Significance. If the results are robust, they would provide a concrete prediction for in-medium kaon structure relevant to heavy-ion phenomenology and future electron-ion collider measurements. The formalism is standard and the derivation of the PDFs, EMFFs, and charge densities from the light-cone wave function is transparent. The paper explicitly lists the CQMF coupling constants and the value of the harmonic scale parameter beta_K, making the calculation reproducible in principle. However, the significance is currently limited by the lack of uncertainty estimates, the absence of sensitivity studies on the key wavefunction parameter, and no quantitative comparison with experimental data or other model predictions. The qualitative features are plausible but are conditional on model assumptions that are not yet tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (6), and the sentence 'we used beta_K = 0.393'] The entire in-medium calculation holds the BHL Gaussian scale parameter beta_K fixed at its vacuum value, fitted to the free-space kaon decay constant. Since beta_K controls both the transverse-momentum width and the x-dependent exponential in Eq. (6), it largely determines how the PDFs flatten, how the EMFFs fall with Q^2, and whether the Fourier transform in Eq. (15) produces a depleted core. The reported suppression and redistribution are therefore not robust consequences of the CQMF masses alone but depend on the untested assumption that beta_K is unchanged in the medium. No in-medium determination of beta_K (for example, via the in-medium kaon decay constant) and no sensitivity study over a plausible 10-20% range is provided. I request a quantitative sensitivity analysis showing how Figs. 1-4 change when beta_K is varied, or a physical argument for why beta_K should remain 0.393 at rho_B/rho_0 = 3 and f_s = 0.7.
  2. [Sec. 3, Figs. 2-4] The headline claims of 'suppression' and 'redistribution' are not quantified. There are no error bars, no estimates of CQMF parameter uncertainties, and no comparisons with experimental data or with existing in-medium calculations (e.g., Refs. [14-17]) at matching densities. The statements that |F_u|^2 shows 'negligible change' while |F_sbar|^2 shows 'significant reduction' lack a numerical threshold; the plotted differences could be within model uncertainties. I recommend adding ratios of in-medium to vacuum form factors at representative Q^2 values, and a brief discussion of how the CQMF parameter set and beta_K uncertainty would affect the plotted curves.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (15), Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)] The depleted core in the sbar charge density at rho_B/rho_0 = 3 is a strong qualitative claim that requires the EMFF F_sbar(Q^2) to have a non-monotonic or sign-changing behavior. The paper does not show the full Q^2 dependence beyond |F_sbar|^2 over the plotted range, nor does it establish the existence or location of any zero in F_sbar. The shape of the charge density from a Bessel transform is known to be highly sensitive to the wavefunction parameters and the quark mass difference; without a check against beta_K variation and against the CQMF mass values, the 'redistribution' could be an artifact of the fixed wavefunction. Please either provide a robustness check of the core depletion or temper the conclusion to state that this feature is model-dependent.
  4. [Sec. 2, Eq. (7), and Sec. 3] The medium effects are entirely inherited from the CQMF effective masses m*_q, which are themselves outputs of a fitted model. There is no independent validation of these masses at high baryon density and strangeness fraction, e.g., against lattice QCD or chiral effective field theory. Since all subsequent observables are functions of m*_q, the qualitative predictions are contingent on this extrapolation. A concrete test would be to compare the in-medium kaon mass or decay constant derived from the same CQMF+LQCM framework with existing constraints; such a comparison would also indirectly test the fixed-beta_K assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The abstract says 'valence quark distributions' but the paper presents only the u quark and sbar antiquark distributions; please clarify that the sea quark and gluon distributions are not considered.
  2. [Sec. 2, text near Eq. (7)] The value m0_s = 77 MeV is introduced without a reference; please cite the source for this vacuum strange quark mass.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (6)] The second exponential term in Eq. (6) has a numerator (m*_q^2 - m*_sbar^2)^2 divided by the same combination that appears in the first exponential; please double-check this expression, as written it may be dimensionally inconsistent or a typographical error.
  4. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1 and text] The description of the PDF peak shift is not consistent with the momentum sum rule: the u-quark peak shifts to higher x while the sbar peak shifts to lower x; please clarify that these are separately normalized valence distributions rather than the total kaon momentum distribution.
  5. [Sec. 3, Fig. 4] The axes labeled 'bx [GeV^{-1}]' and 'by' are not defined in the text; please define bx and by as the two components of the impact parameter b_perp.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical issues, including 'e ffective' in several places and inconsistent hyphenation of 'light-cone' versus 'light front'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: in-medium kaon PDFs, EMFFs, and charge densities are computed from CQMF effective masses through explicit LCQM integrals, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit and non-circular. Effective quark masses are obtained from the CQMF model (Eq. 7) by minimizing the thermodynamic potential and solving the mean-field equations; these masses are then used as inputs in the LCQM wavefunction of Eq. (6), where the harmonic scale is fixed at beta_K = 0.393 from the free-space kaon decay constant, and the PDFs, EMFFs, and charge densities are evaluated through the integrals in Eqs. (11), (14), and (15). None of the reported in-medium quantities is used to define or fit m*_q, beta_K, or the CQMF couplings, so the suppression of |F_sbar(Q^2)|^2, the flattening/broadening of the PDFs, and the charge-density redistribution are genuine calculated consequences of the reduced effective masses rather than restatements of the inputs. The paper contains self-citations to the authors' prior work for the CQMF parameter set and the LCQM+CQMF hybrid approach, but those are model developments with independently documented parameters, not uniqueness claims or unverified theorems invoked to force the result. The fixed-beta_K assumption is a legitimate robustness concern, since the in-medium confinement scale is not recalculated or checked against an in-medium decay constant, but a sensitivity limitation is not circularity: varying beta_K would change the numerics without making the output equal to the input. No step in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a convolution of two established models. The central results are fully determined by the effective masses from CQMF and the fixed LCQM parameters; no new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters listed are all imported from prior fits (beta_K and CQMF couplings) or fixed by normalization. The key unvalidated assumption is that the LCQM wavefunction retains its vacuum shape in the medium.

free parameters (5)
  • beta_K = 0.393 GeV
    Harmonic scale parameter of the BHL Gaussian wavefunction, fitted to the free-space kaon decay constant; kept fixed in the medium.
  • CQMF scalar coupling constants = g_sigma_u = g_delta_u = 2.72, g_zeta_s = 3.847, etc. (Table 1)
    Quark couplings to scalar fields taken from the CQMF model fits to hadronic matter properties in Refs. [21,41].
  • CQMF vector coupling constants = g_omega_u = g_rho_u = 3.23, g_omega_s = 8.89, g_phi_s = 4.57 (Table 1)
    Quark couplings to vector fields from the CQMF model fits.
  • m0_s = 77 MeV
    Constant mass term chosen to reproduce the empirical vacuum strange quark mass; m0_u,d = 0.
  • Normalization A = not quoted; recalculated for each mass set
    Normalizes the BHL wavefunction to unit probability; determined for each set of effective masses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The kaon light-front Fock space is dominated by the leading |q anti-q> two-particle state.
    The entire LCQM calculation uses only the two-particle Fock component (Eq. 1); higher Fock states are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper In-medium effects are fully encoded by replacing quark masses with CQMF effective masses m*_q in the vacuum LCQM wavefunction; the wavefunction shape (beta_K) is unchanged.
    Section 2 states the inputs to LCQM are the CQMF masses; no in-medium modification of the Gaussian shape or the spin structure is considered.
  • domain assumption The CQMF thermodynamic potential (Eq. 9) and its parameter set from Refs. [21,41] correctly describe strange hadronic matter at zero temperature and finite baryon density.
    The effective masses m*_q are outputs of this model; if the CQMF is inaccurate at rho_B/rho_0 = 3 or for hyperon-rich matter, the kaon modifications would differ.
  • standard math The GPD at zero skewness is obtained from overlap integrals of the LCQ wavefunctions (Eqs. 12-13); the valence quark approximation is adequate for the EMFF at the Q^2 range considered.
    Standard light-front overlap representation for valence GPDs, used in many prior works.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kaon structure modifications in strange hadronic matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCJ4YSE5

@misc{pith2026250619347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kaon structure modifications in strange hadronic matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCJ4YSE5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19347}
}
read the original abstract

We present the valence quark distributions of the kaons in an isospin asymmetric dense strange medium consisting of nucleons and hyperons. The comparative analysis of in-medium parton distribution functions, electromagnetic form factors, and charge densities with respect to the free space distributions is studied in the light-cone quark model. The medium effects are incorporated in these distribution functions by using the effective quark masses, computed from the chiral SU(3) quark mean field model for finite values of baryonic density, isospin asymmetry, and strangeness fraction parameters. We observe a suppression of the kaon electromagnetic form factors and a redistribution of charge density in high-density strange matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PDFs of the u quark in the left panel and ¯s antiquark in the right panel are plotted as a function of longitudinal momentum fraction x. The results are shown for different values of strangeness fraction fs = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, at fixed baryon density ratio ρB/ρ0 = 3 and isospin asymmetry η = 0.5 in subplots (a) and (b), whereas for a range of ρB/ρ0 = 0, 1, 2, 3 and keeping fs = η = 0.5 fixed in subplots (c) and (d).… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. EMFF of the u quark and the ¯s antiquark are plotted as a function of momentum transfer Q 2 (GeV2 ). The subplots (a) and (b) show the results at strangeness fraction values fs = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and fixed baryonic density ratio ρB/ρ0 = 3. The subplots (c) and (d) compare the EMFF when ρB/ρ0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, for fixed fs = η = 0.5. (a) ρB/ρ0 = 0 ρB/ρ0 = 1 ρB/ρ0 = 2 ρB/ρ0 = 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 b⟂ [GeV… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The charge density of the u quark ρ u K in the left panel and ¯s antiquark ρ s¯ K in the right panel are plotted as a function of the impact parameter b⊥ (GeV−1), for baryon density ratios ρB/ρ0 = 0, 1, 2, 3, for fixed fs = η = 0.5. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The charge density distribution of the ¯s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 194, 445 (1982)

    1982

  2. [2]

    A. D. Martin et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 189 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    C. F. Perdrisat, V . Punjabi and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59, 694 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Diehl and P

    M. Diehl and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2397 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Khodjamirian, T

    A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. O ffen, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054013 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    G. A. Miller, M. Strikman and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 83, 013006 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 80, 045210 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    D. S. Kim, D. S. Hwang and J. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 669, 345 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Aubert et al. [European Muon], Phys. Lett. B 123, 275 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    Hen et al

    O. Hen et al. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 045002 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk and S. i. Nam, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034021 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    A. J. Arifi, P. T. P. Hutauruk and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114010 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    A. J. Arifi, P. T. P. Hutauruk and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074004 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, Y . Oh and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. C 99, 015202 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk and K. Tsushima, [arXiv:1910.08133 [nucl-th]]

    1910 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk et al. Phys. Rev. D 100, 094011 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    G. H. S. O. Yabusaki et al. Phys. Rev. D 109, 054024 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Er and K

    N. Er and K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 397 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Puhan et al

    S. Puhan et al. Phys. Rev. D 110, 054042 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Kaur et al

    N. Kaur et al. Phys. Lett. B 859, 139114 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Singh et al

    D. Singh et al. Phys. Rev. D 111, 054001 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    van Weelden [ALICE], EPJ Web Conf

    G. van Weelden [ALICE], EPJ Web Conf. 316, 03011 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    T. Song, J. Aichelin and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 106, 024903 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    C. T. Sturm et al. [KAOS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 39 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. [STAR], JHEP 10, 139 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    S. Dutt, A. Kumar and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116003 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1274(1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392 (1949)

    1949

  21. [29]

    Kaur and H

    S. Kaur and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 100, 074008 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    P. Wang, Z. Y . Zhang and Y . W. Yu, Commun. Theor. Phys.36, 71 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Wang et al

    P. Wang et al. Nucl. Phys. A 688, 791 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Kumar and H. Dahiya, Chin. Phys. C 41, 094104 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Kumar and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 120 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 4 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Pandey et al

    R. Pandey et al. [arXiv:2505.01202 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kaur et al

    S. Kaur et al. Phys. Rev. D 102, 014021 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    Qian and B

    W. Qian and B. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074002 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    B. W. Xiao, X. Qian and B. Q. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A 15, 523 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    J. h. Yu, B. W. Xiao and B. Q. Ma, J. Phys. G 34, 1845 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Wang et al

    P. Wang et al. Phys. Rev. C 67, 015210 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Wang et al

    P. Wang et al. Phys. Rev. C 72, 045801 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Maji and D

    T. Maji and D. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. D 94, 094020 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Kaur et al

    N. Kaur et al. Nucl. Phys. B 934, 80 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Friedman et al

    E. Friedman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 122302 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Suzuki et al

    K. Suzuki et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 072302 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Bonutti et al

    F. Bonutti et al. [CHAOS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 603 (1996)

    1996

  40. [48]

    Camerini et al

    P. Camerini et al. [CHAOS], Nucl. Phys. A 735, 89 (2004)

    2004

  41. [49]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    G. Y . Lim, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 210, 210 (2011). 5 (a) fs = 0 fs = 0.3 fs = 0.5 fs = 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 x fK u(x) (b)fs = 0 fs = 0.3 fs = 0.5 fs = 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 x fK s _ (x) (c) ρB/ρ0 = 0 ρB/ρ0 = 1 ρB/ρ0 = 2 ρB/ρ0 = 3 0.2 0...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.