Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Light and heavy $\Lambda$ hyperclusters in nuclear matter with relativistic-mean-field models

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In dense nuclear matter, adding a Lambda makes light clusters dissolve earlier and heavy clusters later.

desk verdict Solid, incremental extension of the authors' Wigner-Seitz RMF framework to Lambda hyperclusters; single-Lambda systematics are credible, but the double-Lambda repulsion and the uniform-gas assumption cap its quantitative reach. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09547 v2 pith:G7CKIF2G submitted 2025-07-13 nucl-th

Cheng-Jun Xia , Yu-Ting Rong , Ting-Ting Sun This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords Lambdahypernucleirelativisticmean-fieldMotttransitionnuclearmatterWigner-Seitzcellin-mediumbindingenergieshyperclustersneutronstar
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

This paper tries to establish how $\Lambda$ hypernuclei—nuclei containing at least one strange $\Lambda$ baryon—behave when immersed in dense nuclear matter, the kind of environment found in neutron stars and heavy-ion collisions. Using relativistic-mean-field models, with the cluster solved quantum-mechanically inside a Wigner-Seitz cell and the surrounding matter treated as a uniform gas, it finds that every cluster loses binding as the gas density rises and eventually dissolves at a density called the Mott density. The central claim is a crossover at four protons: for clusters with proton number $N_p < 4$, adding a $\Lambda$ lowers the binding energy per baryon and lowers the Mott density, while for $N_p \geq 4$ the $\Lambda$ raises the binding energy per baryon and raises the Mott density. The paper also identifies isovector effects—binding rises with the proton fraction $Y_p$ for $N_p > N_n$ clusters, falls for $N_p < N_n$ clusters—and fits all density shifts to a compact analytical formula usable in simulations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Wigner-Seitz cell: a sphere of radius $R_W = 12.8\,\mathrm{fm}$ holding the (hyper)cluster, with surrounding nuclear matter idealized as a constant-density gas. The cluster's Dirac spinors are solved under Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions so the densities flatten to the gas values at the cell edge, while the gas is treated with the Thomas-Fermi approximation at fixed density $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ and proton fraction $Y_p$. Binding is then defined through the generalized relativistic-density-functional energy difference $B = \sum_i (m_i + S_{i,\mathrm{gas}} + V_{i,\mathrm{gas}}) N_i - E_{\mathrm{tot}}$. This setup is what allows the authors to scan $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ and $Y_p$, locate the $B = 0$ crossing that defines each Mott density, and tabulate the coefficients of the fitting formula.

What would settle it

A direct check is to compare survival densities: the paper predicts $^4_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ dissolves at lower $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ than $^3\mathrm{H}$, while $^5_{\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$ dissolves at higher $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ than $^4\mathrm{He}$. Recalculating with the $\sigma$-cluster coupling included, or observing either ordering reversed in heavy-ion data near the hyperon threshold, would falsify the $N_p = 4$ crossover.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that in-medium (hyper)cluster binding is governed by the competition between nucleon and hyperon single-particle energies. In light cores the nucleons are already strongly bound and the $N$-$\Lambda$ attraction is weaker than the $N$-$N$ attraction, so the $\Lambda$ dilutes the binding per baryon and the hypercluster melts at a lower $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ than its normal core. In heavy cores, nucleons occupy higher-energy orbitals while the $\Lambda$ stays in the $1s_{1/2}$ orbital, so the $\Lambda$ contributes proportionally more binding and pushes the Mott density upward. The same calculation yields the isovector rule and a fitted formula $B = B_0 + a n_{\mathrm{gas}} + b n_{\mathrm{gas}}^2 + c Y_p n_{\mathrm{gas}} + d Y_p + f Y_p^2$ that reproduces the shifts across all studied clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nuclear medium can be treated as a uniform, constant-density gas inside a Wigner-Seitz cell; if the real medium contains other clusters, density gradients, or a $\sigma$-cluster coupling, the extracted binding shifts could change even if the decreasing-and-melting trend survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every cluster considered here becomes unbound at some finite gas density, so simulations of dense matter that neglect in-medium dissolution will overestimate cluster abundances at high $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$.
  • A single $\Lambda$ lowers the Mott density for $N_p < 4$ clusters and raises it for $N_p \geq 4$ clusters, so the survival ordering of a hypercluster versus its core is reversed between light and heavy species.
  • The fitted analytical formula with tabulated coefficients gives heavy-ion and neutron-star modellers a direct way to update cluster binding energies as a function of local density and proton fraction.
  • Charge radii grow as $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ rises while binding falls, and adding a $\Lambda$ makes the cluster more compact and less responsive to the surrounding density.
  • The functional dependence matters: non-linear relativistic functionals produce a sharp destabilization of light hyperclusters near $n_{\mathrm{gas}} \approx 0.0005$–$0.0011\,\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$, whereas a density-dependent functional gives a gentler decline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the four-proton crossover survives a more realistic treatment of the medium, then the relative yields of $^4_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and $^5_{\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$ in heavy-ion collisions could serve as a density gauge: the former should dissolve earlier than its $^3\mathrm{H}$ core, the latter later than its $^4\mathrm{He}$ core.
  • The paper's own caveat about neglecting $\sigma$-cluster coupling implies the reported binding energies are likely upper bounds; including that coupling should lower the Mott densities, and the light/heavy ordering could shift if the correction is size-dependent.
  • Extending the framework to double-$\Lambda$ clusters with the experimentally attractive $\Lambda$-$\Lambda$ interaction, mediated by $\sigma^*$ exchange, would increase $^6_{\Lambda\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$ binding and should raise its Mott density, reversing the repulsive $\Lambda$-$\Lambda$ trend reported here.
  • Plugging the fitted formula into neutron-star equations of state would test whether heavy hyperclusters survive up to the densities around $2$–$3 n_0$ where hyperons are expected to appear, potentially delaying the onset of uniform hyperonic matter.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a Wigner-Seitz relativistic-mean-field treatment of nuclear clusters to Lambda hyperclusters. After fixing the Lambda couplings from U_Lambda(n0) = -30 MeV with g_sigmaLambda = g_sigmaN, the authors solve the Dirac equation with Dirichlet-Neumann boundary conditions for clusters embedded in a Thomas-Fermi nuclear gas, using the DD-LZ1, TM1, and PK1 functionals. They compute binding energies of single- and double-Lambda hyperclusters, identify Mott densities at which B = 0, study proton-fraction dependence, and fit the results to the polynomial Eq. (36). The central claims are that binding energies decrease with n_gas, that for light clusters with N_p < 4 adding a Lambda reduces binding per baryon and accelerates the decline, and that for heavy clusters with N_p >= 4 the Lambda stabilizes the cluster and raises the Mott density.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a systematic survey of in-medium Lambda-hypercluster binding energies and a simple analytic parametrization that could be used in heavy-ion and neutron-star modeling. Strengths include the use of three modern RMF functionals, reproduction of single-Lambda separation energies with RMS deviations of 0.74-1.30 MeV, and a transparent Wigner-Seitz/Thomas-Fermi framework with deterministic computations. The principal caveat is that the model's Lambda-Lambda interaction is repulsive and contradicts the measured attractive Delta_B_LambdaLambda, making quantitative statements for double-Lambda systems unreliable. The qualitative single-Lambda light/heavy inversion is credible, but the blanket claims in the abstract and conclusion overstate the reliability for N_Lambda = 2.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A, Table II, Fig. 2] The model gives Delta_B_LambdaLambda = -0.133 MeV for 6_LambdaLambdaHe, whereas the KEK E373 value is +0.67 +/- 0.17 MeV; the authors acknowledge this and attribute it to the neglected sigma* exchange. However, Table III and Fig. 3 include the double-Lambda clusters 5_LambdaLambdaH, 6_LambdaLambdaHe, and 7_LambdaLambdaLi in exactly the comparison that supports the abstract's blanket claim that adding Lambda hyperons to light clusters reduces binding per baryon and hastens the decline with n_gas. The fitted B0 and a coefficients for these systems inherit the missing ~0.8 MeV attraction, so their in-medium Mott densities and the light/heavy ordering are quantitatively unreliable for N_Lambda = 2. The authors should either restrict all claims to single-Lambda hyperclusters or add an attractive Lambda-Lambda term, e.g., sigma* exchange, and refit.
  2. [Sec. II, after Eq. (34); Sec. III B] The uniform-gas Wigner-Seitz treatment neglects cluster-cluster interactions and density gradients, and the authors correctly flag this simplification. Nevertheless, Eq. (36) with the coefficients of Table III is presented as a tool for heavy-ion and neutron-star applications without an estimate of the resulting systematic error. Because the baryon gas in those environments is not uniform and other clusters are present, the transferability of the fitted coefficients is not demonstrated. Please add a quantitative discussion or a test, such as a comparison with a medium containing an additional cluster or with a density profile, to bound this uncertainty before the formula is recommended for applications.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The word 'emersed' should be 'immersed' in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, and 'hypernulcei' in Sec. I is a typo for 'hypernuclei'.
  2. [Sec. III A, Fig. 1] The comparison with experimental B_Lambda values in Fig. 1 is a calibration check rather than an independent validation, because g_omegaLambda was fixed via U_Lambda(n0) = -30 MeV to reproduce those data; please state this explicitly to avoid an impression of circularity.
  3. [Eq. (36), Table III] The fitting range in n_gas and Y_p and the number of data points used for the polynomial fit are not given; please report residuals or R^2 values so readers can judge the quality of the representation.
  4. [Sec. II, after Eq. (15)] The statement that for heavy-ion collisions the binding energy variation can be obtained by replacing B0 with B is terse; please clarify whether the in-medium values in Table III should be used directly or with a Coulomb correction.
  5. [Fig. 6] The sudden drop in binding energy for TM1 and PK1 at n_gas ~ 0.0005-0.0011 fm^-3 is striking; the text should explain the underlying mechanism, such as an effective-mass or potential crossing, rather than only reporting the functional dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: in-medium binding energies and Mott densities are computed outputs, and Eq. (36) is a transparent fit to those outputs.

full rationale

The claimed Mott-transition behavior is not an input. For each cluster, B(n_gas, Y_p) is computed by iteratively solving the Dirac equations (8) with the Dirichlet-Neumann boundary condition, the mean-field equations (9)-(15), and the Thomas-Fermi gas densities (16)-(23), then evaluated via Eqs. (33)-(34); the Mott density is the computed zero of B. Equation (36) is explicitly a fit to those computed values ("we fit the variation of binding energy with respect to the density n_gas and proton fraction Y_p of nuclear medium with a polynomial formula, i.e., B = B0 + a n_gas + ..."), so it parametrizes the output rather than supplying the input. The Lambda couplings are calibrated to the empirical depth U_Lambda(n0) = -30 MeV (Eq. (35)), and the Fig. 1 B_Lambda comparison uses the same experimental compilation [2,3]; this is an in-sample calibration check, not a separate prediction, and it does not force the light/heavy inversion, which is attributed to the computed single-particle structure (nucleons in higher orbitals vs Lambda in 1s1/2). The method is self-cited from [62], but the formalism is restated in full here, so the citation is not load-bearing. The acknowledged limitations - the repulsive DeltaB_LambdaLambda = -0.133 MeV versus the experimental +0.67 +/- 0.17 MeV (Sec. III A) and the neglect of sigma-cluster coupling (after Eq. (34)) - affect quantitative accuracy but are not circular steps. No equation in the derivation chain reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard RMF density functionals, a calibrated Lambda coupling, and several stated simplifications. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main caveat is the omitted attractive Lambda-Lambda interaction, which the paper acknowledges produces a repulsive interaction contradicting experiment.

free parameters (3)
  • g_omegaLambda (with g_sigmaLambda = g_sigmaN) = 1.143 g_omegaN
    Fixed by requiring U_Lambda(n0) = -30 MeV via Eq. (35), calibrated to reproduce empirical single-Lambda separation energies.
  • U_Lambda(n0) = -30 MeV
    Chosen Lambda potential depth in symmetric nuclear matter at saturation; sets the N-Lambda coupling strength.
  • Polynomial coefficients B0, a, b, c, d, f in Eq. (36) = Listed in Tables III and IV
    Fitted to the computed in-medium binding energies; used to parametrize density and isospin dependence.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption RMF Lagrangians with PK1/TM1/DD-LZ1 couplings describe nuclear interaction
    Standard model input; the paper does not derive these functionals.
  • domain assumption Lambda couples only through sigma and omega mesons with g_sigmaLambda=g_sigmaN and g_omegaLambda from Eq. (35)
    Calibration to hypernuclear data; neglects other channels.
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi uniform gas approximation with constant n_i,gas
    Simplifies the medium; acknowledged as unrealistic in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption Dirichlet-Neumann boundary condition at Wigner-Seitz edge
    From Negele-Vautherin, ensures densities are constant at cell boundary.
  • domain assumption Lambda-Lambda interaction via sigma* is neglected
    Paper states this yields repulsive Lambda-Lambda interaction contradicting E373 data (Sec. III A).
  • domain assumption Neglect of pairing, deformation, and charge symmetry breaking
    Stated in Sec. III A; affects light nuclei and 8Be binding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light and heavy $\Lambda$ hyperclusters in nuclear matter with relativistic-mean-field models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G7CKIF2G

@misc{pith2026250709547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light and heavy $\Lambda$ hyperclusters in nuclear matter with relativistic-mean-field models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G7CKIF2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09547}
}
abstract

In the framework of relativistic-mean-field (RMF) models, we investigate the properties of light and heavy $\Lambda$ hyperclusters emersed in nuclear matter at various densities $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ and proton fractions $Y_p$. In particular, the (hyper)clusters are fixed by solving the Dirac equations imposing the Dirichlet-Neumann boundary condition, while the nuclear matter take constant densities and is treated with Thomas-Fermi approximation. The binding energies of (hyper)clusters decrease with the density of nuclear matter $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$, which eventually become unbound and melt in the presence of nuclear medium, i.e., Mott transition. For light clusters with proton numbers $N_p < 4$, with the addition of $\Lambda$ hyperons, the binding energies per baryon for $\Lambda$ hyperclusters become smaller and decrease faster with $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ due to the weaker $N$-$\Lambda$ attraction. For heavy clusters with $N_p \geq 4$, on the contrary, the addition of $\Lambda$ hyperons increases the stability of (hyper)clusters so that the Mott transition density becomes larger as nucleons occupying higher energy states while $\Lambda$ hyperons remain in the $1s_{1/2}$ orbital. The isovector effects on (hyper)clusters in nuclear medium are also identified, where the binding energies for (hyper)clusters with $N_p> N_n$ ($N_p< N_n$) increase (decrease) with $Y_p$. For those predicted by nonlinear relativistic density functionals, light (hyper)clusters are destabilized drastically as $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$ increases, while the binding energies of heavier (hyper)clusters vary smoothly with $n_{\mathrm{gas}}$. The binding energy shifts of various (hyper)clusters due to the impact of nuclear medium are fitted to an analytical formula, which could be employed to examine the evolutions of (hyper)clusters in both heavy-ion collisions and neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Binding energies of Λ hyperon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Density profiles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Binding energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Binding energy per nucleon for various (hy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Similar as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Binding energies of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Danysz and J

    M. Danysz and J. Pniewski, Philos. Mag.44, 348 (1953)

    1953

  2. [2]

    Hashimoto and H

    O. Hashimoto and H. Tamura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 564 (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035004 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    S. Aoki, S. Bahk, S. Chung, H. Funahashi, C. Hahn, 10 M. Hanabata, T. Hara, S. Hirata, K. Hoshino, M. Ieiri, T. Iijima, K. Imai, Y. Itow, T. Jin-ya, M. Kazuno, C. Kim, J. Kim, S. Kim, K. Kodama, T. Kuze, Y. Maeda, A. Masaike, A. Masuoka, Y. Matsuda, A. Matsui, Y. Nagase, C. Nagoshi, M. Nakamura, S. Nakanishi, T. Nakano, K. Nakazawa, K. Niwa, H. Oda, H. Ok...

    2009

  5. [5]

    J. K. Ahn, H. Akikawa, S. Aoki, K. Arai, S. Y. Bahk, K. M. Baik, B. Bassalleck, J. H. Chung, M. S. Chung, D. H. Davis, T. Fukuda, K. Hoshino, A. Ichikawa, M. Ieiri, K. Imai, K. Itonaga, Y. H. Iwata, Y. S. Iwata, H. Kanda, M. Kaneko, T. Kawai, M. Kawasaki, C. O. Kim, J. Y. Kim, S. H. Kim, S. J. Kim, Y. Kondo, T. Kouketsu, H. N. Kyaw, Y. L. Lee, J. W. C. Mc...

    2013

  6. [6]

    A. Gal, J. Soper, and R. Dalitz, Ann. Phys.63, 53 (1971)

    1971

  7. [7]

    Dalitz and A

    R. Dalitz and A. Gal, Ann. Phys.116, 167 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    Millener, Nucl

    D. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A804, 84 (2008)

    2008

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Millener, Nucl

    D. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A914, 109 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Motoba, H

    T. Motoba, H. Band¯ o, and K. Ikeda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 70, 189 (1983)

    1983

  3. [11]

    (12-15), and densities Eqs

    with the boson fields determined by Eqs. (12-15), and densities Eqs. (16-23) iteratively in a box size of RW = 12.8 fm with a grid distance of 0.1 fm, which is large enough to enclose the (hyper)nuclei considered in this work. Once convergency is reached, the energy and bindin...

  4. [12]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Yamamoto, T. A. Rijken, and T. Motoba, Phys. Rev. C74, 054312 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Hiyama, M

    E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, T. Motoba, T. Yamada, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C66, 024007 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Band¯ o, T

    H. Band¯ o, T. Motoba, and J. ˘Zofka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A05, 4021 (1990)

    1990

  7. [15]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y. Yamamoto, T. Motoba, and M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. C80, 054321 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    J. N. Hu, A. Li, H. Toki, and W. Zuo, Phys. Rev. C89, 025802 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Isaka, M

    M. Isaka, M. Kimura, A. Dot´ e, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C87, 021304 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Boguta and S

    J. Boguta and S. Bohrmann, Phys. Lett. B102, 93 (1981)

    1981

  11. [19]

    Brockmann and W

    R. Brockmann and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B69, 167 (1977)

    1977

  12. [20]

    Mareˇ s and B

    J. Mareˇ s and B. K. Jennings, Phys. Rev. C49, 2472 (1994)

    1994

  13. [21]

    Mareˇ s and J.ˇZofka, Z

    J. Mareˇ s and J.ˇZofka, Z. Phys. A333, 209 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    C. Y. Song, J. M. Yao, H. F. L V, and J. Meng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E19, 2538 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Sugahara and H

    Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Prog. Theor. Phys.92, 803 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Wang, H.-Y

    X.-S. Wang, H.-Y. Sang, J.-H. Wang, and H.-F. Lv, Commun. Theor. Phys.60, 479 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Tanimura and K

    Y. Tanimura and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C85, 014306 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Rong, Z.-H

    Y.-T. Rong, Z.-H. Tu, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C 104, 054321 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Liu, C.-J

    Z.-X. Liu, C.-J. Xia, W.-L. Lu, Y.-X. Li, J. N. Hu, and T.-T. Sun, Phys. Rev. C98, 024316 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Zhou, H.-J

    X.-R. Zhou, H.-J. Schulze, H. Sagawa, C.-X. Wu, and E.-G. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C76, 034312 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Y.-T. Rong, D. Yang, C.-J. Xia, and T.-T. Sun, (2025), arXiv:2506.13499 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Tsushima, K

    K. Tsushima, K. Saito, J. Haidenbauer, and A. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A630, 691 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    Tsushima, K

    K. Tsushima, K. Saito, and A. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 411, 9 (1997)

    1997

  24. [32]

    Aoki, Prog

    S. Aoki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.66, 687 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    P. A. Guichon, A. W. Thomas, and K. Tsushima, Nucl. Phys. A814, 66 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Phys.16, 409 (2020)

    The STAR Collaboration, Nat. Phys.16, 409 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Chen, L.-S

    J.-H. Chen, L.-S. Geng, E. Hiyama, Z.-W. Liu, and J. Pochodzalla, (2025), arXiv:2506.00864 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cheng and Z.-Q

    H.-G. Cheng and Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Lett. B824, 136849 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    ALICE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 102302 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    A. S. Botvina, M. Bleicher, and N. Buyukcizmeci, J. Phys: Conf. Ser.2586, 012045 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Nature561, 321 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Z.-L. She, G. Chen, D.-M. Zhou, L. Zheng, Y.-L. Xie, and H.-G. Xu, Phys. Rev. C103, 014906 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Buyukcizmeci, A

    N. Buyukcizmeci, A. S. Botvina, A. Ergun, R. Ogul, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C98, 064603 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Le F` evre, J

    A. Le F` evre, J. Aichelin, C. Hartnack, and Y. Leifels, Phys. Rev. C100, 034904 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Zhouet al., (2025), arXiv:2507.14255 [nucl-th]

    Y. Zhouet al., (2025), arXiv:2507.14255 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Yong, Phys

    G.-C. Yong, Phys. Lett. B866, 139549 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Botta, T

    E. Botta, T. Bressani, and G. Garbarino, Eur. Phys. J. A48, 41 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    G.-C. Yong, J. L. Rodr ´ ıguez-S´ anchez, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C111, 054617 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Yong, Phys

    G.-C. Yong, Phys. Lett. B853, 138662 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wei, Z.-Q

    S.-N. Wei, Z.-Q. Feng, and W.-Z. Jiang, Phys. Lett. B 853, 138658 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Feng, Phys

    Z.-Q. Feng, Phys. Lett. B851, 138580 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Reisdorf, A

    W. Reisdorf, A. Andronic, R. Averbeck, and et al., Nucl. Phys. A848, 366 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Hartnack, H

    C. Hartnack, H. Oeschler, Y. Leifels, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rep.510, 119 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu, and K. Sumiyoshi, As- trophys. J.197, 20 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Ishizuka, A

    C. Ishizuka, A. Ohnishi, K. Tsubakihara, K. Sumiyoshi, and S. Yamada, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.35, 085201 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Sun, S.-S

    T.-T. Sun, S.-S. Zhang, Q.-L. Zhang, and C.-J. Xia, Phys. Rev. D99, 023004 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Sun, C.-J

    T.-T. Sun, C.-J. Xia, S.-S. Zhang, and M. S. Smith, Chin. Phys. C42, 25101 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Cust´ odio, H

    T. Cust´ odio, H. Pais, and C. m. c. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. C104, 035801 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    https://compose.obspm.fr/

  50. [58]

    J. M. Lattimer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.62, 485 11 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 1015 (2002)

    2002

  52. [60]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.54, 401 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    ¨Ozel, D

    F. ¨Ozel, D. Psaltis, T. Guver, G. Baym, C. Heinke, and S. Guillot, Astrophys. J.820, 28 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Xia, Phys

    C.-J. Xia, Phys. Rev. C112, 025801 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Kiuchi, Phys. Rev. D83, 124008 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    W.-H. Long, J. Meng, N. V. Giai, and S.-G. Zhou, Phys. Rev. C69, 034319 (2004)

    2004

  57. [65]

    J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Nucl. Phys. A207, 298 (1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    B. Wei, Q. Zhao, Z.-H. Wang, J. Geng, B.-Y. Sun, Y.-F. Niu, and W.-H. Long, Chin. Phys. C44, 074107 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Sugahara and H

    Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A579, 557 (1994)

    1994

  60. [68]

    C.-J. Xia, T. Maruyama, N. Yasutake, T. Tatsumi, and Y.-X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C103, 055812 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Lenske and C

    H. Lenske and C. Fuchs, Phys. Lett. B345, 355 (1995)

    1995

  62. [70]

    Typel, G

    S. Typel, G. R¨ opke, T. Kl¨ ahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C81, 015803 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Bender, K

    M. Bender, K. Rutz, P.-G. Reinhard, and J. Maruhn, Eur. Phys. J. A7, 467 (2000)

    2000

  64. [72]

    Russotto, S

    P. Russotto, S. Gannon, S. Kupny, P. Lasko, L. Acosta, M. Adamczyk, A. Al-Ajlan, M. Al-Garawi, S. Al- Homaidhi, F. Amorini, L. Auditore, T. Aumann, Y. Ayyad, Z. Basrak, J. Benlliure, M. Boisjoli, K. Boret- zky, J. Brzychczyk, A. Budzanowski, C. Caesar, G. Cardella, P. Cammarat...

    2016

  65. [73]

    S.-Y. Ding, W. Yang, and B.-Y. Sun, Chin. Phys. C47, 124103 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Zhang, M

    Y. Zhang, M. Liu, C.-J. Xia, Z. Li, and S. K. Biswal, Phys. Rev. C101, 034303 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Le F` evre, Y

    A. Le F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, J. Aichelin, and C. Hartnack, Nucl. Phys. A945, 112 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Huthet al., Nature606, 276 (2022)

    S. Huthet al., Nature606, 276 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Essick, I

    R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 192701 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Bouyssy and J

    A. Bouyssy and J. Hufner, Phys. Lett. B64, 276 (1976)

    1976

  71. [79]

    A. S. Zubov, G. G. Adamian, and Antonenko, Phys. Part. Nucl.40, 847 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    T.-T. Sun, Y. Tanimura, H. Sagawa, and E. Hiyama, Phys. Lett. B865, 139460 (2025)

    2025

  73. [81]

    D. J. Millener, C. B. Dover, and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2700 (1988)

    1988

  74. [82]

    Huang, M

    W. Huang, M. Wang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030002 (2021)

    2021

  75. [83]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Bally, A

    B. Bally, A. Scalesi, V. Som` a, L. Zurek, and T. Duguet, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 140 (2025)

    2025

  77. [85]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    Takahashi, J

    H. Takahashi, J. K. Ahn, H. Akikawa, S. Aoki, K. Arai, S. Y. Bahk, K. M. Baik, B. Bassalleck, J. H. Chung, M. S. Chung, D. H. Davis, T. Fukuda, K. Hoshino, A. Ichikawa, M. Ieiri, K. Imai, Y. H. Iwata, Y. S. Iwata, H. Kanda, M. Kaneko, T. Kawai, M. Kawasaki, C. O. Kim, J. Y. Ki...

    2001

  79. [87]

    Rong, Phys

    Y.-T. Rong, Phys. Rev. C108, 054314 (2023)

    2023

  80. [1972]

    rearrangement

    With these experimental efforts, a large number of single-Λ hypernuclei are now produced [2, 3], where the corresponding Λ separation energiesB Λ can be obtained with BΛ =M( A−1Z) +M Λ −M( A Λ Z).(1) HereM( A−1Z),M Λ, andM( A Λ Z) are the masses of nu- cleus A−1Z, Λ hyperon, a...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.