Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Study of $\Lambda p$ and $\bar{\Lambda} p$ scatterings via quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 One meson-exchange model reproduces both Lambda-proton and anti-Lambda-proton scattering, including the forward peak seen in the antiparticle channel.

desk verdict Solid qBSE application, but the anti-Lambda p 'prediction' at 2.24 GeV is a one-point fit; the forward-peaked angular shape is the real new result. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18415 v1 pith:2KXPC5MZ submitted 2025-07-24 hep-ph nucl-th

Yaning Chen , Jun He This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords quasipotentialBethe-SalpeterequationLambdaprotonscatteringanti-Lambdaone-boson-exchangemodelcoupledchannelspartial-waveanalysisG-parityruleeffectiveLagrangian
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 that a single meson-exchange model, solved through the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation with coupled Sigma-N channels, can describe both Lambda-proton and anti-Lambda-proton scattering with the same parameters. If true, it would connect ordinary hyperon-nucleon interactions to their antiparticle partners through one G-parity rule, giving the first dynamical explanation of the measured forward-peaked anti-Lambda-proton angular distribution. The claim matters because anti-hyperon-nucleon scattering data are scarce, so a model that predicts them from Lambda-proton data would be a useful guide for future experiments. It also provides input for hyperon effects in neutron-star equations of state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter partial-wave integral equation, with the interaction kernel built from one-boson-exchange amplitudes for $\pi,\eta,\sigma,\rho,\omega,K,K^*$ exchanges, flavor factors from SU(3), a form factor $f(q^2)=\exp\bigl[-(m_e^2-q^2)^2/\Lambda_e^2\bigr]$, and a phenomenological repulsive term $V_{\rm rep}$ that tames short-range attraction. The spectator approximation places the heavier hadron on shell and reduces the four-dimensional equation to a one-dimensional integral equation over momentum, discretized by Gauss quadrature. This machinery converts the effective Lagrangians into the summed partial-wave amplitudes used for total and differential cross sections.

What would settle it

A measurement of the $\bar{\Lambda} p \to \bar{\Lambda} p$ differential cross section at $\sqrt{s}=2.45$ GeV: the model predicts a pronounced forward peak that is sharper than at $2.24$ GeV, whereas a flat or backward-enhanced angular distribution would invalidate the G-parity-based potentials.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$ total cross section from threshold to $\sqrt{s}=2.5$ GeV is reproduced by a one-boson-exchange potential kernel in the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation, with a mild enhancement near the $\Sigma N$ threshold caused by coupled-channel dynamics. Using the same couplings and a slightly larger cutoff, the $\bar{\Lambda} p \to \bar{\Lambda} p$ reaction is obtained through the G-parity sign-flip relation; the model then predicts a total cross section of $24.7$ mb at $\sqrt{s}=2.24$ GeV that agrees with the recent measurement. The paper further claims that $\bar{\Lambda} p$ differential cross sections show a strong forward peak, understood as constructive interference among partial waves, and that this peak persists and sharpens from $\sqrt{s}=2.15$ GeV to $2.45$ GeV. In the $\Lambda p$ channel the $1^+$ partial wave dominates everywhere and the $0^+$ wave matters near threshold; in the $\bar{\Lambda} p$ channel the $1^-$ wave dominates over most of the energy range.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the G-parity sign-flip rule, which assumes that the anti-Lambda-proton potential is obtained from the Lambda-proton one by flipping the signs of pion, rho, and omega exchanges while keeping eta and sigma unchanged; if that sign pattern is wrong, the predicted anti-Lambda cross sections and the forward peak change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same parameter set reproduces the $\Lambda p$ total cross section from threshold to $\sqrt{s}=2.5$ GeV, including a mild bump near the $\Sigma N$ threshold that the paper attributes to coupled-channel dynamics.
  • It predicts a nearly flat differential cross section for $\Lambda p$ at $\sqrt{s}=2.24$ GeV, with the $1^+$ partial wave dominating and the $0^+$ wave important near threshold.
  • It predicts a $\bar{\Lambda} p$ total cross section of $24.7$ mb at $\sqrt{s}=2.24$ GeV, matching the experimental value, and a pronounced forward peak in the differential cross section.
  • The forward peak persists from $\sqrt{s}=2.15$ to $2.45$ GeV and sharpens with energy; the paper attributes it to constructive interference among partial waves and the absence of u-channel contributions.
  • In the $\bar{\Lambda} p$ channel, the $1^-$ partial wave dominates over most of the energy range, with the $0^-$ wave contributing near threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the model is right, future measurements of $\bar{\Lambda} p$ angular distributions above $2.3$ GeV can discriminate it from tree-level-only descriptions, because the forward peak is predicted to sharpen monotonically with energy.
  • The same G-parity construction could be applied to other antihyperon-nucleon channels, such as $\bar{\Sigma} p$, yielding testable forward-peaked predictions before any data exist.
  • The near-threshold enhancement tied to the $\Sigma N$ coupled channel suggests that analogous coupled-channel signatures may appear in $\bar{\Sigma} N$ channels, although the paper finds their impact on the total cross section minor.
  • A lattice QCD calculation of $\Lambda p$ and $\bar{\Lambda} p$ phase shifts could test whether the short-range repulsive term and Gaussian cutoffs are merely effective, or whether the one-boson-exchange kernel itself is the correct long-distance mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Lambda p and anti-Lambda p scattering within the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation (qBSE) using one-boson-exchange potentials with pseudoscalar, scalar, and vector meson exchanges and coupled Sigma N / anti-Sigma N channels. The Lambda p total cross sections are fitted from threshold to sqrt(s)=2.5 GeV, and differential cross sections at sqrt(s)=2.24 GeV and several other energies are computed. For anti-Lambda p, the model uses the G-parity-transformed potentials with a larger cutoff Lambda=0.69 GeV, yielding sigma=24.7 mb at 2.24 GeV and a strongly forward-peaked angular distribution that is compared with BESIII data. The central claims are a unified description of both reactions and a partial-wave explanation for the forward peaking.

Significance. If validated, the model would provide a useful unified frame for hyperon-nucleon and antihyperon-nucleon scattering, and the partial-wave decomposition is physically informative: 1+ dominance for Lambda p and 1- dominance for anti-Lambda p, with the forward peak arising from constructive interference among partial waves. The angular shapes of the differential cross sections at energies other than 2.24 GeV are genuine predictions, and the forward-peaking pattern at multiple energies is a concrete, falsifiable output. The Lambda p description also gives a reasonable global account of the existing total-cross-section data. However, the anti-Lambda p total cross section at 2.24 GeV is not an independent prediction because the cutoff was tuned to that single point, so the agreement is partly built in. The absence of uncertainty or sensitivity estimates further limits the strength of the agreement claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Fig. 5] The anti-Lambda p total cross section at sqrt(s)=2.24 GeV is presented as a prediction, but the text states that the model 'fit the total cross sections of anti-Lambda p in the energy range up to 2.500 GeV' using Lambda=0.69 GeV. The only experimental total-cross-section point in that range is BESIII's single measurement at sqrt(s)=2.24 GeV, so the quoted value sigma=24.7 mb is a one-parameter fit to the datum it is said to agree with, not an independent prediction. The abstract's phrase 'our predicted total cross sections show good agreement with the BESIII data' is therefore circular for this channel. The angular shape of d sigma/d Omega at 2.24 GeV remains a genuine prediction, but its normalization is anchored by the fitted total cross section, so the degree of validation is weaker than claimed.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (6); Section 3.2] The G-parity relation in Eq. (6) is the only input that generates the anti-Lambda p potential from the Lambda p one, and the anti-Lambda p calculation is tested against exactly one normalization point. Since that point is also used to fix the cutoff, the agreement does not independently validate the sign structure of Eq. (6). I request a sensitivity test: for example, vary Lambda around 0.69 GeV (e.g., 0.64, 0.69, 0.74 GeV) and show the resulting total and differential cross sections, and ideally state how the forward-peak prediction changes under a plausible alternative sign choice for the sigma and omega exchanges in Eq. (6). Without such a test, the robustness of the claimed forward peaking is not established.
  3. [Sections 3.1-3.2, Figs. 2-6] No uncertainty or sensitivity estimates are provided for any theory curve. The model has at least four free parameters (the common cutoff, g_LambdaLambda_sigma, g_rep, and the anti-Lambda p cutoff), and the key anti-Lambda p agreement rests on a single adjusted parameter. Since the central claims are quantitative comparisons with data, the reported 'good agreement' cannot be assessed without some indication of the parameter sensitivity. I request at least a band or a small grid of curves for the 2.24 GeV differential cross section in Fig. 6(a) as a function of the anti-Lambda p cutoff.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword 'Bethe-Saltpeter' is a typo; it should be 'Bethe-Salpeter'.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The last line of Eq. (2) contains a stray ', ,' after the L_LambdaSigma_rho Lagrangian; it should be a single comma before the equation number.
  3. [After Eq. (13)] The sentence 'j1 and j2 are the spin of the intitial particles' should read 'j1 and j2 are the spins of the initial particles'.
  4. [Section 3.1, Fig. 3] The statement 'the results converge for total angular momentum up to J <= 4' is clear, but the same convergence check is not reported for the anti-Lambda p channel; a brief statement in Section 3.2 would be useful.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The ¯Λp→¯Λp total cross-section 'prediction' at 2.24 GeV is a one-point cutoff fit; the differential normalization inherits the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 3.2, total cross-section fit and 'prediction' for ¯Λp→¯Λp]
    "we employ the model established above and fit the total cross sections of ¯Λp → ¯Λp in the energy range up to 2.500 GeV using a slightly larger cutoff, Λ=0.69 GeV ... no experimental data are currently available for ¯Λp → ¯Λp scattering, except for a recent measurement by the BESIII Collaboration at √s = 2.24 GeV ... Our model predicts a total cross section of σ = 24.7 mb at this energy, which is in good agreement with the BESIII result [40]."

    The anti-Lambda channel is obtained from the already-fixed Lambda model by changing one parameter, the cutoff Λ. The only BESIII total-cross-section datum in the fit range is at √s=2.24 GeV. Tuning Λ to that range therefore reproduces that same point by construction; calling σ=24.7 mb a 'prediction' renames the fit. The agreement is a one-parameter interpolation, not an independent test. The angular shape remains predictive, but the quoted total-cross-section agreement is statistically forced.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, differential cross-section discussion at √s=2.24 GeV (Fig. 6(a))]
    "At √s = 2.24 GeV, a pronounced forward peak emerges in the angular distribution, exhibiting notable agreement with the BESIII data [40]."

    The integral of dσ/dΩ over solid angle is the total cross section, which was used to set Λ. Hence the absolute normalization of the computed dσ/dΩ at 2.24 GeV is anchored to the BESIII total cross section at that same energy; agreement in magnitude is therefore built in. Only the angular shape (forward peaking, partial-wave interference) is an independent prediction. No uncertainty band on Λ is shown, so the size of the fitted portion is not quantified.

full rationale

The analysis is not globally circular: the qBSE machinery and OBE potentials are established, the couplings are fixed by SU(3) relations and external Bonn/Ehime/Nijmegen inputs, and the Λp→Λp differential angular shapes at 2.24, 2.15, 2.25, 2.35, and 2.45 GeV are genuine predictions from parameters fitted to total cross sections, with the angular distribution not entering the fit. Self-citations to He's earlier qBSE papers are method citations, not load-bearing circularity. However, for the ¯Λp→¯Λp channel the central quantitative claim is structurally circular: the model is 'fit' using only the BESIII total point at √s=2.24 GeV (the only datum in the range), and the quoted σ=24.7 mb agreement at that point is the fit result, not a prediction. The forward-peaked angular shape and its energy dependence are independent content, so the paper retains genuine predictive value; but the abstract's wording 'our predicted total cross sections show good agreement' overstates the degree of independence. Because one central headline number reduces to a one-parameter fit to the same datum, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation depends on a standard scattering framework, an effective Lagrangian with SU(3) couplings, and several phenomenological choices (exponential form factor, common cutoff, repulsive term, G-parity). The truly free parameters fitted to data are two cutoffs, one sigma coupling, and one repulsion strength.

free parameters (4)
  • Cutoff Lambda (meson-exchange form factor and propagator) for Lambda p channel = 0.56 GeV
    Fitted to Lambda p total cross sections in Section 3.1; common value Lambda_e = Lambda_r = Lambda.
  • g_LambdaLambda_sigma (sigma meson coupling to Lambda) = 5
    Treated as free parameter; fitted to Lambda p total cross sections; cited literature values range 5.79 to 8.17.
  • g_rep (strength of repulsive short-range potential) = 11
    Fitted to Lambda p total cross sections; introduced in Section 2 to prevent overattraction from scalar exchange.
  • Cutoff Lambda for anti-Lambda p channel = 0.69 GeV
    Fitted to anti-Lambda p total cross sections in Section 3.2; other parameters shared with the Lambda p fit.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quasipotential spectator approximation reduces the 4D Bethe-Salpeter equation to a 1D integral equation (Eqs. 7-8).
    Standard framework used in Refs. 52-55; accepted in hadron scattering applications.
  • domain assumption One-boson-exchange potentials with pi, eta, sigma, omega, rho, K, K* mesons and SU(3) flavor symmetry fix coupling constants (Table 1).
    Effective Lagrangian approach; vertices are not derived from QCD but from flavor symmetry.
  • domain assumption G-parity rule connects baryon-antibaryon potentials to baryon-baryon potentials with meson-dependent signs (Eq. 6).
    Used to construct anti-Lambda p interaction from Lambda p model; standard but approximate for vector and scalar exchanges.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential form factor f(q^2) = exp(-(m_e^2 - q^2)^2 / Lambda_e^2) with q^2 replaced by -|q_vec|^2 regularizes potentials.
    Phenomenological choice to suppress off-shell contributions; common cutoff Lambda_e = Lambda_r = Lambda.
  • ad hoc to paper Repulsive potential V_rep = -g_rep Gamma1 Gamma2 is added to avoid excessive short-range attraction from sigma exchange.
    Ad hoc term with strength fitted to data, following the spirit of Nijmegen soft-core models.
  • domain assumption Coupled-channel Sigma N and anti-Sigma N states are included with positive total charge built from isospin combinations (Eq. 1).
    Necessary because the Sigma N threshold lies in the energy region; the construction follows Ref. 26.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Study of $\Lambda p$ and $\bar{\Lambda} p$ scatterings via quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KXPC5MZ

@misc{pith2026250718415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Study of $\Lambda p$ and $\bar\Lambda p$ scatterings via quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KXPC5MZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18415}
}
abstract

Motivated by recent BESIII measurements of the $\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$ and $\bar{\Lambda} p \to \bar{\Lambda} p$ scattering processes, we investigate these reactions within the framework of the quasipotential Bethe-Salpeter equation using an effective Lagrangian approach. The interaction potentials are constructed via a one-boson-exchange model incorporating pseudoscalar, scalar, and vector meson exchanges, along with coupled-channel effects from the $\Sigma N$ and $\bar{\Sigma} N$ channels. For the $\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$ reaction, the total cross sections from threshold up to $\sqrt{s} = 2.5~\text{GeV}$ are well reproduced. A mild enhancement near the $\Sigma N$ threshold is attributed to coupled-channel dynamics. Using parameters constrained by the total cross section data, our model also predicts differential cross sections at $\sqrt{s} = 2.24~\text{GeV}$, which exhibit weak angular dependence, consistent with experimental observations. Partial-wave analysis indicates that the $1^+$ partial wave dominates over the entire energy range, while the $0^+$ wave plays a significant role near threshold. For the $\bar{\Lambda} p \to \bar{\Lambda} p$ reaction, our predicted total cross sections show good agreement with the BESIII data. The $1^-$ partial wave is found to dominate in most of the energy region. Notably, the calculated differential cross sections exhibit a strong forward peaking behavior, consistent with experimental findings and understood as resulting from constructive interference among various partial waves. This forward-peaked angular distribution persists across a range of energies, highlighting the distinct dynamics of the $\bar{\Lambda} p$ interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagrams illustrating the interactions i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fit yields a cutoff parameter Λ = 0.56 GeV and a coupling constant grep = 11 for the short-range repulsive inter￾action, which dominates in the high-energy region. The ΛΛσ coupling constant is determined to be gΛΛσ = 5, a value con￾sistent with those reported in the literature, such as 5.79, 6.54, 6.59, 7.58, and 8.17 [26, 27, 57]. In our calculation, we find that the results converge for total angular momentum … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Partial-wave cross sections for the scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total cross section and partial-wave cross sectio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Bonn Meson Ex change Model for the Nucleon Nucleon Interaction,

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and C. Elster, “The Bonn Meson Ex change Model for the Nucleon Nucleon Interaction,” Phys. Rept. 149 (1987), 1- 89

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    R. L. Workman et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” PTEP 2022 (2022), 083C01

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Strangeness in Nuclei and Neu tron Stars,

    L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, “Strangeness in Nuclei and Neu tron Stars,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112 (2020), 103770

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Hyperons: the strange ingredients of the nu clear equation of state,

    I. Vida˜ na, “Hyperons: the strange ingredients of the nu clear equation of state,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 474 (2018), 0145

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Hyperons and neutron stars,

    I. Vida˜ na, “Hyperons and neutron stars,” Nucl. Phys. A 914 (2013), 367- 376

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Study of the lambda-n system in low- energy lambda-p elastic scattering,

    G. Alexander, U. Karshon, A. Shapira, G. Y ekutieli, R. En gelmann, H. Filthuth and W. Lughofer, “Study of the lambda-n system in low- energy lambda-p elastic scattering,” Phys. Rev. 173 (1968), 1452-1460

    work page 1968

  7. [7]

    Lambda p interactions in momentum range 300 to 1500 mev /c,

    J. A. Kadyk, G. Alexander, J. H. Chan, P . Gaposchkin and G. H. Trilling, “Lambda p interactions in momentum range 300 to 1500 mev /c,” Nucl. Phys. B 27 (1971), 13-22

    work page 1971

  8. [8]

    L ow-energy lambda-proton elastic scattering,

    B. Sechi-Zorn, B. Kehoe, J. Twitty and R. A. Burnstein, “L ow-energy lambda-proton elastic scattering,” Phys. Rev. 175 (1968), 1735-1740

    work page 1968

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Experimental study of Λp and Ξ0 p interactions in the range 1–10 GeV /c,

    J. M. Hauptman et al., “Experimental study of Λp and Ξ0 p interactions in the range 1–10 GeV /c,” Nucl. Phys. B 125 (1977), 29-51

    1977

  2. [10]

    Phenomenological Lambda- Nucleon Po- tentials from s-Shell Hypernuclei. 2. Dependence on Intrin sic Range,

    R. C. Herndon and Y . C. Tang, “Phenomenological Lambda- Nucleon Po- tentials from s-Shell Hypernuclei. 2. Dependence on Intrin sic Range,” Phys. Rev. 159 (1967), 853-861

    1967

  3. [11]

    ΛInteractions in Hydrogen,

    F. S. Crawford et al. , “ ΛInteractions in Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 (1959), 174-177

    1959

  4. [12]

    New Determination of the K + Decay Branching Ratios,

    B. P . Roe, D. Sinclair, J. L. Brown, D. A. Glaser, J. A. Kad yk and G. H. Trilling, “New Determination of the K + Decay Branching Ratios,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 7 (1961), 346-348

    1961

  5. [13]

    Elastic Scattering of Lambda Hyperons fr om Protons,

    T. H. Groves, “Elastic Scattering of Lambda Hyperons fr om Protons,” Phys. Rev. 129 (1963), 1372-1377

    1963

  6. [14]

    Elastic scattering cross section of A° hyperons on nu- cleons,

    P . Beilli` ere et al., “Elastic scattering cross section of A° hyperons on nu- cleons,” Phys. Lett. 12 (1964), 350-351

    1964

  7. [15]

    Λ-p Elastic Scattering,

    L. Piekenbrock et al., “ Λ-p Elastic Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 12 (1964), 625-627

    1964

  8. [16]

    Low-Momentum Λ-p Elastic Scattering Cross Sec- tions,

    B. Sechi-Zorn et al., “Low-Momentum Λ-p Elastic Scattering Cross Sec- tions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964), 282-284

    1964

  9. [17]

    Lambda-Proton Interactions at High Energies,

    D. Bassano, C. Y . Chang, M. Goldberg, T. Kikuchi and J. Le itner, “Lambda-Proton Interactions at High Energies,” Phys. Rev. 160 (1967) no.5, 1239

    1967

  10. [18]

    Hyperon-proton interactions between 0.5 and 4.0 gev /c,

    G. R. Charlton, J. Badier, E. Barrelet, I. Makarovisch, J. Pernegr, J. R. Hubbard, A. Leveque, C. Louedec, L. Moscoso and D. Revel , “Hyperon-proton interactions between 0.5 and 4.0 gev /c,” Phys. Lett. B 32 (1970), 720-722

    1970

  11. [19]

    Lam bda-Proton Elastic Scattering from 1-GeV /c to 17-GeV /c,

    K. J. Anderson, N. M. Gelfand, J. Keren and T. H. Tan, “Lam bda-Proton Elastic Scattering from 1-GeV /c to 17-GeV /c,” Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975), 473-477

    1975

  12. [20]

    Lambda p Interactions Below 24-GeV /c,

    R. P . Mount, R. E. Ansorge, J. R. Carter, W. W. Neale, J. G. Rushbrooke and D. R. Ward, “Lambda p Interactions Below 24-GeV /c,” Phys. Lett. B 58 (1975), 228-232

    1975

  13. [21]

    The Bubble Chamber,

    C. Dodd, “The Bubble Chamber,” Nature 176 (1955), 142-144

    1955

  14. [22]

    Improved Λp Elastic Scattering Cross Sections Between 0.9 and 2.0 GeV/c and Connections to the Neutron Star Equation of State,

    J. Rowley et al. [CLAS], “Improved Λp Elastic Scattering Cross Sections Between 0.9 and 2.0 GeV/c and Connections to the Neutron Star Equation of State,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) no.27, 272303

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hyperon nucleon interactions in a chiral SU(3) quark model ,

    Z. Y . Zhang, Y . W. Y u, P . N. Shen, L. R. Dai, A. Faessler and U. Straub, “Hyperon nucleon interactions in a chiral SU(3) quark model ,” Nucl. Phys. A 625 (1997), 59-70

    1997

  16. [24]

    Baryon-baryon interactions in the SU(6) quark model and their applications to light nuclea r systems,

    Y . Fujiwara, Y . Suzuki and C. Nakamoto, “Baryon-baryon interactions in the SU(6) quark model and their applications to light nuclea r systems,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58 (2007), 439-520

    2007

  17. [25]

    Soft core hy peron - nu- cleon potentials,

    T. A. Rijken, V . G. J. Stoks and Y . Y amamoto, “Soft core hy peron - nu- cleon potentials,” Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999), 21-40

    1999

  18. [26]

    A Meson Exchang e Model for the Hyperon Nucleon Interaction,

    B. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde and J. Speth, “A Meson Exchang e Model for the Hyperon Nucleon Interaction,” Nucl. Phys. A 500 (1989), 485-528

    1989

  19. [27]

    The Julich hyperon n ucleon inter- action models,

    A. Reuber, K. Holinde and J. Speth, “The Julich hyperon n ucleon inter- action models,” Czech. J. Phys. 42 (1992), 1115-1135

    1992

  20. [28]

    The Julich hyperon- nucleon model revisited,

    J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meissner, “The Julich hyperon- nucleon model revisited,” Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005), 044005

    2005

  21. [29]

    A Low-Energ y Nucleon- Nucleon Potential from Regge Pole Theory,

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken and J. J. de Swart, “A Low-Energ y Nucleon- Nucleon Potential from Regge Pole Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978), 768

    1978

  22. [30]

    Soft Cor e Baryon Baryon One Boson Exchange Models. 2. Hyperon - Nucleon Poten tial,

    P . M. M. Maessen, T. A. Rijken and J. J. de Swart, “Soft Cor e Baryon Baryon One Boson Exchange Models. 2. Hyperon - Nucleon Poten tial,” Phys. Rev. C 40 (1989), 2226-2245

    1989

  23. [31]

    Baryon-bary on interac- tions: Nijmegen extended-soft-core models,

    T. A. Rijken, M. M. Nagels and Y . Y amamoto, “Baryon-bary on interac- tions: Nijmegen extended-soft-core models,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 185 (2010), 14-71

    2010

  24. [32]

    E ffective one-boson-exchange potential for Lambda N and Sigma N systems and hypertriton,

    K. Tominaga and T. Ueda, “E ffective one-boson-exchange potential for Lambda N and Sigma N systems and hypertriton,” Nucl. Phys. A 693 (2001), 731-754

    2001

  25. [33]

    Hyperon–nu cleon inter- action within chiral e ffective field theory revisited,

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner and A. Nogga, “Hyperon–nu cleon inter- action within chiral e ffective field theory revisited,” Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (2020) no.3, 91

    2020

  26. [34]

    Test of the hype ron-nucleon interaction within leading order covariant chiral e ffective field theory,

    J. Song, Z. W. Liu, K. W. Li and L. S. Geng, “Test of the hype ron-nucleon interaction within leading order covariant chiral e ffective field theory,” Phys. Rev. C 105 (2022) no.3, 035203

    2022

  27. [35]

    Hypero n-nucleon in- teractions: A Chiral e ffective field theory approach,

    H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meissner, “Hypero n-nucleon in- teractions: A Chiral e ffective field theory approach,” Nucl. Phys. A 779 (2006), 244-266

    2006

  28. [36]

    Hyperon-nucleon interaction at next-to-leading order in chiral 7 effective field theory,

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U. G. Meissne r, A. Nogga and W. Weise, “Hyperon-nucleon interaction at next-to-leading order in chiral 7 effective field theory,” Nucl. Phys. A 915 (2013), 24-58

    2013

  29. [37]

    Strangeness S = −1 hyperon-nucleon scattering in covariant chiral e ffective field theory,

    K. W. Li, X. L. Ren, L. S. Geng and B. Long, “Strangeness S = −1 hyperon-nucleon scattering in covariant chiral e ffective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.1, 014029

    2016

  30. [38]

    Leading orde r rela- tivistic hyperon-nucleon interactions in chiral effective field theory,

    K. W. Li, X. L. Ren, L. S. Geng and B. W. Long, “Leading orde r rela- tivistic hyperon-nucleon interactions in chiral effective field theory,” Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) no.1, 014105

    2018

  31. [39]

    Hyper on–nucleon interaction in chiral e ffective field theory at next-to-next-to-leading or- der,

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, A. Nogga and H. Le, “Hyper on–nucleon interaction in chiral e ffective field theory at next-to-next-to-leading or- der,” Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023) no.3, 63

    2023

  32. [40]

    First Study of Antihyperon-Nucleon Scatter- ing Λ¯p→Λ¯p and Measurement of Λp→Λp Cross Section,

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], “First Study of Antihyperon-Nucleon Scatter- ing Λ¯p→Λ¯p and Measurement of Λp→Λp Cross Section,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) no.23, 231902

    2024

  33. [41]

    Understanding of the BESII I mea- surement of (anti)hyperon-nucleon scattering,

    X. Y . Wang, Y . Gao and X. Liu, “Understanding of the BESII I mea- surement of (anti)hyperon-nucleon scattering,” Phys. Let t. B 862 (2025), 139321

    2025

  34. [42]

    Coupled-c hannel dynamics in the reactions piN – > piN, etaN, KLambda, KSigma,

    D. Ronchen, M. Doring, F. Huang, H. Haberzettl, J. Haide nbauer, C. Han- hart, S. Krewald, U. G. Meissner and K. Nakayama, “Coupled-c hannel dynamics in the reactions piN – > piN, etaN, KLambda, KSigma,” Eur. Phys. J. A 49 (2013), 44

    2013

  35. [43]

    Dy- namical coupled-channels study of pi N — > pi pi N reactions,

    H. Kamano, B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama and T . Sato, “Dy- namical coupled-channels study of pi N — > pi pi N reactions,” Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009), 025206

    2009

  36. [44]

    Possible molecular dibar yons with csssqq quarks and their baryon–antibaryon partners,

    S. Y . Kong, J. T. Zhu and J. He, “Possible molecular dibar yons with csssqq quarks and their baryon–antibaryon partners,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.5, 436

    2023

  37. [45]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.3, 030001

    2018

  38. [46]

    Molecular states from Σ(∗) c ¯D(∗) − Λc ¯D(∗) interac- tion,

    J. He and D. Y . Chen, “Molecular states from Σ(∗) c ¯D(∗) − Λc ¯D(∗) interac- tion,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.11, 887

    2019

  39. [47]

    Covariant spectator theory of np scattering: Phase shifts obtained from precision fits to data below 350-M eV ,

    F. Gross and A. Stadler, “Covariant spectator theory of np scattering: Phase shifts obtained from precision fits to data below 350-M eV ,” Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 014005

    2008

  40. [48]

    Antinuclear Forces,

    R. j. n. Phillips, “Antinuclear Forces,” Rev. Mod. Phys . 39 (1967), 681- 688

    1967

  41. [49]

    A ntinucleon nucleon interaction at low energy: Scattering and protonium,

    E. Klempt, F. Bradamante, A. Martin and J. M. Richard, “A ntinucleon nucleon interaction at low energy: Scattering and protonium,” Phys. Rept. 368 (2002), 119-316

    2002

  42. [50]

    Pcs(4459) and other possible molecular states from Ξ(∗) c ¯D(∗) and Ξ′ c ¯D(∗) interactions,

    J. T. Zhu, L. Q. Song and J. He, “ Pcs(4459) and other possible molecular states from Ξ(∗) c ¯D(∗) and Ξ′ c ¯D(∗) interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.7, 074007

    2021

  43. [51]

    Possible ΛcΛ¯c molecular states and their productions in nucleon-antinucleon colli sion,

    L. Q. Song, D. Song, J. T. Zhu and J. He, “Possible ΛcΛ¯c molecular states and their productions in nucleon-antinucleon colli sion,” Phys. Lett. B 835 (2022), 137586

    2022

  44. [52]

    The Zc(3900) as a resonance from the D ¯D∗ interaction,

    J. He, “The Zc(3900) as a resonance from the D ¯D∗ interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.3, 034004

    2015

  45. [53]

    Study of the B ¯B∗/D ¯D∗ bound states in a Bethe-Salpeter approach,

    J. He, “Study of the B ¯B∗/D ¯D∗ bound states in a Bethe-Salpeter approach,” Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.7, 076008

    2014

  46. [54]

    New Structure Around 3250 Me V in the Baryonic B Decay and the D∗ 0(2400)N Molecular Hadron,

    J. He, D. Y . Chen and X. Liu, “New Structure Around 3250 Me V in the Baryonic B Decay and the D∗ 0(2400)N Molecular Hadron,” Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012), 2121

    2012

  47. [55]

    ¯DΣ∗ c and ¯D∗Σc interactions and the LHCb hidden-charmed pen- taquarks,

    J. He, “ ¯DΣ∗ c and ¯D∗Σc interactions and the LHCb hidden-charmed pen- taquarks,” Phys. Lett. B 753 (2016), 547-551

    2016

  48. [56]

    Relativistic o ne boson ex- change model for the nucleon-nucleon interaction,

    F. Gross, J. W. V an Orden and K. Holinde, “Relativistic o ne boson ex- change model for the nucleon-nucleon interaction,” Phys. R ev. C 45 (1992), 2094-2132

    1992

  49. [57]

    X(2239) and η(2225) as hidden-strange molecular states from Λ¯Λinteraction,

    J. T. Zhu, Y . Liu, D. Y . Chen, L. Jiang and J. He, “ X(2239) and η(2225) as hidden-strange molecular states from Λ¯Λinteraction,” Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) no.12, 123103 8

    2020

Pith tools

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