Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Faddeev calculations on lambda hypertriton with potentials from Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Differential Faddeev calculation with Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko lambda-nucleon potentials places the hypertriton ground state at -2.462 MeV, inside the experimental range.

desk verdict First application of GLM inverse-scattering Lambda-N potentials to the hypertriton, with a clean numerical convergence but an interpretation that needs separation energies before the agreement with experiment carries weight. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06813 v2 pith:EZM3UNNO submitted 2019-08-19 nucl-th

Emile Meoto , Mantile Lekala This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords hypertritonlambda-nucleonpotentialGel'fand-Levitan-MarchenkoinversescatteringFaddeevequationshypersphericalharmonicsthree-bodybindingenergyhypernuclearradiustheory
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 tests $\lambda$-proton and $\lambda$-neutron potentials reconstructed from scattering phases by Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko inverse-scattering theory, by feeding them into a three-body calculation of the $\lambda$ hypertriton treated as proton plus neutron plus $\lambda$. With the spin-averaged Malfliet-Tjon V potential for the neutron-proton pair, the Differential Faddeev equations in hyperspherical coordinates yield a $J^{\pi}=1/2^+$ ground state at -2.462 MeV and a matter radius of 7.00 fm, converging as the model space grows. If correct, this is the first demonstration that inverse-scattering hyperon-nucleon potentials can produce a bound hypernucleus in the experimentally measured energy range. The authors explicitly note the potentials contain no $\lambda$-$\sigma$ conversion channel, so the result is a test of the inverse-scattering construction rather than a final description of the full $\lambda$-nucleon force.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the GLM-YN0 lambda-nucleon potential: a local potential restored from theoretical sub-threshold scattering phases through Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko inverse-scattering theory and then fitted as a sum of three Gaussians, with a spin average of one quarter singlet and three quarters triplet. It is what the calculation is testing. The instrument is a system of coupled hyperradial equations derived from the Differential Faddeev Equations in hyperspherical variables, expanded on normalized associated Laguerre polynomials and solved as an eigenvalue problem; the Malfliet-Tjon V potential supplies the neutron-proton input. This arrangement isolates the lambda-nucleon potentials as the only variable being assessed for their few-body consequences.

What would settle it

Recompute the same three-body system after adding a coupled $\lambda$-$\sigma$ conversion channel to the inverse-scattering potentials; if the resulting $J^{\pi}=1/2^+$ energy moves outside roughly -2.2 to -2.7 MeV, or the radius changes by more than a femtometer, the missing channel is controlling the reported agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a numerical one: a $J^{\pi}=1/2^+$ $\lambda$ hypertriton bound state appears at -2.462 MeV with a root-mean-square matter radius of 7.00 fm when the $\lambda$-nucleon interactions are the GLM-YN0 potentials and the neutron-proton interaction is the spin-averaged Malfliet-Tjon V potential. The GLM-YN0 potentials are three-Gaussian fits, carrying a one-quarter singlet to three-quarters triplet spin average, to sub-threshold $\lambda$-proton and $\lambda$-neutron phases restored through Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory. The computed energy sits inside the spread of the two quoted experimental values, -2.35 ± 0.05 MeV and -2.47 ± 0.31 MeV, and the radius is larger than earlier theoretical values, which the authors attribute to the deuteron underbinding of the Malfliet-Tjon V force. The paper presents these numbers as evidence that inverse-scattering theory can act as a complement to meson-exchange and chiral effective field theory in constructing hyperon-nucleon potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation stands on the assumption that a spin-averaged three-Gaussian fit to lambda-nucleon scattering phases is a faithful enough lambda-nucleon force even without the lambda-sigma conversion channel; if that missing channel materially reshapes the interaction, the -2.462 MeV agreement with experiment is accidental rather than predictive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The GLM-YN0 potentials produce a bound hypertriton in the experimentally observed energy range, which is what any viable lambda-nucleon input should do.
  • The binding energy and radius stabilize as the model space grows, so the -2.462 MeV result is not an artifact of a small basis.
  • Because the Malfliet-Tjon V potential underbinds the deuteron, the reported matter radius is inflated; radius comparisons with more complete nucleon-nucleon forces require caution.
  • The absence of lambda-sigma conversion limits where these potentials can be trusted; the paper recommends against using them for heavy hypernuclei.
  • The calculation supports the program of using inverse-scattering theory as a complement to meson-exchange and chiral effective field theory in few-body hypernuclear studies, including future tests of charge symmetry breaking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct next step would be to add a coupled lambda-sigma channel to the same inverse-scattering construction; the size of the resulting binding-energy shift would show whether the missing coupling is the main source of the agreement with experiment.
  • Because the lambda-proton force is stronger than the lambda-neutron force in these potentials, the difference could be tested against the charge-symmetry-breaking separation energies of the A=4 lambda hypernuclei without changing the method.
  • Extracting the low-energy scattering lengths and effective ranges from the GLM-YN0 fits would give a cheap, independent check of whether the three-Gaussian form preserves the sub-threshold phase information.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a three-body calculation of the hypertriton ground state using the Differential Faddeev Equations in hyperspherical coordinates. The Lambda-proton and Lambda-neutron interactions are spin-averaged central potentials obtained from Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko inverse scattering theory and represented as three-Gaussian fits (GLM-YN0), while the neutron-proton interaction is the spin-averaged Malfliet-Tjon V potential. The calculation yields a J^pi=1/2+ bound state at -2.462 MeV with r.m.s. matter radius 7.00 fm, with convergence in model-space size shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. The binding energy is compared with experiment and with several modern hyperon-nucleon potential calculations in Table 4.

Significance. If the interpretive concern about cancellation is resolved, this is the first application of inverse-scattering-derived hyperon-nucleon potentials to a few-body hypernucleus, and it demonstrates that the standard hyperspherical Faddeev machinery handles these potentials smoothly. The convergence study in Table 3 is a genuine and useful check, and the authors are explicit about the omission of Lambda-Sigma conversion. However, the significance as a test of the GLM-YN0 potentials is limited by the absence of subsystem observables (deuteron binding and Lambda separation energy) and by the use of a purely central, spin-averaged np force.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 4] The central comparison to experiment is not yet convincing because the calculation uses the spin-averaged MT-V np potential, which the paper itself states underbinds the deuteron (Section 4, discussion of the 7.00 fm radius). The total binding energy of -2.462 MeV may therefore result from a cancellation between an underbound np subsystem and a correspondingly too-strong Lambda-N interaction. Since no deuteron binding energy with the same MT-V model and no Lambda separation energy are reported, the reader cannot judge whether S_Lambda is physically reasonable (approximately 0.13 MeV experimentally) or substantially larger. Please report B_d and S_Lambda, and ideally repeat the calculation with a more realistic NN potential, or restrict the claim to a numerical demonstration rather than an accuracy test of GLM-YN0.
  2. [Section 3, Table 1] The Gaussian fit parameters are not presented in a usable form: several sigma_i values are listed as negative (e.g., -0.3932 fm for Lambda-p and -0.5469 fm for Lambda-n), and V_2 for Lambda-p is 8.106e+07 MeV, which is many orders of magnitude larger than the potential strength shown in Figure 1. It is unclear whether Equation (8) is meant to use sigma_i^2 with |sigma_i|, whether the signs are typographical, and whether the two large-V Gaussians with negative mu_i lie outside the plotted range but still affect the three-body computation. Please correct the definitions, provide the fitted potential in a reproducible form, and give a quantitative measure of the fit quality (e.g., chi^2) or compare the scattering phase shifts with the original data.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph on Lambda-Sigma conversion] The authors acknowledge that the GLM-YN0 potentials contain no Lambda-Sigma conversion, but they do not assess the possible impact of this omission on the hypertriton binding energy. Since Lambda-Sigma coupling is known to contribute substantially to the Lambda-N interaction in modern potentials, the good agreement with experiment in Table 4 may be coincidental. A quantitative estimate of the expected size of this effect, or a discussion of why it should be small for the hypertriton, is needed to support the interpretation that this is a meaningful test of the GLM-YN0 potentials.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1] The label 'EFfective' in panel (b) contains a typo and should read 'Effective'.
  2. [Section 4, quantum-number notation] The notation (K_i, S_xi, l_xi, l_yi) is used without defining S_xi; please define this channel quantum number explicitly.
  3. [Table 1] The caption says uncertainties are indicated for mu_i and sigma_i, but no uncertainties are given for the V_i parameters; please add them or state that they were not estimated.
  4. [Section 2, Equation (5)] The index alpha_i is used before its meaning is explained; consider defining the coupling-scheme abbreviation immediately after Equation (5).
  5. [Table 3] The convergence is reported to 0.1 keV at N_b=32, but the table is truncated at N_b=32; it would be helpful to state explicitly the criterion used to declare convergence or to show that larger N_b does not change the energy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GLM-YN0 potentials are prior inputs, and the hypertriton binding energy is a genuine three-body output not used to construct them.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: theoretical scattering phases from [20] are inverted with Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory to produce lambda-nucleon effective potentials; those potentials are fit with three Gaussians; the spin-averaged GLM-YN0 potentials are combined with a standard Malfliet-Tjon V neutron-proton potential; and the Differential Faddeev equations are solved for the hypertriton ground state. The claimed result, -2.462 MeV binding energy and 7.00 fm matter radius, is not a fit parameter in any part of this chain. The Gaussian parameters of Table 1 are fitted to the effective potentials from [20], not to the hypertriton energy. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work [20] for the potentials, which is a normal and necessary dependency, but the target observable was not used as input to that prior inversion. The three-body calculation itself is a self-contained eigenvalue problem with fixed input potentials and no adjustable parameter directed at reproducing -2.462 MeV. The comparison with other potentials in Table 4 is a benchmark, not a construction. The paper also acknowledges the missing lambda-sigma conversion and the MT-V underbinding of the deuteron; those are physical validity concerns, not circularity. The convergence study with increasing model space further indicates the reported energy is a numerical result of the given Hamiltonian rather than a re-statement of the inputs. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitting or self-citation chain forces the predicted binding energy.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central calculation depends on three fitted Gaussian parameter sets (two for the lambda-nucleon potentials, plus the spin-averaging weights), on the parent potentials from the same authors' prior work, and on a simple nucleon-nucleon potential. The invented entity is the GLM-YN0 potential family itself. No new conserved quantity, dimension, or particle is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian fit parameters V_i, mu_i, sigma_i for Lambda-p potential = Table 1: e.g. V1=45.88 MeV, mu1=0.1148 fm, sigma1=-0.3932 fm; V2=8.106e7 MeV, mu2=-1.193 fm, sigma2=0.3575 fm…
    Determined by nonlinear least squares fit (Levenberg-Marquardt) to the effective potentials from ref [20], then used in the three-body calculation.
  • Gaussian fit parameters V_i, mu_i, sigma_i for Lambda-n potential = Table 1: V1=186.9 MeV, mu1=-0.3476 fm, sigma1=-0.5469 fm; V2=6.74e4 MeV, mu2=-0.383 fm, sigma2=0.191 fm; V3=-52.14…
    Same fitting procedure applied to the Lambda-neutron effective potential from ref [20].
  • Spin-averaging weights 1/4 singlet, 3/4 triplet = 1/4 and 3/4
    Chosen on the basis of effective range theory and prior hypernuclear practice, following refs [27,28,29]. This determines the strength of the effective lambda-nucleon potential.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The lambda-nucleon potentials can be represented by a sum of three Gaussians with the parameters in Table 1.
    Section 3, Equation (8). The Gaussian form is a numerical fit to the potentials from [20], not derived from the inverse scattering theory.
  • domain assumption The Faddeev expansion truncated at Kmax=8, Sxmax=1, lxmax=2, lymax=2 yields convergent binding energy and radius.
    Section 4. The convergence is checked in Nb but not in K, Sx, lx, ly. Similar calculations often require larger partial wave content for the hypertriton.
  • domain assumption The Malfliet-Tjon V potential provides an adequate neutron-proton interaction for the hypertriton calculation.
    Section 3, Equation (9). It is spin-averaged with no tensor force, and the paper attributes the unusually large radius to its deuteron underbinding.
  • domain assumption The theoretical scattering phase shifts from [20], from which the lambda-nucleon potentials are restored, are correct.
    Section 3 and reference [20]. The potentials inherit all content from those phases.
invented entities (1)
  • GLM-YN0 lambda-nucleon potentials
    purpose: Effective lambda-proton and lambda-neutron potentials for three-body hypertriton calculations
    The potentials were published by the same authors in [20] and are here fitted with Gaussians. They are not checked against any independent observable outside the hypertriton binding energy used as a test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faddeev calculations on lambda hypertriton with potentials from Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZM3UNNO

@misc{pith2026190806813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faddeev calculations on lambda hypertriton with potentials from Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZM3UNNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06813}
}
abstract

Effective lambda-proton and lambda-neutron potentials, restored from theoretical scattering phases through Gel'fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory, are tested on a lambda hypertriton through three-body calculations. The lambda hypertriton is treated as a three-body system consisting of lambda-proton, lambda-neutron and proton-neutron subsystems. Binding energy and root-mean-square radius are computed for the ground state of lambda hypertriton ($J^{\pi}=1/2^+$). In coordinate space, the dynamics of the system is described using a set of coupled hyperradial equations obtained from the Differential Faddeev Equations. By solving the eigenvalue problem derived from this set of coupled hyperradial equations, the binding energy and root-mean-square matter radius computed are found to be -2.462 MeV and 7.00 fm, respectively. The potentials are also shown to display a satisfactory convergence behaviour.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06813 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the three-term Gaussian fits to the data from [20]. neutron are mp = 1.007276466u and mn = 1.008664915u, respectively [36]. The mass of the lambda hyperon is calculated from its energy equivalence i.e. mΛ = 1115.683/931.5 = 1.198u. These masses enter the computation through the Jacobi coordinates (Equation (1)), which are transformed into hyperspherical variables. The mass parameter, ~ 2/2m, in Equatio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Convergence of hypertriton ground state binding energy (E) and root-mean-square radius with size of model space (Nb) dominant contribution, the first four hyperradial wavefunctions are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. First four hyperradial wavefunctions in the dominant channel. These wavefunctions become more oscillatory as one progresses through the terms in the expansion in Equation (7). sigma conversion, the potentials may not be suitable for heavy hypernuclei. Nonetheless, these computations are significant because they represent the first application of hyperon-nucleon potentials from Gel’fand-Levitan-Marchenko theory in hy… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Davis D H 2005 Nuclear Physics A 754 3 – 13 proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Dalitz R H 2005 Nuclear Physics A 754 14 – 24 proceedings of the Eighth International Conference o n Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    de Swart J J, Nagels M M, Rijken T A and Verhoeven P A 1971 Springer Tracts in Modern Physics vol 60 ed H¨ ohler G (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelbe rg) pp 138–203

    work page 1971

  4. [4]

    de Swart J J, Klomp R A M M, Rentmeester M C M and Rijken T A 199 6 Few-Body Problems in Physics ’95: In memoriam Professor Paul Urban ed Guardiola R (Vienna: Springer Vienna) pp 438–447

    work page

  5. [5]

    Proceedi ngs of the XIVth European Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics ed Bakker B L G and van Dantzig R (Wien: Springer Verlag) pp 1–12

    Rijken T A 1993 Few-Body Problems in Physics ’93, Supplementum 7. Proceedi ngs of the XIVth European Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics ed Bakker B L G and van Dantzig R (Wien: Springer Verlag) pp 1–12

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Rijken T A 2001 Nuclear Physics A 691 322 – 328 proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Hypernuclear and Strange Par ticle Physics

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Holzenkamp B, Holinde K and Speth J 1989 Nuclear Physics A 500 485 – 528

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Reuber A, Holinde K and Speth J 1992 Czechoslovak Journal of Physics 42 1115–1135

    work page 1992

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Haidenbauer J and Meißner U G 2005 Physical Review C 72 044005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Fujiwara Y, Nakamoto C and Suzuki Y 1996 Physical Review C 54(5) 2180–2200

    1996

  3. [11]

    Fujiwara Y, Nakamoto C and Suzuki Y 1996 Physical Review Letters 76(13) 2242–2245

    1996

  4. [12]

    Fujiwara Y, Kohno M, Nakamoto C and Suzuki Y 2001 Phys. Rev. C 64(5) 054001

    2001

  5. [13]

    Polinder H, Haidenbauer J and Meißner U G 2006 Nuclear Physics A 779 244 – 266

    2006

  6. [14]

    Polinder H, Haidenbauer J and Meißner U G 2007 Physics Letters B 653 29 – 37

    2007

  7. [15]

    Haidenbauer J, Petschauer S, Kaiser N, Meißner U G, Nogg a A and Weise W 2013 Nuclear Physics A 915 24 – 58

    2013

  8. [16]

    2018 Phys

    Adamczyk L et al. 2018 Phys. Rev. C 97(5) 054909 (STAR Collaboration)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Gal A and Garcilazo H 2019 Physics Letters B 791 48 – 53

    2019

  10. [18]

    Trogolo S 2019 Nuclear Physics A 982 815 – 818 the 27th International Conference on Ultrarelativ istic Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions: Quark Matter 2018

    2019

  11. [19]

    Xu Y 2017 JPS Conf. Proc. 17 021005

    2017

  12. [20]

    Meoto E F and Lekala M L 2019 Journal of Physics Communications 3 095018

    2019

  13. [21]

    Thompson I J, Nunes F M and Danilin B V 2004 Computer Physics Communications 161 87 – 107

    2004

  14. [22]

    Kievsky A, Viviani M and Rosati S 1993 Nuclear Physics A 551 241 – 254

    1993

  15. [23]

    Nunes F, Christley J, Thompson I, Johnson R and Efros V 19 96 Nuclear Physics A 609 43 – 73

  16. [24]

    Tarutina T, Thompson I and Tostevin J 2004 Nuclear Physics A 733 53 – 66

    2004

  17. [25]

    Smirnov Y F and Shitikova K V 1977 Sov. J. Particles Nucl. 8

    1977

  18. [26]

    Thompson I J and Nunes F M 2009 Nuclear Reactions for Astrophysics: Principles, Calculat ion and Applications of Low-Energy Reactions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Bethe H A 1949 Phys. Rev. 76(1) 38–50

    1949

  20. [28]

    Hackenburg R W 2006 Phys. Rev. C 73(4) 044002

    2006

  21. [29]

    Ansari H H, Shoeb M and Khan M Z R 1986 Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Physics 12 1369

    1986

  22. [30]

    Smith D R and Downs B W 1964 Phys. Rev. 133(2B) B461–B465

    1964

  23. [31]

    Dietrich K, Mang H and Folk R 1964 Nuclear Physics 50 177 – 201

    1964

  24. [32]

    Malfliet R A and Tjon J A 1969 Nuclear Physics A 127 161 – 168

    1969

  25. [33]

    Zabolitzky J G, Schmidt K E and Kalos M H 1982 Phys. Rev. C 25(2) 1111–1113

    1982

  26. [34]

    Myo T, Toki H, Ikeda K, Horiuchi H and Suhara T 2017 Phys. Rev. C 95(4) 044314

    2017

  27. [35]

    Garcilazo H, Valcarce A and Vijande J 2020 Chinese Physics C 44 024102

    2020

  28. [36]

    Mohr P J, Newell D B and Taylor B N 2016 Rev. Mod. Phys. 88(3) 035009

    2016

  29. [37]

    Nannini A and Marcucci L E 2018 Frontiers in Physics 6 122

    2018

  30. [38]

    Nemura H, Suzuki Y, Fujiwara Y and Nakamoto C 2000 Progress of Theoretical Physics 103 929–958

    2000

  31. [39]

    1973 Nuclear Physics B 52 1 – 30

    Juriˇ c M et al. 1973 Nuclear Physics B 52 1 – 30

    1973

  32. [40]

    Keyes G, Derrick M, Fields T, Hyman L G, Fetkovich J G, McK enzie J, Riley B and Wang I T 1970 Phys. Rev. D 1(1) 66–77

    1970

  33. [41]

    Fujiwara Y, Miyagawa K, Kohno M and Suzuki Y 2004 Nuclear Physics A 738 382 – 386 proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Clustering Aspects of Nucl ear Structure and Dynamics

    2004

  34. [42]

    Fujiwara Y, Suzuki Y, Kohno M and Miyagawa K 2008 Phys. Rev. C 77(2) 027001

    2008

  35. [43]

    Ferrari Ruffino F, Lonardoni D, Barnea N, Deflorian S, Leid emann W, Orlandini G and Pederiva F 2017 Few-Body Systems 58 113

    2017

  36. [44]

    Tominaga K and Ueda T 2001 Nuclear Physics A 693 731 – 754

    2001

  37. [45]

    Tominaga K, Ueda T, Yamaguchi M, Kijima N, Okamoto D, Miy agawa K and Yamada T 1998 Nuclear Physics A 642 483 – 505

    1998

  38. [46]

    Miyagawa K, Kamada H, Gl¨ ockle W and Stoks V 1995 Phys. Rev. C 51(6) 2905–2913

    1995

  39. [47]

    Haidenbauer J 2013 Nuclear Physics A 914 220 – 230 xI International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics (HYP2012)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Haidenbauer J 2012 Proceedings of science The 7th International Workshop on Chiral Dynamics, August 6 -10, 2012

    2012

  41. [49]

    Rijken T A, Stoks V G J and Yamamoto Y 1999 Physical Review C 59(1) 21–40

    1999

  42. [50]

    Miyagawa K, Kamada H, Gloeckle W, Yamamura H, Mart T and B ennhold C 2000 Few-Body Systems Suppl. 12 324

    2000

  43. [51]

    Miyagawa K and Gl¨ ockle W 1993 Phys. Rev. C 48(6) 2576–2584

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.