Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Folded hyperon-nucleon forces yield no dY bound states, yet a large dΛ scattering length and clear feed-down reshape the low-momentum correlation that experiments can measure.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 09:43 UTC pith:HR4AB62K

load-bearing objection Useful HAL-QCD folding pipeline for dY femtoscopy, but Table I scattering lengths are too small to treat the dΛ curves as quantitative benchmarks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10722 v1 pith:HR4AB62K submitted 2026-07-12 nucl-th hep-ph

From hyperon--nucleon interactions to deuteron--hyperon femtoscopy

Jiaxing Zhao This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-ph
keywords deuteron-hyperon femtoscopyfolding potentialHAL-QCDscattering lengthfeed-downhyperon-nucleus interactioncorrelation function
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper builds effective deuteron-hyperon potentials by folding lattice hyperon-nucleon forces over the deuteron wave function, with spin and isospin weights fixed by recoupling coefficients. From those potentials it extracts low-energy scattering lengths and femtoscopic correlation functions for dΛ, dΣ and dΞ. No two-body bound states appear, but the dΛ system sits close enough to threshold that its J=3/2 scattering length is large and produces a strong rise in the correlation at small relative momentum; the dΣ correlation is suppressed by repulsion, while Coulomb attraction amplifies the charged dΞ channel. Monte-Carlo response matrices then show that feed-down from Σ^{0}, Σ(1385) and Ξ decays redistributes strength and reduces the observed dΛ peak. The work therefore supplies concrete, source-size-dependent predictions that can be compared with heavy-ion femtoscopy and treats deuteron-hyperon pairs as a direct window on hyperon-nucleus interactions.

Core claim

When central HAL-QCD hyperon-nucleon potentials are folded with the deuteron wave function (spin and isospin recoupled via Wigner 6j coefficients), none of the dΛ, dΣ or dΞ systems supports a two-body bound state; the dΛ J=3/2 channel nevertheless develops a large scattering length and a near-threshold pole that generates a pronounced low-momentum femtoscopic enhancement, while feed-down from heavier hyperons systematically modifies the observable dΛ correlation.

What carries the argument

The microscopic folding potential U(R) obtained by averaging the elementary YN interaction over the deuteron wave function, weighted by spin and isospin recoupling coefficients; this object converts lattice YN forces into spin-dependent dY potentials from which scattering lengths and correlation functions are computed.

Load-bearing premise

Only the central pieces of the lattice hyperon-nucleon potentials are kept; the tensor (S-D) force is dropped on the grounds that it is relatively weak and the deuteron D-wave probability is small.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of the spin-averaged dΛ correlation function at relative momenta below ~50 MeV/c in a heavy-ion collision with a well-constrained source size of a few femtometers, after experimental feed-down subtraction, that either matches or clearly contradicts the predicted low-momentum enhancement and scattering lengths.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs microscopic deuteron–hyperon (dY) folding potentials from HAL-QCD YN central interactions by averaging over a realistic deuteron wave function and applying Wigner-6j spin and isospin recoupling. The resulting potentials are used to solve the two-body Schrödinger equation, extract S-wave scattering lengths and effective ranges, and compute Koonin–Pratt femtoscopic correlation functions for dΛ, dΣ, and dΞ (including Coulomb for the charged channel). No two-body bound states are found. The dΛ system nevertheless shows a large J=3/2 scattering length and a pronounced low-momentum correlation enhancement; dΣ is suppressed by repulsion; dΞ0 is moderately enhanced and dΞ− is strongly Coulomb-amplified. Feed-down from Σ0, Σ(1385), and Ξ is treated via Monte Carlo response matrices and thermal-model fractions, and is shown to reduce but not erase the low-k dΛ signal. Predictions are compared with STAR dΛ data at √sNN=3 GeV.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, the work supplies a clean, first-principles bridge from lattice YN potentials to measurable deuteron–hyperon femtoscopy and supplies concrete, falsifiable correlation functions for STAR BES-II, CBM, HIAF, and NICA. The folding algebra, 6j weights, Schrödinger solution, and CATS cross-check are standard and transparent; the Monte Carlo feed-down matrices are a useful technical contribution. The paper therefore has clear value as a quantitative benchmark once the scattering-length discrepancy with existing extractions is resolved or clearly delimited.

major comments (3)
  1. Table I: the calculated dΛ scattering lengths (f0 = −3.5 fm for J=1/2 and −13.6 fm for J=3/2) are factors of ~2–7 smaller than the STAR extraction and the Cobis/Hammer values the paper itself cites. Because the low-k Koonin–Pratt correlation is controlled by the scattering length (and the associated near-threshold pole), the predicted CdΛ(k) shown in Figs. 2 and 6 cannot yet be treated as a quantitative benchmark for the STAR data or as a reliable prediction for future measurements. The discrepancy must be diagnosed (tensor omission, source-size sensitivity, or limitation of the pure-central HAL-QCD input) before the central claim of “quantitative predictions” can stand.
  2. §II (paragraph after Eq. 1 and the construction of UJ dY): the tensor (S–D) components of the HAL-QCD ΛN/ΣN potentials are dropped without a quantitative error estimate, justified only as an “exploratory” approximation. Given that the J=3/2 channel already sits close to threshold, even a modest tensor contribution can shift the scattering length and the existence of a near-threshold pole. A controlled estimate (or an explicit statement that the present results are upper/lower bounds under central forces only) is required for the no-bound-state and large-f0 conclusions to be robust.
  3. §IV and Fig. 6: the comparison with STAR data uses thermal-model feed-down fractions and a narrow source-size window (r0 = 2.0–2.3 fm) taken from the same experiment. Because the absolute height of CdΛ(k→0) is highly sensitive to both the scattering length and the source size, the residual discrepancy after feed-down cannot be interpreted until the scattering-length mismatch of Table I is resolved. The paper should either re-fit the source under the calculated interaction or clearly label the curves as illustrative rather than quantitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 1 caption: “solid lines represent spin-singlet state, while dashed lines are for spin-triplet state” is inconsistent with the legend labels S=1/2 and S=3/2; clarify that the curves are total-spin channels of the dY system.
  2. Eq. (23) and Table I: the conventional symbol for the scattering length is a0 (or a), not f0; the latter is usually reserved for the scattering amplitude. Align notation with standard effective-range literature.
  3. §II: the deuteron wave function is taken from Ref. [39] without stating whether the D-wave component is retained in the folding integral; a one-sentence clarification would remove ambiguity.
  4. Fig. 4: the color scale for the response matrices is difficult to read in grayscale; consider contour lines or a different palette.
  5. Typographical: “wavefucntion” (p. 2), “CORRELA TIONS” (section heading), and “Σ(1358)” in the Fig. 5 legend should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: folding of external HAL-QCD potentials yields independent scattering and correlation predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Effective dY potentials are obtained by folding published HAL-QCD YN central potentials (parameterized Gaussians and Yukawa terms taken from Refs. [10,11]) with a previously published deuteron wave function [39], using standard Wigner-6j spin/isospin recoupling coefficients (Eqs. 7–18). Scattering lengths, phase shifts, and correlation functions C(k) are then computed by solving the two-body Schrödinger equation and the Koonin–Pratt integral; no free parameters are fitted to the STAR dΛ data or to any other femtoscopic observable. Source radius is varied only within the narrow experimental window (2.0–2.3 fm) for uncertainty bands, not tuned to force agreement. Feed-down response matrices are generated by Monte Carlo decay kinematics with fixed branching fractions from a thermal model. The large discrepancy between the calculated scattering lengths and both STAR extractions and other models (Table I) is a correctness issue, not a circularity issue: the paper does not claim to reproduce those values by construction. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted constant or to a self-citation that itself encodes the target result. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a standard folding + few-body + femtoscopy pipeline. Almost all dynamical content is imported from HAL-QCD lattice potentials and a prior deuteron wave function; the paper’s own additions are the recoupling weights, the numerical solutions, and the feed-down matrices. Free parameters are few and mostly experimental/display choices. The main ad-hoc modeling choices (drop tensor, set C_dΣ*≈1, Gaussian source, thermal feed-down fractions) are the real load-bearing assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian source radius r0 = 2.0–2.3 fm
    Set to 2.3 fm (band 2.0–2.3 fm) to match the STAR Au+Au source size used in the data comparison; not derived from the YN force.
  • Feed-down fractions f_pri, f_Σ0, f_Σ*, f_Ξ = ≈0.523 / 0.242 / 0.195 / 0.04
    Taken from a thermal-model calculation for Au+Au at √sNN=3 GeV (f_dir≈0.523, f_Σ0≈0.242, f_Σ*≈0.195, f_Ξ≈0.04); energy- and system-dependent and not varied systematically.
  • dΣ(1385) correlation proxy = C=1 or C≈C^{J=3/2}_{dΣ}
    Unknown d–Σ(1385) interaction replaced either by C=1 or by the J=3/2 dΣ correlation; difference treated as systematic uncertainty only.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Folding approximation: the deuteron internal structure is frozen and U_dY(R) is the expectation value of V_YN over the deuteron wave function (Eqs. 1–2).
    Standard for light hyperon–nucleus potentials; validity at the few-fm source sizes of femtoscopy is assumed, not proven here.
  • ad hoc to paper Only central HAL-QCD YN components are kept; tensor S–D coupling is neglected for ΛN/ΣN and is absent in the ΞN parameterization used.
    Explicitly labeled exploratory (§II); no quantitative estimate of the omitted tensor contribution to f0 or C(k).
  • standard math Spin and isospin channel weights are given by squares of Wigner-6j recoupling amplitudes (Eqs. 8–18).
    Angular-momentum algebra; coefficients C_s and W_I are fixed once total J and I are chosen.
  • domain assumption Emission source is isotropic Gaussian; measured C(k) is the 1/3–2/3 spin average of the two total-spin channels (Eqs. 24–25).
    Standard femtoscopy assumptions; non-Gaussian or spin-dependent sources would change the low-k height.
  • domain assumption HAL-QCD lattice YN potentials (parameterized Gaussians / Yukawa forms) are a faithful representation of the physical low-energy YN force.
    All attraction/repulsion in the folded potentials is inherited from those lattice fits; lattice systematics are not propagated.
  • domain assumption dΛ and dΣ do not couple because total isospin differs (I_dΛ ≠ I_dΣ).
    Strong-interaction isospin conservation; used to keep the two systems separate.
  • domain assumption Parent hyperon lifetimes are long compared with the femtoscopic timescale, so the parent dY correlation forms fully before decay kinematics redistribute momentum.
    Basis of the response-matrix feed-down construction in §IV.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17773 in / 4212 out tokens · 52500 ms · 2026-07-14T09:43:47.960006+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the low-energy scattering and femtoscopic correlation functions of the $d-\Lambda$, $d-\Sigma$, and $d-\Xi$ systems within a microscopic folding approach. The effective deuteron--hyperon interactions are constructed by folding the HAL-QCD hyperon--nucleon potentials with the deuteron wave function, while the spin and isospin structures are treated through Wigner-$6j$ recoupling coefficients. Using the resulting interactions, we calculate the scattering parameters and momentum correlation functions for all spin channels. No bound states are found for the $d\Lambda$, $d\Sigma$, or $d\Xi$ systems. Nevertheless, the $d\Lambda$ correlation exhibits a pronounced low-momentum enhancement associated with a large scattering length and a near-threshold pole, whereas the $d\Sigma$ correlation is suppressed by its predominantly repulsive interaction. The neutral $d\Xi^{0}$ system shows only a moderate enhancement, while the charged $d\Xi^{-}$ correlation is strongly amplified by the attractive Coulomb interaction. We further investigate feed-down effects from $\Sigma^{0}$, $\Sigma(1385)$, and $\Xi$ decays using Monte Carlo response matrices and demonstrate that these decays clearly modify the observable $d\Lambda$ correlation. Our results provide quantitative predictions for future femtoscopic measurements and establish deuteron--hyperon correlations as a sensitive probe of hyperon--nucleus interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10722 by Jiaxing Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The strong interactions between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The correlations function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents the feed-down contributions to the measured dΛ correlation from the decays Σ0 → Λγ, Σ(1385)0 → Λπ 0 , Ξ0 → Λπ, and Ξ− → Λπ. The de￾cay kinematics redistribute the parent dY correlation over the daughter dΛ relative momentum, leading to characteristic modifications for different parent hyper￾ons. The feed-down contribution from Σ0 is slightly be￾low unity over the entire momentum range. This be￾hav… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. the response matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The correlations of primordial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Consequently, the total angular momen- tum, J= 1 2 , 3 2 .(6) Since the elementary interaction acts between the hy- peron and one nucleon inside the deuteron, the inter- actingY Npair must first be coupled to definite spin s= 0 or 1. The transformation from the deuteron cou- pling scheme|(N N)S d, Y;J⟩to theY Ncoupling scheme |(Y N)s, N;J⟩is accomplished ...

  2. [2]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rept.621, 127 (2016), arXiv:1512.07820 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A804, 309 (2008), arXiv:0801.3791 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Sechi-Zorn, B

    B. Sechi-Zorn, B. Kehoe, J. Twitty, and R. A. Burnstein, Phys. Rev.175, 1735 (1968)

    1968

  5. [5]

    Alexander, U

    G. Alexander, U. Karshon, A. Shapira, G. Yekutieli, R. Engelmann, H. Filthuth, and W. Lughofer, Phys. Rev. 173, 1452 (1968)

    1968

  6. [6]

    Holzenkamp, K

    B. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A 500, 485 (1989)

    1989

  7. [7]

    V. G. J. Stoks and T. A. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C59, 3009 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9901028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    T. A. Rijken, M. M. Nagels, and Y. Yamamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.185, 14 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Haidenbauer, S

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U. G. Meissner, A. Nogga, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A915, 24 (2013), arXiv:1304.5339 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 91 (2020), arXiv:1906.11681 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Nemuraet al., EPJ Web Conf.175, 05030 (2018), arXiv:1711.07003 [hep-lat]

    H. Nemuraet al., EPJ Web Conf.175, 05030 (2018), arXiv:1711.07003 [hep-lat]. 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Sasakiet al.(HAL QCD), Nucl

    K. Sasakiet al.(HAL QCD), Nucl. Phys. A998, 121737 (2020), arXiv:1912.08630 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035004 (2016), arXiv:1605.00557 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Botta, T

    E. Botta, T. Bressani, and A. Feliciello, Nucl. Phys. A 960, 165 (2017), arXiv:1608.07448 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Haidenbauer, Phys

    J. Haidenbauer, Phys. Rev. C102, 034001 (2020), arXiv:2005.05012 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    M. A. Lisa, S. Pratt, R. Soltz, and U. Wiedemann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55, 357 (2005), arXiv:nucl- ex/0505014

    arXiv 2005

  17. [17]

    Ohnishi, K

    A. Ohnishi, K. Morita, K. Miyahara, and T. Hyodo, Nucl. Phys. A954, 294 (2016), arXiv:1603.05761 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Fabbietti, V

    L. Fabbietti, V. Mantovani Sarti, and O. Vazquez Doce, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 377 (2021), arXiv:2012.09806 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Collaborationet al.(ALICE), Nature588, 232 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)], arXiv:2005.11495 [nucl-ex]

    A. Collaborationet al.(ALICE), Nature588, 232 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)], arXiv:2005.11495 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Liu, Y.-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y.-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.- X. Lu, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rept.1108, 1 (2025), arXiv:2404.06399 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    J. Zhao, T. Song, J. Aichelin, E. Bratkovskaya, P. B. Gos- siaux, and K. Werner, (2026), arXiv:2603.27391 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Lednicky, Phys

    R. Lednicky, Phys. Part. Nucl.40, 307 (2009), arXiv:nucl-th/0501065

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. C99, 024001 (2019), arXiv:1805.12455 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C74, 064906 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0511003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  25. [25]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B805, 135419 (2020), arXiv:1910.14407 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 112002 (2019), arXiv:1904.12198 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Lett. B790, 490 (2019), arXiv:1808.02511 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 022301 (2015), arXiv:1408.4360 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B844, 137223 (2023), arXiv:2204.10258 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 242303 (2026), arXiv:2511.15493 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    J. G. Messchendorpet al., (2025), arXiv:2512.15986 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Baiet al., (2026), arXiv:2606.06553 [physics.ins-det]

    X. Baiet al., (2026), arXiv:2606.06553 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    G. R. Satchler and W. G. Love, Phys. Rept.55, 183 (1979)

    1979

  34. [34]

    Cobis, A

    A. Cobis, A. S. Jensen, and D. V. Fedorov, J. Phys. G 23, 401 (1997), arXiv:nucl-th/9608026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  35. [35]

    J. G. Congleton, J. Phys. G18, 339 (1992)

    1992

  36. [36]

    Etminan and M

    F. Etminan and M. M. Firoozabadi, Chin. Phys. C44, 054106 (2020), arXiv:1909.11130 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Etminan, J

    F. Etminan, J. Phys. G52, 085103 (2025), arXiv:2412.07295 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Filikhin, R

    I. Filikhin, R. Y. Kezerashvili, and B. Vlahovic, Phys. Rev. C113, 015201 (2026), arXiv:2512.22600 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Jinno, Y

    A. Jinno, Y. Kamiya, T. Hyodo, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C110, 014001 (2024), arXiv:2403.09126 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    J. Zhao, J. Aichelin, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 112, 064902 (2025), arXiv:2508.05814 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    S. E. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B70, 43 (1977)

    1977

  42. [42]

    H. W. Hammer, Nucl. Phys. A705, 173 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0110031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  43. [43]

    D. L. Mihaylov, V. Mantovani Sarti, O. W. Arnold, L. Fabbietti, B. Hohlweger, and A. M. Mathis, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 394 (2018), arXiv:1802.08481 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    R. L. Workmanet al.(Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Vovchenko, V

    V. Vovchenko, V. V. Begun, and M. I. Gorenstein, Phys. Rev. C93, 064906 (2016), arXiv:1512.08025 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    Vovchenko and H

    V. Vovchenko and H. Stoecker, Comput. Phys. Commun. 244, 295 (2019), arXiv:1901.05249 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019