Wigner Phase-Space Densities of Nuclear Clusters and Hypernuclei

Elena Bratkovskaya; Jiaxing Zhao; Joerg AICHELIN

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Wigner Phase-Space Densities of Nuclear Clusters and Hypernuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives Wigner phase-space densities for light nuclear clusters and hypernuclei, from the deuteron to ${}^5_{\Lambda\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$, by solving the few-body Schrödinger equation with realistic potentials, so that coalescence

desk verdict New Wigner densities for hypernuclei, but the binding-energy validation fails against its own Table I — worth fixing, not citing yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05814 v1 pith:LGV5537R submitted 2025-08-07 nucl-th hep-ph

Jiaxing Zhao , Joerg Aichelin , Elena Bratkovskaya This is my paper

classification nucl-thhep-ph MSC 81V35 PACS 21.45.-v21.80.+a25.75.-q

keywords Wignerfunctionhypersphericalharmonicsnuclearclustershypernucleicoalescencemodelheavy-ioncollisionsfew-bodySchrödingerequationphase-spacedensity

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 aims to establish that the Wigner phase-space density — the quantum portrait of a cluster in combined position and momentum — can be obtained from first principles for all light clusters and hypernuclei produced in heavy-ion collisions, from the deuteron to ${}^5_{\Lambda\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$. The authors solve the few-body Schrödinger equation with realistic nucleon–nucleon and nucleon–$\Lambda$ potentials, expand the wave function in hyperspherical harmonics, and Fourier-transform the density matrix to get an angle-averaged Wigner density $P_N(\rho,q)$ for each cluster. The stated payoff is that coalescence models, which today approximate each cluster by a Gaussian of fitted width, can instead use the cluster’s actual quantum structure without adding free parameters. The paper reports that the computed masses and rms radii reproduce the experimental values.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Wigner density $W_N$ built from a hyperspherical-harmonics solution of the few-body Schrödinger equation. The relative wave function $\Phi(\rho,\Omega)=\sum_\kappa R_\kappa(\rho)Y_\kappa(\Omega)$ is expanded in hyperspherical harmonics $Y_\kappa$, eigenstates of the hyperangular-momentum operator; because higher-$\kappa$ components are small, the Wigner transform can be evaluated using the $K=0$ component alone, leaving a reduced density $P_N(\rho,q)$ in just two variables. This is the bridge between the ab initio wavefunction and the coalescence calculation: the Gaussian Wigner function emerges as the special case of a harmonic-oscillator interaction, while $P

What would settle it

Run a coalescence or transport simulation with these Wigner densities and compare the predicted multiplicities and momentum spectra of $d$, $t$, ${}^3\mathrm{He}$, ${}^4\mathrm{He}$, and ${}^3_\Lambda\mathrm{H}$ with published heavy-ion collision data; a systematic mismatch concentrated at large relative momentum $q$ would falsify the claim that these densities are the realistic input for coalescence. Alternatively, recompute ${}^4\mathrm{He}$ with a full spin-dependent Hamiltonian plus three-body forces and a larger $K$; the paper's Table I already shows a binding energy near 8 MeV instead of

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a realistic Wigner density can be built for each cluster directly from the solution of the $N$-body Schrödinger equation, and that this density is the right input for coalescence calculations. Working with the Argonne v18 nucleon–nucleon potential and the Usmani nucleon–$\Lambda$ potential, the authors solve Eq. (13) in a hyperspherical-harmonic basis, keeping only low hyperspherical partial waves (for example, $K\le 4$ for the S-wave of four-body systems and $K\le 2$ for five-body systems). The dominant $K=0$ hyperspherical component is then inserted into the Wigner transform, which reduces to a three-dimensional integral over the hyperradius $\rho$ and the

Load-bearing premise

Section II A assumes that a spin-averaged two-body potential with no three-body forces, solved in a hyperspherical basis truncated at $K\le 4$ for four-body S-waves and $K\le 2$ for five-body systems, gives ground-state wave functions accurate enough for the claimed binding energies and radii; Table I shows the consequence, with ${}^4\mathrm{He}$ binding near 8 MeV rather than 28 MeV and the hypertriton essentially unbound, so the entire claimed accuracy rests on this premise

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Coalescence models can drop the fitted Gaussian width and use a computed Wigner density for each cluster, removing a free parameter per species.
The densities are expressed in relative hyperspherical coordinates and momenta, so they can be sampled directly by semiclassical transport codes at freeze-out.
Hypernuclei such as ${}^3_\Lambda\mathrm{H}$ and ${}^5_\Lambda\mathrm{He}$ get phase-space distributions built from the realistic nucleon–$\Lambda$ force rather than rescaled nucleonic Gaussians, which matters for strangeness-sector yields.
For ${}^5_{\Lambda\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$, a double-strange hypernucleus not yet confirmed experimentally, the calculation provides a ready-made Wigner density to use once the state is produced or measured.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: a sharp test is to implement the tabulated $P_N(\rho,q)$ in a transport-plus-coalescence code and compare predicted yield ratios such as $t/{}^3\mathrm{He}$, ${}^4\mathrm{He}/d$, and ${}^3_\Lambda\mathrm{H}/d$ with published heavy-ion data; because the method claims no free parameters, agreement or disagreement is a direct verdict on the density.
The published reduced density is angle-averaged; directional information is lost, so application to anisotropic freeze-out in non-central collisions may require returning to the full $6(N-1)$-dimensional Wigner function before averaging.
The same pipeline would immediately produce updated densities if the spin-averaged potentials or the $K$ truncation are improved; the most sensitive region is the large-momentum tail, where the Gaussian and realistic densities already differ.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this paper constructs Wigner phase-space densities for hypernuclei (3ΛH, 4ΛH, 4ΛHe, 5ΛHe, 5ΛΛHe) from numerically solved few-body wavefunctions — that is new and genuinely useful for coalescence models that currently rely on Gaussian ansätze. Second, the paper's validation claim is false: Table I itself shows binding energies far from experiment for 4He and 3ΛH, and an unphysical experimental mass for 5ΛHe. The abstract says the rms radii and binding energies are 'well reproduced'; the table says otherwise.

What is good: the method is transparent, the potentials (Argonne v18, Usmani) are fixed from scattering data, no parameters are tuned to the cluster observables. The Wigner transform of the hyperspherical-harmonics solution is a legitimate way to get phase-space distributions. The radial plots and Wigner density figures are clear and will be useful if the underlying wavefunctions can be fixed. The paper also correctly notes that the Gaussian factorization is only exact for harmonic-oscillator interactions, which is a useful caution.

Where it falls: the calculations with a spin-averaged potential and truncated basis (K≤4 for four-body, K≤2 for five-body) do not provide ground-state wavefunctions accurate enough for the claim. For 4He the theoretical mass 3.746 GeV implies B.E. ≈ 8 MeV, not 28.3 MeV. The hypertriton comes out nearly unbound. Because the Wigner densities in Fig. 3 are built from these wavefunctions, their momentum widths are not trustworthy. The 5ΛHe experimental mass quoted in Table I, 4731.5 MeV, is below the α+Λ threshold — that is simply a wrong input, and the theoretical value 4847 MeV also misses the known Λ separation energy by an order of magnitude.

The fix is straightforward in principle: use a spin-dependent potential, include more HH basis states, and correct the data entry. If the authors do that, the Wigner densities could become a standard input for coalescence. As it stands, I would not cite this version, but I would send it to a referee — the error is clear and correctable, and the product is worth having. For a reading group, it is a good case study in how a validation table can undermine an abstract.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript solves the nonrelativistic few-body Schrödinger equation for light clusters and hypernuclei, from d to 5ΛΛHe, using the Argonne v18 nucleon-nucleon potential and the Usmani nucleon-Lambda potential. The relative wave function is expanded in hyperspherical harmonics, and an angle-averaged Wigner density is constructed from the dominant κ=0 component. The paper's stated aim is to provide realistic phase-space densities that can replace Gaussian ansätze in coalescence models for heavy-ion collisions, and it claims that experimental binding energies and rms radii are well reproduced.

Significance. The formal construction of Wigner densities from hyperspherical-harmonics wave functions, Eqs. (36)-(42), is a useful and potentially valuable contribution. The calculation has a genuine non-circularity: the potentials are fitted to scattering data, not to the cluster masses and radii that are used as benchmarks. If the wave functions were accurate, the resulting Wigner densities would indeed be a clear improvement over Gaussian approximations. However, the central validation claim is quantitatively contradicted by the paper's own Table I, and the Wigner densities are therefore not currently a reliable input for coalescence calculations.

major comments (4)

[Table I; Sec. II A] The abstract and summary state that binding energies are 'well reproduced,' but Table I contradicts this. Using the constituent masses quoted in Sec. II A (m_p=0.938, m_n=0.939, m_Λ=1.116 GeV) with Eq. (19), the theoretical masses imply B.E.(4He)=3.754-3.746≈8 MeV versus the experimental 28.3 MeV; B.E.(3H)=2.816-2.813≈3 MeV versus 8.48 MeV; and B.E.(3ΛH)=2.993-2.993≈0 versus 2.36 MeV. For 5ΛHe the 'experimental' mass 4.731 GeV lies about 112 MeV below the α+Λ threshold (4.843 GeV), which is physically impossible, while the theoretical 4.847 GeV is unbound with respect to the same threshold. The wave functions therefore fail the benchmark that the paper itself sets, and the Wigner densities in Fig. 3 inherit this error.
[Sec. II A (basis truncation)] The HH basis is truncated at K≤4 for A=3,4 and K≤2 for A=5, and the NN and ΛN potentials are spin-averaged. No convergence study is presented. The underbinding visible in Table I (about 20 MeV for 4He and about 5 MeV for 3H) is far larger than the precision implied by the abstract. A K-convergence study and an estimate of the effect of the omitted spin-dependent terms are necessary before these wave functions can be described as realistic. Without such a test, the phase-space extent of the Wigner densities is not reliable.
[Sec. II B, Eqs. (37)-(42)] The Wigner transform is applied only to the κ=0 hyperradial component R0(ρ); all other hyperspherical components are discarded. Figure 2 shows substantial higher-κ contributions for several systems, notably 5ΛHe. The statement that the κ=0 component 'dominates' is not quantified. The authors should show the relative contribution of κ>0 components to ⟨ρ²⟩ and to the momentum distribution, or demonstrate that the reduced Wigner density PN(ρ,q) is a faithful representation of the full wave function.
[Table I; abstract] The abstract also claims that experimental rms radii are reproduced, but Table I lists only theoretical rms values and no experimental radii are given. Without a comparison to measured or accepted radii, this part of the central claim is unsupported. Please provide the experimental values used and their references.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2] The figure caption and panel labels do not clearly distinguish 3H from 3ΛH, nor 4ΛH from 4ΛHe. In particular the panel labeled '3H' in Fig. 2 is presumably the hypertriton, while the same symbol is also the standard notation for triton. Please use unique labels.
[Eq. (13)] The symbol K is used both for the grand angular quantum number KN and for the effective constant K≡3(3N²-10N+8)/4. This is confusing; please rename one of the two.
[Sec. II A; Acknowledgements] Typos: 'discussions ith' should be 'discussions with'; 'not founded' should be 'not found' (appears twice). Please proofread the text.
[References] The experimental masses quoted for hypernuclei, especially 5ΛHe, should be cross-checked against the cited literature. The value 4.731 GeV in Table I is inconsistent with the binding energy quoted in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: cluster binding energies/radii are genuine postdictions from scattering-fitted potentials, despite numerical discrepancies.

full rationale

The calculation chain is self-contained. The two-body potentials (Argonne v18 for NN, Usmani for N-Lambda) are external inputs fixed by scattering data, as stated: 'The parameters of these forms are determined by fitting the N-N elastic scattering data' (Sec. II A). The bound-state masses and rms radii are then obtained by solving Eq. (13)/(17)/(19), and the Wigner densities by Eqs. (40)-(42); none of the target observables (binding energies, rms radii, or phase-space widths) is used as an input or fitted parameter. The self-citations [31,33,47-51,66] supply standard HH basis functions, Raynal-Revai coefficients, the inverse-power solution method, and harmonic-oscillator Wigner formulas; they do not import the paper's conclusions. The spin-average, no-three-body-force, and HH truncation assumptions are explicit approximations (Sec. II A). They are numerically inadequate for the abstract's 'well reproduced' claim--Table I gives Mtheo(4He)=3.746 GeV vs Mexp=3.727 GeV (B.E. ~8 vs 28.3 MeV), Mtheo(3LambdaH)=2.993 GeV vs 2.991 GeV (essentially unbound vs 2.36 MeV), and the listed 5LambdaHe experimental mass 4.7315 GeV lies ~108 MeV below the alpha+Lambda threshold--but an inaccurate approximation is not circular. The benchmark comparison is external and the discrepancy is a correctness risk, not a tautology.

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

The calculation rests on standard few-body methods, but the accuracy of the wave functions is limited by the spin-averaged potential approximation and the restricted HH basis, neither of which are validated against the binding-energy benchmarks the paper claims to reproduce.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The interaction is the sum of two-body potentials; genuine three-body forces are neglected.
Section II A, first paragraph of the Hamiltonian discussion. This is a standard approximation but is not checked for the hypernuclei considered.
domain assumption Spin-dependent potentials are neglected; a spin-averaged potential is used for all pairs.
Section II A, two-body paragraph: 'we neglect the spin-related potential, which only give a fine structure of the energy level, and take a spin-averaged potential.' This can affect binding energies substantially, especially for the deuteron.
ad hoc to paper The hyperspherical-harmonics basis is truncated at moderate K (e.g., K <= 4 for S-wave of 3- and 4-body, K <= 2 for 5-body), and this truncation is assumed to give accurate ground states.
Section II A, three-body and four-body paragraphs. The resulting underbinding of 4He and non-binding of the hypertriton indicate the truncation is not sufficient for the claimed precision.
ad hoc to paper The kappa=0 (hyper-radial ground) component dominates the wave function, so the full Wigner function can be reduced to an angle-averaged function of hyperradius and hypermomentum.
Section II B, after Eq. (36): 'the highest-order components of the wavefunction are very small, and the lowest component with kappa = 0 dominates.' This is used to justify the simplified Wigner transform, but the angular information lost could matter for coalescence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wigner Phase-Space Densities of Nuclear Clusters and Hypernuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGV5537R

@misc{pith2026250805814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wigner Phase-Space Densities of Nuclear Clusters and Hypernuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGV5537R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05814}
}

abstract

We solve the Schr\"odinger equation for few-body systems to obtain the wave function for light nuclear clusters and hypernuclei from d to $\rm ^5_{\Lambda\Lambda}He$ employing realistic nucleon-nucleon and nucleon-$\Lambda$ potentials. We project the solution to the hyperspherical harmonic basis states to obtain the corresponding density matrices and the Wigner densities. The experimental root mean square (rms) radii and binding energies of the different clusters are well reproduced. The Wigner densities obtained will allow to improve the present coalescence approaches to identify clusters, created in heavy-ion collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.05814 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The radial distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Wigner density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: We see that the Wigner function can be negative due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

From hyperon--nucleon interactions to deuteron--hyperon femtoscopy
nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Folded HAL-QCD potentials yield no dY bound states but a large dΛ scattering length and strong low-k correlation enhancement, with feed-down from Σ and Ξ clearly reshaping the observed dΛ signal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl

J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 804, 309 (2008), arXiv:0801.3791 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2008
[2]

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

arXiv 2016
[3]

Abdulhamid et al

M. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 110, 054911 (2024), arXiv:2311.11020 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Abdallah et al

M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202301 (2022), arXiv:2110.09513 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2022
[5]

First measurement of A = 4 (anti)hypernuclei at the LHC

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 162301 (2025), arXiv:2410.17769 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[6]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 102302 (2023), arXiv:2209.07360 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2023
[7]

Measurement of ${}_{\Lambda}^{3}\mathrm{H}$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 860, 139066 (2025), arXiv:2405.19839 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[8]

Oliinychenko, L.-G

D. Oliinychenko, L.-G. Pang, H. Elfner, and V . Koch (SMASH), Phys. Rev. C 99, 044907 (2019), arXiv:1809.03071 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2019

Show all 69 references

[9]

Oliinychenko, C

D. Oliinychenko, C. Shen, and V . Koch (SMASH), Phys. Rev. C 103, 034913 (2021), arXiv:2009.01915 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[10]

Aichelin, Phys

J. Aichelin, Phys. Rept. 202, 233 (1991)

1991
[11]

Aichelin, E

J. Aichelin, E. Bratkovskaya, A. Le F `evre, V . Kireyeu, V . Kolesnikov, Y . Leifels, V . V oronyuk, and G. Coci, Phys. Rev. C 101, 044905 (2020), arXiv:1907.03860 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[12]

Gl ¨aßel, V

S. Gl ¨aßel, V . Kireyeu, V . V oronyuk, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, V . Kolesnikov, and M. Winn, Phys. Rev. C 105, 014908 (2022), arXiv:2106.14839 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[13]

G. Coci, S. Gl ¨aßel, V . Kireyeu, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, V . Kolesnikov, and V . V oronyuk, Phys. Rev. C 108, 014902 (2023), arXiv:2303.02279 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Kireyeu, V

V . Kireyeu, V . V oronyuk, M. Winn, S. Gl ¨aßel, J. Aichelin, C. Blume, E. Bratkovskaya, G. Coci, and J. Zhao, (2024), arXiv:2411.04969 [nucl-th]. 9

2024 arXiv
[15]

Andronic, P

A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, and H. Stocker, Phys. Lett. B 697, 203 (2011), arXiv:1010.2995 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[16]

Steinheimer, K

J. Steinheimer, K. Gudima, A. Botvina, I. Mishustin, M. Ble- icher, and H. Stocker, Phys. Lett. B 714, 85 (2012), arXiv:1203.2547 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[17]

Sombun, K

S. Sombun, K. Tomuang, A. Limphirat, P. Hillmann, C. Herold, J. Steinheimer, Y . Yan, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 99, 014901 (2019), arXiv:1805.11509 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[18]

H. Liu, D. Zhang, S. He, K.-j. Sun, N. Yu, and X. Luo, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135452 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 829, 137132 (2022)], arXiv:1909.09304 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[19]

Kireyeu, J

V . Kireyeu, J. Steinheimer, J. Aichelin, M. Bleicher, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 105, 044909 (2022), arXiv:2201.13374 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[20]

Reichert, M

T. Reichert, M. Omana Kuttan, A. Kittiratpattana, N. Buyuk- cizmeci, A. Botvina, J. Steinheimer, and M. Bleicher, (2025), arXiv:2504.17389 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[21]

Scheibl and U

R. Scheibl and U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 59, 1585 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9809092

1999 arXiv
[22]

L. Zhu, C. M. Ko, and X. Yin, Phys. Rev. C 92, 064911 (2015), arXiv:1510.03568 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[23]

Aichelin and E

J. Aichelin and E. A. Remler, Phys. Rev. C 35, 1291 (1987)

1987
[24]

Sun and C

K.-J. Sun and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 103, 064909 (2021), arXiv:2005.00182 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[25]

R.-Q. Wang, J. Song, M.-Y . Wu, H.-T. Xue, and F.-L. Shao, (2025), arXiv:2504.13640 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Wang, Y .-H

R.-Q. Wang, Y .-H. Li, J. Song, and F.-L. Shao, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034907 (2024), arXiv:2309.16296 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[27]

D.-N. Liu, C. M. Ko, Y .-G. Ma, F. Mazzaschi, M. Puccio, Q.-Y . Shou, K.-J. Sun, and Y .-Z. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138855 (2024), arXiv:2404.02701 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Lin, Y .-J

Q.-R. Lin, Y .-J. Huang, L.-G. Pang, X.-F. Luo, and X.-N. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2503.01128 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Bellini, K

F. Bellini, K. Blum, A. P. Kalweit, and M. Puccio, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014907 (2021), arXiv:2007.01750 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[30]

Mahlein, L

M. Mahlein, L. Barioglio, F. Bellini, L. Fabbietti, C. Pinto, B. Singh, and S. Tripathy, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 804 (2023), arXiv:2302.12696 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Barnea, W

N. Barnea, W. Leidemann, and G. Orlandini, Phys. Rev. C 61, 054001 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9910062

2000 arXiv
[32]

L. E. Marcucci, J. Dohet-Eraly, L. Girlanda, A. Gnech, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Front. in Phys. 8, 69 (2020), arXiv:1912.09751 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[33]

J. Zhao, S. Shi, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114001 (2020), arXiv:2009.10319 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Kohn, Phys

W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 74, 1763 (1948)

1948
[35]

Demkov and N

I. Demkov and N. Kemmer, (No Title) (1963)

1963
[36]

Kamimura, Phys

M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. A 38, 621 (1988)

1988
[37]

L. D. Faddeev, Sov. Phys. JETP 12, 1014 (1961)

1961
[38]

Gl ¨ockle, The quantum mechanical few-body problem (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

W. Gl ¨ockle, The quantum mechanical few-body problem (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

2012
[39]

Leidemann and G

W. Leidemann and G. Orlandini, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.68, 158 (2013), arXiv:1204.4617 [nucl-th]

2013 arXiv
[40]

Ekstr ¨om, C

A. Ekstr ¨om, C. Forss ´en, G. Hagen, G. R. Jansen, W. Jiang, and T. Papenbrock, Front. Phys. 11, 1129094 (2023), arXiv:2212.11064 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Papenbrock (2024) arXiv:2410.00843 [nucl-th]

T. Papenbrock (2024) arXiv:2410.00843 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[42]

Wirth, D

R. Wirth, D. Gazda, P. Navr´atil, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 192502 (2014), arXiv:1403.3067 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[43]

Wirth and R

R. Wirth and R. Roth, Phys. Lett. B 779, 336 (2018), arXiv:1710.04880 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[44]

H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 301 (2020), arXiv:2008.11565 [nucl-th]

2020 arXiv
[45]

H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. C 107, 024002 (2023), arXiv:2210.03387 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[46]

H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 072502 (2025), arXiv:2409.18577 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[47]

Barnea, J

N. Barnea, J. Vijande, and A. Valcarce, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054004 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0604010

2006 arXiv
[48]

Zhao and S

J. Zhao and S. Shi, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024901 (2024), arXiv:2311.04594 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[49]

Zhao and P

J. Zhao and P. Zhuang, Few Body Syst. 58, 100 (2017)

2017
[50]

Raynal and J

J. Raynal and J. Revai, Nuovo Cim. A 68, 612 (1970)

1970
[51]

Zhao and S

J. Zhao and S. Shi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 303, 109284 (2024), arXiv:2403.02747 [physics.comp-ph]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[53]

Lamia, M

L. Lamia, M. La Cognata, C. Spitaleri, B. Irgaziev, and R. G. Pizzone, Phys. Rev. C 85, 025805 (2012)

2012
[54]

Yukawa, Proc

H. Yukawa, Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jap. 17, 48 (1935)

1935
[55]

R. A. Bryan and B. L. Scott, Phys. Rev. 135, B434 (1964)

1964
[56]

Lacombe, B

M. Lacombe, B. Loiseau, J. M. Richard, R. Vinh Mau, J. Cote, P. Pires, and R. De Tourreil, Phys. Rev. C 21, 861 (1980)

1980
[57]

R. B. Wiringa, V . G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C 51, 38 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9408016

1995 arXiv
[58]

R. V . Reid, Jr., Annals Phys.50, 411 (1968)

1968
[59]

V . G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, C. P. F. Terheggen, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C49, 2950 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9406039

1994 arXiv
[60]

M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and Y . Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044002 (2019), arXiv:1408.4825 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[61]

A. R. Bodmer, Q. N. Usmani, and J. Carlson, Phys. Rev. C 29, 684 (1984)

1984
[62]

Otsuki, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 42, 39 (1968), https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article- pdf/doi/10.1143/PTPS.42.39/5346731/42-39.pdf

S. Otsuki, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 42, 39 (1968), https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article- pdf/doi/10.1143/PTPS.42.39/5346731/42-39.pdf

1968 doi
[63]

I. J. McGee, Phys. Rev. 158, 1500 (1967)

1967
[64]

T. A. Armstrong et al. (E864), Phys. Rev. C70, 024902 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0211010

2004 arXiv
[65]

Nemura, Y

H. Nemura, Y . Suzuki, Y . Fujiwara, and C. Nakamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 103, 929 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/9912065

2000 arXiv
[66]

J. Zhao, P. B. Gossiaux, T. Song, E. Bratkovskaya, and J. Aichelin, EPJ Web Conf. 296, 09014 (2024), arXiv:2312.11349 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[67]

L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and B.-A. Li, Nucl. Phys. A 729, 809 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306032

2003 arXiv
[68]

Sun and L.-W

K.-J. Sun and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 751, 272 (2015), arXiv:1509.05302 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[69]

L. K. Liu, C. L. Hu, X. H. He, S. S. Shi, and G. N. Xie, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138853 (2024), arXiv:2404.13582 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl

J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A 804, 309 (2008), arXiv:0801.3791 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2008

[2] [2]

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

arXiv 2016

[3] [3]

Abdulhamid et al

M. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 110, 054911 (2024), arXiv:2311.11020 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Abdallah et al

M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202301 (2022), arXiv:2110.09513 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2022

[5] [5]

First measurement of A = 4 (anti)hypernuclei at the LHC

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 162301 (2025), arXiv:2410.17769 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 102302 (2023), arXiv:2209.07360 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Measurement of ${}_{\Lambda}^{3}\mathrm{H}$ production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV

S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 860, 139066 (2025), arXiv:2405.19839 [nucl-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Oliinychenko, L.-G

D. Oliinychenko, L.-G. Pang, H. Elfner, and V . Koch (SMASH), Phys. Rev. C 99, 044907 (2019), arXiv:1809.03071 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2019