Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

In-medium $\Lambda N$ interactions with leading order covariant chiral hyperon/nucleon-nucleon forces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a relativistic many-body calculation using only leading-order covariant chiral hyperon-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon forces reproduces the empirical Lambda single-particle potential of about -27 to -30 MeV at nuclear…

desk verdict A first, useful RBHF calculation with LO covariant chiral YN+NN forces, but the U_Lambda agreement with the empirical band is less clean than claimed and the neglected Sigma self-energy is a real unquantified systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02826 v2 pith:MYDSIW32 submitted 2025-01-06 nucl-th

Ru-You Zheng , Zhi-Wei Liu , Li-Sheng Geng , Jin-Niu Hu , Sibo Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords Lambdahypernucleihyperon-nucleoninteractionrelativisticBrueckner-Hartree-Fockcovariantchiraleffectivefieldtheorysingle-particlepotentialBethe-Goldstoneequationneutronstarofstatenuclearsaturationdensity
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 aims to show that the depth of the Lambda single-particle potential in nuclear matter can be obtained from a relativistic many-body calculation using only leading-order covariant chiral hyperon-nucleon and nucleon-nucleon forces. This matters because that potential governs hypernuclear binding, Lambda flow in heavy-ion collisions, and the density at which hyperons appear in neutron stars. In nonrelativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculations, reproducing the empirical depth usually requires higher-order two-body chiral forces; the authors claim the relativistic treatment removes that need. Their result at saturation density is about -25 MeV for cutoff 550 MeV and -29 MeV for cutoff 700 MeV, overlapping the empirical band of -27 to -30 MeV.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock self-consistency loop: the in-medium Dirac equation defines baryon spinors through scalar and vector self-energies; the Bethe-Goldstone equation with an angle-averaged Pauli operator and a continuous intermediate spectrum builds the in-medium LambdaN G-matrix with the LambdaN-SigmaN coupled channel; and the G-matrix defines the Lambda single-particle potential whose scalar and vector parts feed back into the Dirac equation. The bare interaction is the leading-order covariant chiral hyperon-nucleon potential, contact terms plus one-pseudoscalar-meson exchange, regularized with an exponential cutoff from 550 to 700 MeV and re-derived with physical Lambda, Sigma, and nucleon masses.

What would settle it

Repeat the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock calculation with a nonzero Sigma density and a self-consistent Sigma self-energy; if the Lambda single-particle potential at zero momentum leaves the empirical band of -27 to -30 MeV at saturation, the central agreement depends on that assumption. A tighter empirical determination of the Lambda potential depth, for example from a systematic analysis of Lambda hypernuclear binding energies, would also settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that a re-derived leading-order covariant chiral hyperon-nucleon interaction with physical baryon masses, solved through the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock G-matrix with coupled LambdaN-SigmaN channels, yields a Lambda single-particle potential at nuclear saturation density consistent with the empirical value of about -27 to -30 MeV. The same interaction also reproduces the low-energy Lambda-proton and Sigma-proton scattering cross sections. Because the nucleon side uses the matching leading-order covariant chiral nucleon-nucleon force, the calculation is internally consistent, and the agreement is reached without the higher-order two-body chiral forces that nonrelativistic calculations typically require. The authors interpret this as evidence that the relativistic framework already captures much of the in-medium repulsion.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the Sigma hyperon feels no in-medium self-energy because its density is set to zero, even though the Sigma appears as an intermediate state in the coupled LambdaN-SigmaN channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The empirical Lambda depth is reproduced with leading-order two-body chiral forces, so the relativistic framework weakens the usual motivation for adding next-to-leading-order two-body hyperon-nucleon terms in in-medium studies.
  • The predicted density dependence, with repulsion setting in at moderate densities and strengthening at high density, pushes Lambda onset to higher density and therefore favors massive neutron star formation.
  • The extracted scalar and vector Lambda self-energies can serve as microscopic inputs for covariant density functionals and for hypernuclear structure calculations.
  • The cutoff spread from 550 to 700 MeV sets a lower bound on theoretical uncertainty, with the largest spread at high density and high Lambda momentum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue this, but letting the Sigma density be nonzero in the same coupled-channel loop would show how much of the leading-order agreement relies on a cancellation between LambdaN and SigmaN contributions.
  • An implication not drawn in the paper is that a direct comparison of the in-medium G-matrix from the relativistic and nonrelativistic frameworks using the same bare chiral interaction would isolate whether the relativistic scalar-vector cancellation is what removes the need for higher-order two-body forces.
  • The momentum dependence of the Lambda potential is a sharper discriminator than its depth: the 550 MeV cutoff result changes sign near a Lambda momentum of about 1.4 inverse femtometers, so Lambda directed-flow data at moderate momenta could distinguish the cutoff choices.
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 manuscript computes the in-medium Lambda-nucleon interaction in the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (RBHF) framework, using for the first time the leading-order covariant chiral hyperon-nucleon (YN) and nucleon-nucleon (NN) forces. The authors re-derive the LO covariant chiral YN interaction with physical baryon masses, fit its 12 low-energy constants (LECs) to the 36 YN scattering data, and then solve the coupled-channel Bethe-Goldstone equation for the LambdaN-SigmaN system to obtain the Lambda single-particle potential U_Lambda(p=0) in symmetric nuclear matter at saturation density. They report U_Lambda(0) = -25.1 MeV for cutoff Lambda_F=550 MeV and -29.3 MeV for Lambda_F=700 MeV, comparing these with the empirical value of about -27 to -30 MeV. The paper argues that, in contrast to non-relativistic chiral calculations that require higher-order two-body forces, the leading-order covariant chiral forces already describe both the scattering data and the empirical Lambda potential, and that the resulting density dependence is consistent with a repulsive high-density Lambda potential.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides an important step: a microscopic, chiral-symmetry-based input for relativistic in-medium hyperon-nucleon interactions, with a genuine external benchmark (the empirical U_Lambda) that is not used in the LEC fit. The cross-section agreement in Fig. 1 and the comparison with several non-relativistic and phenomenological potentials are useful and mostly clearly presented. The paper is also honest about the cutoff variation and about the assumption that the Sigma density vanishes. However, the central quantitative claim is currently supported by only two cutoff points, with no propagated LEC uncertainties and no assessment of the omitted Sigma in-medium self-energy; these issues need to be addressed before the claim is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (5)] The treatment of the Sigma hyperon as a free intermediate state is a load-bearing approximation. The text states that the Sigma density is assumed to be zero and therefore in-medium effects on the Sigma are not considered. However, in the coupled-channel Bethe-Goldstone equation the intermediate SigmaN state enters through the energy denominator E_{B5B6}, and under the adopted continuous choice this denominator should contain the self-consistent Sigma single-particle potential U_Sigma. Omitting U_Sigma changes the LambdaN-SigmaN coupling strength, which contributes significantly to the attraction/repulsion balance in U_Lambda (the Jul05 model, for example, shows a strong LambdaN-SigmaN tensor component). A moderate repulsive U_Sigma, as phenomenologically expected in nuclear matter, could plausibly shift the reported U_Lambda by several MeV. At Lambda_F=550 MeV the result -25.1 MeV is already outside the empirical -27 to -30 MeV band, and at Lambda_F=700 MeV the value -29.3 MeV sits near the edge, so this systematic uncertainty directly affects the central claim. The authors should at least estimate the sensitivity by repeating the calculation with a simple phenomenological U_Sigma or by providing a quantitative argument for its smallness.
  2. [Sec. 3, Table 1 and Table 2] The LEC fit uncertainties are not propagated to U_Lambda. Table 1 lists the 12 LECs and chi^2 values for two cutoffs, but gives no uncertainties or covariance matrix, and the quoted U_Lambda values in Table 2 are presented as single numbers with only the cutoff variation as an uncertainty estimate. Since the central claim is agreement with the empirical range, the authors should either propagate the fit uncertainties through the G-matrix calculation or, failing that, state clearly that no statistical uncertainty is included and provide an estimate based on, e.g., resampling or alternative fit strategies. Without this, the apparent agreement at Lambda_F=700 MeV cannot be distinguished from a fluctuation of the LEC fit.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 2 and Table 2] The cutoff dependence itself is large enough to matter for the claim: U_Lambda(0) changes from -25.1 MeV at Lambda_F=550 MeV to -29.3 MeV at Lambda_F=700 MeV, and the partial-wave decomposition shows that the 3S1+3D1 contribution changes from -23.5 MeV to -12.2 MeV while the 1S0 contribution changes by about 5 MeV. The authors note that the cutoff dependence is a lower bound on theoretical uncertainties, but they do not discuss whether a larger cutoff range or a different regulator form would move the result outside the empirical band. A more systematic regulator study, or at least a discussion of the expected higher-order corrections, would strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The rows labeled NonRel.-NLO19(500) and NonRel.-NLO19(650) list total potentials as 39.3 and 29.2 MeV without a minus sign, which is inconsistent with the text and with the empirical comparison; these should presumably be negative values and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 5] The figure caption says the red line represents the Lambda density used in Fig. 2, but the plotted curves are not labeled in the figure itself; adding a legend or explicit labels would improve readability.
  3. [References] Several reference titles contain typographical errors: Ref. [76] has 'Hatree-Fock' instead of 'Hartree-Fock' and 'Bruckner' in the title, and Ref. [32] uses 'Bruckner' instead of 'Brueckner'; these should be corrected.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the expression for U_Lambda(p_Lambda) as a matrix element of U is clear, but the notation U_Lambda^S and U_Lambda^0 is introduced without explicitly defining them as the scalar and timelike-vector components used in Eq. (2); a sentence connecting the two would improve clarity.
  5. [Sec. 4] The conclusion states that the Lambda single-particle potential 'can serve as a crucial input' for hypernuclear structure and neutron star studies; it would be helpful to mention that the present calculation uses a small Lambda fraction and that the density dependence shown in Fig. 2 is for vanishing Lambda density, so extrapolation to neutron-star conditions requires additional assumptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LECs are fitted solely to YN scattering data, the empirical Lambda potential is used only as an external benchmark, and the self-cited covariant chiral framework and NN input carry independent empirical support.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The paper re-derives the LO covariant chiral YN potential with physical baryon masses (Eqs. 8-10), determines the 12 LECs by fitting 36 YN scattering data points (Table 1), solves the RBHF G-matrix equation (Eq. 5) self-consistently, computes U_Lambda via Eq. (6), and only then compares it with the empirical value of -27 to -30 MeV. The empirical Lambda potential is never used as an input in the fit or in the Bethe-Goldstone equation, so the central claim is a genuine external benchmark rather than a restatement of an input. The cross-section agreement in Fig. 1 is a description of the fitted data, and the paper transparently labels it as such, so it is not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The self-citations to Refs. [80,82-84] for the covariant chiral framework and to Ref. [76] for the LO chiral NN force are also not circular: the YN interaction is re-derived and refit here against external scattering data, and the NN interaction is fitted to external NN data and tested against empirical saturation before being adopted. The stated approximation that the Sigma hyperon density is zero and its in-medium self-energy is neglected (Sec. 2.1) is a real systematic limitation that could affect the magnitude of U_Lambda, but it is an approximation with unquantified uncertainty, not a circular reduction: U_Lambda is neither defined in terms of nor fitted to the empirical value. No equation in the paper reduces its output to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central number U_Lambda(p_Lambda=0) is obtained by solving coupled Bethe-Goldstone equations with a chiral potential whose LECs are fitted to two-body scattering data. Every in-medium result inherits those fitted LECs plus the NN interaction LECs from Ref. [76]. The listed assumptions are standard RBHF approximations, the regularization choice, and the decision to ignore Sigma in-medium effects. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • 12 LECs of the LO covariant chiral YN contact terms = Table 1: for Lambda_F=550 MeV, C^LambdaLambda_1S0=-0.0715, C^SigmaSigma_1S0=-0.1001, etc., chi2=15.85; for…
    Determined by fitting 36 YN scattering data from Refs. [86-91]; all in-medium LambdaN results inherit these fitted values.
  • LECs of the LO covariant chiral NN interaction from Ref. [76] = Not tabulated in this paper; U_N^S and U_N^0 from Ref. [76] are used as input
    The nucleon scalar and vector potentials are taken from a previous RBHF calculation with the LO covariant chiral NN force, whose LECs were fitted to NN data. The in-medium Lambda potential depends on these nucleon potentials through the G-matrix.
  • Regulator cutoff Lambda_F = 550 and 700 MeV
    Chosen by hand as an ultraviolet regulator in Eq. (11). The results are quoted as a band over these cutoffs, and cutoff dependence is the only quoted systematic uncertainty.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Mean-field potential restricted to scalar plus timelike vector components, U = U_S + gamma^0 U_0
    Used in Eq. (2); spacelike components and momentum dependence are neglected, with justification cited to earlier RBHF work.
  • domain assumption Continuous choice for the intermediate-state spectrum in the Bethe-Goldstone equation
    Adopted in Sec. 2.1; this choice affects the G-matrix and therefore the computed U_Lambda.
  • domain assumption No-sea approximation and angle-averaged Pauli operator and total momentum
    Sec. 2.1; standard RBHF simplifications needed for the partial-wave decomposition.
  • domain assumption Sigma density zero and no in-medium Sigma self-energy
    Sec. 2.1 states the Sigma density is assumed zero, so in-medium effects on the Sigma are not considered even though SigmaN appears as an intermediate coupled channel.
  • domain assumption In-medium modification of the bare YN potential by M to M* and E to E*
    Sec. 2.2; the bare chiral potential is used with medium-modified spinors, an ansatz at leading order.
  • ad hoc to paper Exponential regulator with n=2 and Lambda_F in 550-700 MeV
    Eq. (11); the regulator is not derived and cutoff dependence is presented as the uncertainty estimate.
  • domain assumption LECs fitted to YN scattering data, with YN and NN LECs independent under broken SU(3)
    Sec. 3 states that SU(3)-symmetric LECs cannot describe NN and YN scattering simultaneously at LO, so separate LEC sets are used.
  • domain assumption The empirical Lambda single-particle potential is approximately -27 to -30 MeV
    Sec. 1 and Refs. [8-10]; used as the benchmark, but no explicit uncertainty band for this empirical value is propagated into the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In-medium $\Lambda N$ interactions with leading order covariant chiral hyperon/nucleon-nucleon forces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYDSIW32

@misc{pith2026250102826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In-medium $\Lambda N$ interactions with leading order covariant chiral hyperon/nucleon-nucleon forces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYDSIW32}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02826}
}
abstract

In-medium $\Lambda N$ interactions are crucial in hypernuclei and neutron star physics. In this work, we study the in-medium $\Lambda N$ interaction within the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (RBHF) framework, employing the leading-order covariant chiral hyperon/nucleon-nucleon forces for the first time. We demonstrate that a consistent description of both the experimental cross-section data and the `empirical value' of the $\Lambda$ single-particle potential can be achieved. This contrasts with the majority of studies in the non-relativistic framework, where higher-order two-body chiral forces are typically required. This study offers a new perspective on the in-medium $\Lambda N$ interactions, urgently needed in relativistic \textit{ab initio} hypernuclear physics studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross sections obtained with the LO covariant chiral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Λ single-particle potential UΛ(pΛ = 0) as a function of density in SNM. The yellow band represents the results obtained with the LO covariant chiral YN interaction for cutoffs of ΛF = 550 (upper boundary) and 700 MeV (lower boundary), respectively. The blue band shows the NLO non-relativistic chiral YN interaction results for cutoffs of ΛF = 500 to 650 MeV, while the gray band is the LO non-relativistic chiral Y… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scalar and vector components of the UΛ(pΛ = 0) obtained in the RBHF theory with the covariant chiral YN and Jul94 potentials. The bands represent the variation of the results with the cutoff, where the lower and upper boundaries of U Λ S (U Λ 0 ) represent the results for the cutoffs of ΛF = 550 and 700 MeV (700 and 550 MeV), respectively. Jul94 results within uncertainties. It is seen that these UΛ(pΛ) potentials b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Λ single-particle potential as a function of density in SNM for various Λ densities (ρ0 = 0.16 fm−3 ), obtained in the RBHF theory with the covariant chiral YN potential for a cutoff of ΛF = 550 MeV. 4. Summary and outlook In this work, we have studied the in-mediu…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Λ single-particle potential UΛ(pΛ) at k N F = 1.35 fm−1 as a func￾tion of the Λ momentum, obtained in the RBHF theory with the covariant chiral YN and Jul94 potentials. The band represents the variation of the results with the cutoff, where the lower and upper boun…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Nuclear and neutron matter in the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory with next-to-leading order covariant chiral nuclear force

    nucl-th 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors find that NLO covariant chiral nuclear forces in relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory reproduce the empirical saturation energy, density, and incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter at cutoff 5...

  2. Charge dependent nucleon-nucleon potentials in covariant chiral effective field theory

    nucl-th 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors construct charge-dependent nucleon-nucleon potentials up to NNLO in covariant chiral effective field theory and fit their parameters to PWA93 phase shifts.

  3. Perspectives for hyperon and hypernuclei physics

    nucl-th 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    Hypernuclei are reviewed as key probes of the strong interaction, with upcoming experiments and higher-order theory expected to resolve the hypertriton binding energy and charge symmetry puzzles.

  4. Relativistic chiral nuclear forces: status and prospects

    nucl-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of the relativistic chiral nuclear force, presenting the Beihang group's own NNLO results for nucleon-nucleon scattering and promising faster convergence than the standard Weinberg approach.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. Gal, E. V . Hungerford, D. J. Millener, Strangeness in nuclear physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88 (3) (2016) 035004. arXiv:1605.00557, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Tolos, L

    L. Tolos, L. Fabbietti, Strangeness in Nuclei and Neutron Stars, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112 (2020) 103770.arXiv:2002.09223, doi:10. 1016/j.ppnp.2020.103770

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, F. Pederiva, Hyperon Puzzle: Hints from Quantum Monte Carlo Calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (9) (2015) 092301. arXiv:1407.4448, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 114.092301

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Hiyama, K

    E. Hiyama, K. Sasaki, T. Miyamoto, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y . Yamamoto, T. A. Rijken, Possible lightest Ξ Hypernucleus with Modern ΞN Interac- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (9) (2020) 092501. arXiv:1910.02864, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.092501

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Ablikim, et al., First Study of Reaction Ξ0n→Ξ-p Using Ξ0- Nucleus Scattering at an Electron-Positron Collider, Phys

    M. Ablikim, et al., First Study of Reaction Ξ0n→Ξ-p Using Ξ0- Nucleus Scattering at an Electron-Positron Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (25) (2023) 251902. arXiv:2304.13921, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.130.251902

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Crede, J

    V . Crede, J. Yelton, 70 years of hyperon spectroscopy: a review of strange Ξ, Ω baryons, and the spectrum of charmed and bottom baryons, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (10) (2024) 106301. doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ ad7610

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ 2024

  7. [7]

    Mini-Proceedings of the "Fourth International Workshop on the Extension Project for the J-PARC Hadron Experimental Facility (HEF-ex 2024)"

    P. Achenbach, et al., Mini-Proceedings of the ”Fourth International Work- shop on the Extension Project for the J-PARC Hadron Experimental Fa- cility (HEF-ex 2024)” (8 2024). arXiv:2409.00366

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    D. J. Millener, C. B. Dover, A. Gal, Lambda Nucleus Single Parti- cle Potentials, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 2700–2708. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.38.2700

    1988

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Yamamoto, H

    Y . Yamamoto, H. Bando, J. Zofka, On theΛ Hypernuclear Single Particle Energies, Prog. Theor. Phys. 80 (1988) 757–761.doi:10.1143/PTP. 80.757

    1988 doi

  2. [10]

    Hashimoto, H

    O. Hashimoto, H. Tamura, Spectroscopy of Lambda hypernuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 564–653. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp. 2005.07.001

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Aboona, et al., Observation of Directed Flow of Hypernuclei H Λ3 and HΛ4 in sNN=3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys

    B. Aboona, et al., Observation of Directed Flow of Hypernuclei H Λ3 and HΛ4 in sNN=3 GeV Au+Au Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (21) (2023) 212301. arXiv:2211.16981, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.130.212301

    2023

  4. [12]

    Y . Nara, A. Jinno, K. Murase, A. Ohnishi, Directed flow of Λ in high- energy heavy-ion collisions and Λ potential in dense nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C 106 (4) (2022) 044902. arXiv:2208.01297, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044902

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y . G. Ma, Hypernuclei as a laboratory to test hyperon–nucleon interactions, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34 (2023) 97. doi:10.1007/ s41365-023-01248-6

    2023

  6. [14]

    H. Tong, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner, Ab initio calculation of hyper- neutron matter (5 2024). arXiv:2405.01887

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Antoniadis, et al., A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Bi- nary, Science 340 (2013) 6131.arXiv:1304.6875, doi:10.1126/ science.1233232

    J. Antoniadis, et al., A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Relativistic Bi- nary, Science 340 (2013) 6131.arXiv:1304.6875, doi:10.1126/ science.1233232

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chen, X.-R

    Y .-F. Chen, X.-R. Zhou, Q. B. Chen, Y .-Y . Cheng, Lambda binding energies in the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach with various ΛN inter- actions, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (2) (2022) 21. doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-022-00672-3

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Xue, Y .-F

    H.-T. Xue, Y .-F. Chen, Q. B. Chen, Y . A. Luo, H. J. Schulze, X.- R. Zhou, Deformation and spin-orbit splitting of Λ hypernuclei in the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock approach, Phys. Rev. C 107 (4) (2023) 044317. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.044317

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Z. X. Liu, C. J. Xia, W. L. Lu, Y . X. Li, J. N. Hu, T. T. Sun, Relativistic mean-field approach for Λ,Ξ , and Σ hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2) (2018) 024316. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.024316

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Rong, Z.-H

    Y .-T. Rong, Z.-H. Tu, S.-G. Zhou, New effective interactions for hyper- nuclei in a density-dependent relativistic mean field model, Phys. Rev. C 104 (5) (2021) 054321. arXiv:2103.10706, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.104.054321

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    J. Guo, C. F. Chen, X.-R. Zhou, Q. B. Chen, H. J. Schulze, ΛΛ pairing effects in spherical and deformed multi- Λ hyperisotopes, Phys. Rev. C 105 (3) (2022) 034322. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.105.034322

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    S. Y . Ding, W. Yang, B. Y . Sun, Density-dependent relativistic mean field approach and its application to single-Λ hypernuclei in oxygen hyperiso- topes*, Chin. Phys. C 47 (12) (2023) 124103. arXiv:2307.04432, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/acf91e

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zhai, T.-H

    S.-Y . Zhai, T.-H. Heng, J.-Y . Guo, Impurity effects of hyperons in hy- pernuclei with relativistic mean field theory in complex-momentum rep- resentation, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2) (2024) 024316. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.110.024316

    2024

  15. [23]

    S. Y . Ding, B. Y . Sun, T.-T. Sun, Density-dependent relativistic mean- field model for Ξ− hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 111 (1) (2025) 014301. arXiv:2406.10980, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.014301

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    W. H. Long, B. Y . Sun, K. Hagino, H. Sagawa, H. Tamura, Hyperon effects in covariant density functional theory with recent astrophysical observations, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 025806. arXiv:1109.5428, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.025806

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. Y . Ding, Z. Qian, B. Y . Sun, W. H. Long, QuenchedΛ spin-orbit split- ting by a relativistic Fock diagram in single- Λ hypernuclei, Phys. Rev. C 106 (5) (2022) 054311. arXiv:2203.04581, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.106.054311

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. N. Hu, A. Li, H. Shen, H. Toki, Quark mean-field model for single and double Λ and Ξ hypernuclei, PTEP 2014 (1) (2014) 013D02. arXiv: 1310.3602, doi:10.1093/ptep/ptt119

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    X. Xing, J. Hu, H. Shen, Quark mean field model with pion and gluon corrections for Λ, Ξ0 hypernuclei and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 95 (5) (2017) 054310. arXiv:1704.08884, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 95.054310

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. Hu, Y . Zhang, H. Shen, The Ξ-nuclear potential constrained by recent Ξ− hypernuclei experiments, J. Phys. G 49 (2) (2022) 025104. arXiv: 2104.13567, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac4469

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Friedman, A

    E. Friedman, A. Gal, Constraints from Λ hypernuclei on theΛNN content of the Λ-nucleus potential, Phys. Lett. B 837 (2023) 137669. arXiv: 2204.02264, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137669

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Friedman, A

    E. Friedman, A. Gal, Λ hypernuclear potentials beyond linear density de- pendence, Nucl. Phys. A 1039 (2023) 122725. arXiv:2306.06973, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122725

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Machleidt, What is ab initio?, Few Body Syst

    R. Machleidt, What is ab initio?, Few Body Syst. 64 (4) (2023) 77. arXiv:2307.06416, doi:10.1007/s00601-023-01857-2

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Reuber, K

    A. Reuber, K. Holinde, J. Speth, Meson exchange hyperon - nucleon in- teractions in free scattering and nuclear matter, Nucl. Phys. A 570 (1994) 543–579. doi:10.1016/0375-9474(94)90073-6

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    H. J. Schulze, M. Baldo, U. Lombardo, J. Cugnon, A. Lejeune, Hyper- 7 onic nuclear matter in Bruckner theory, Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 704–713. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.57.704

    1998 doi

  26. [34]

    Vidana, A

    I. Vidana, A. Polls, A. Ramos, M. Hjorth-Jensen, V . G. J. Stoks, Strange nuclear matter within Bruckner-Hartree-Fock theory, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 025802. arXiv:nucl-th/9909019, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.61.025802

    2000 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kohno, Y

    M. Kohno, Y . Fujiwara, T. Fujita, C. Nakamoto, Y . Suzuki, Hyperon sin- gle particle potentials calculated from SU(6) quark model baryon baryon interactions, Nucl. Phys. A 674 (2000) 229–245. arXiv:nucl-th/ 9912059, doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00164-0

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    Fujiwara, M

    Y . Fujiwara, M. Kohno, T. Fujita, C. Nakamoto, Y . Suzuki, Single particle spin orbit strengths of the nucleon and hyperons by SU-6 quark model, Nucl. Phys. A 674 (2000) 493–514. arXiv:nucl-th/9912047, doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00177-9

    2000 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Yamamoto, S

    Y . Yamamoto, S. Nishizaki, T. Takatsuka, Single-particle potentials and effective masses of hyperons in hyperonic nuclear systems, Prog. Theor. Phys. 103 (2000) 981–1000. doi:10.1143/PTP.103.981

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    Kohno, Comparative study of hyperon-nucleon interactions of quark model and chiral effective field theory by low-momentum equivalent in- teractions and G matrices, Phys

    M. Kohno, Comparative study of hyperon-nucleon interactions of quark model and chiral effective field theory by low-momentum equivalent in- teractions and G matrices, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 014003. arXiv: 0912.4330, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.014003

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. J. Schulze, T. Rijken, Maximum mass of hyperon stars with the Ni- jmegen ES C-08 model, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 035801. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.84.035801

    2011

  32. [40]

    Kohno, Λ, Σ, and Ξ hyperons in neutron matter, Nucl

    M. Kohno, Λ, Σ, and Ξ hyperons in neutron matter, Nucl. Phys. A 914 (2013) 427–432. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.02.003

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, A study of hyperons in nuclear matter based on chiral effective field theory, Nucl. Phys. A 936 (2015) 29–

    2015

  34. [42]

    Petschauer, J

    S. Petschauer, J. Haidenbauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, W. Weise, Hy- perons in nuclear matter from SU(3) chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (1) (2016) 15. arXiv:1507.08808, doi:10.1140/ epja/i2016-16015-4

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Haidenbauer, Hyperons in nuclear matter studied in chiral effective field theory, PoS CD15 (2016) 106

    J. Haidenbauer, Hyperons in nuclear matter studied in chiral effective field theory, PoS CD15 (2016) 106. doi:10.22323/1.253.0106

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    arXiv:1411.3114, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015. 01.005

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, N. Kaiser, W. Weise, Lambda-nuclear interactions and hyperon puzzle in neutron stars, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (6) (2017) 121. arXiv:1612.03758, doi:10.1140/epja/ i2017-12316-4

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, In-medium properties of a ΞN interaction derived from chiral effective field theory, Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2) (2019) 23. arXiv:1810.04883, doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12689-2

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kohno, Single-particle potential of the Λ hyperon in nuclear mat- ter with chiral effective field theory NLO interactions including effects of YNN three-baryon interactions, Phys

    M. Kohno, Single-particle potential of the Λ hyperon in nuclear mat- ter with chiral effective field theory NLO interactions including effects of YNN three-baryon interactions, Phys. Rev. C 97 (3) (2018) 035206. arXiv:1802.05388, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.035206

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Haidenbauer, U

    J. Haidenbauer, U. G. Meißner, A. Nogga, Hyperon–nucleon inter- action within chiral effective field theory revisited, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (3) (2020) 91. arXiv:1906.11681, doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-020-00100-4

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gerstung, N

    D. Gerstung, N. Kaiser, W. Weise, Hyperon–nucleon three-body forces and strangeness in neutron stars, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (6) (2020) 175. arXiv:2001.10563, doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-020-00180-2

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, H. Le, Hyperon–nucleon in- teraction in chiral effective field theory at next-to-next-to-leading or- der, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (3) (2023) 63. arXiv:2301.00722, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00960-6

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    P. M. M. Maessen, T. A. Rijken, J. J. de Swart, Soft Core Baryon Baryon One Boson Exchange Models. 2. Hyperon - Nucleon Potential, Phys. Rev. C 40 (1989) 2226–2245. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.40.2226

    1989 doi

  44. [52]

    T. A. Rijken, V . G. J. Stoks, Y . Yamamoto, Soft core hyperon - nu- cleon potentials, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 21–40. arXiv:nucl-th/ 9807082, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.59.21

    1999 doi

  45. [53]

    Holzenkamp, K

    B. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde, J. Speth, A Meson Exchange Model for the Hyperon Nucleon Interaction, Nucl. Phys. A 500 (1989) 485–528. doi: 10.1016/0375-9474(89)90223-6

    1989 doi

  46. [54]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meissner, The Julich hyperon-nucleon model re- visited, Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 044005. arXiv:nucl-th/0506019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.044005

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    T. A. Rijken, Extended-soft-core baryon-baryon model. I. Nucleon- nucleon scattering (ESC04), Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 044007. arXiv: nucl-th/0603041, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.044007

    2006 arXiv

  48. [56]

    T. A. Rijken, M. M. Nagels, Y . Yamamoto, Baryon-baryon interac- tions: Nijmegen extended-soft-core models, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 185 (2010) 14–71. doi:10.1143/PTPS.185.14

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    Haidenbauer, S

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U. G. Meissner, A. Nogga, W. Weise, Hyperon-nucleon interaction at next-to-leading order in chi- ral effective field theory, Nucl. Phys. A 915 (2013) 24–58. arXiv: 1304.5339, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.06.008

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yamamoto, T

    Y . Yamamoto, T. Furumoto, N. Yasutake, T. A. Rijken, Hyperon mix- ing and universal many-body repulsion in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 045805. arXiv:1406.4332, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 90.045805

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Logoteta, I

    D. Logoteta, I. Vidana, I. Bombaci, Impact of chiral hyperonic three-body forces on neutron stars, Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (11) (2019) 207. arXiv: 1906.11722, doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12909-9

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kochankovski, A

    H. Kochankovski, A. Ramos, I. Vidaña, An analytic parametrization of the hypernuclear matter equation of state, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (2) (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00669-y

    doi

  54. [62]

    Vidana, V

    I. Vidana, V . M. Sarti, J. Haidenbauer, D. L. Mihaylov, L. Fabbietti, Neu- tron Star Properties and Femtoscopic Constraints (12 2024). arXiv: 2412.12729

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Brockmann, R

    R. Brockmann, R. Machleidt, Relativistic nuclear structure. 1: Nu- clear matter, Phys. Rev. C 42 (1990) 1965–1980. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.42.1965

    1990

  56. [64]

    Tong, X.-L

    H. Tong, X.-L. Ren, P. Ring, S.-H. Shen, S.-B. Wang, J. Meng, Rela- tivistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory in nuclear matter without the av- erage momentum approximation, Phys. Rev. C 98 (5) (2018) 054302. arXiv:1808.09138, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.054302

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    C. Wang, J. Hu, Y . Zhang, H. Shen, Properties of nuclear matter in relativistic Brueckner–Hartree–Fock model with high-precision charge- dependent potentials, J. Phys. G 47 (10) (2020) 105108. arXiv: 2007.01726, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aba423

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    C. Wang, J. Hu, Y . Zhang, H. Shen, Properties of Neutron Stars De- scribed by a Relativistic Ab Initio Model, Astrophys. J. 897 (1) (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    H. Tong, C. Wang, S. Wang, Nuclear Matter and Neutron Stars from Rel- ativistic Brueckner–Hartree–Fock Theory, Astrophys. J. 930 (2) (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    S. Wang, Q. Zhao, P. Ring, J. Meng, Nuclear matter in relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory with Bonn potential in the full Dirac space, Phys. Rev. C 103 (5) (2021) 054319. arXiv:2103.12960, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.054319

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S. Wang, H. Tong, Q. Zhao, C. Wang, P. Ring, J. Meng, Asymmetric nuclear matter and neutron star properties in relativistic ab initio theory in the full Dirac space, Phys. Rev. C 106 (2) (2022) L021305. arXiv: 2203.05397, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.106.L021305

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    S. Wang, H. Tong, C. Wang, Nuclear matter within the continuous choice in the full Dirac space, Phys. Rev. C 105 (5) (2022) 054309. doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.105.054309

    2022

  63. [71]

    X. Qu, H. Tong, C. Wang, S. Wang, Neutron matter properties from relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory in the full Dirac space, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 (4) (2023) 242011. doi:10.1007/ s11433-022-2048-3

    2023

  64. [72]

    H. Tong, J. Gao, C. Wang, S. Wang, Properties of Pb208 predicted from the relativistic equation of state in the full Dirac space, Phys. Rev. C 107 (3) (2023) 034302. arXiv:2212.14186, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.107.034302

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    C. Wang, J. Hu, Y . Zhang, H. Shen, The nuclear symmetry en- ergy from relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock model *, Chin. Phys. C 46 (6) (2022) 064108. arXiv:2203.03139, doi:10.1088/ 1674-1137/ac5b0f

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    S. Wang, H. Tong, C. Wang, Q. Zhao, P. Ring, J. Meng, Tensor- force effects on nuclear matter in relativistic ab initio theory, Sci. Bull. 69 (2024) 2166–2169. arXiv:2403.14474, doi:10.1016/j. scib.2024.05.013

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    P. Qin, S. Wang, H. Tong, Q. Zhao, C. Wang, Z. P. Li, P. Ring, Mi- croscopic optical potential from the relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory: Proton-nucleus scattering, Phys. Rev. C 109 (6) (2024) 064603. arXiv:2402.16339, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.064603

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    S. Wang, H. Tong, Q. Zhao, C. Wang, P. Ring, J. Meng, Neutron- proton effective mass splitting in neutron-rich matter, Phys. Rev. C 108 (3) (2023) L031303. arXiv:2304.13333, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.108.L031303

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    C. Wang, S. Wang, H. Tong, J. Hu, J. Yao, Low-momentum relativistic nucleon-nucleon potentials: Nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. C 109 (3) (2024) 034002. arXiv:2312.03403, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109. 034002. 8

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    J. Hu, E. Hiyama, H. Toki, Effective ΛN potential from relativistic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock theory, Phys. Rev. C 90 (1) (2014) 014309. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.014309

    2014 doi

  71. [79]

    Katayama, K

    T. Katayama, K. Saito, Hyperons in neutron stars, Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015) 43–47. arXiv:1501.05419, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2015.03.039

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Zou, J.-X

    W.-J. Zou, J.-X. Lu, P.-W. Zhao, L.-S. Geng, J. Meng, Saturation of nu- clear matter in the relativistic Brueckner-Hatree-Fock approach with a leading order covariant chiral nuclear force, Phys. Lett. B 854 (2024) 138732. arXiv:2312.15672, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2024.138732

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Sammarruca, Effects of Lambda hyperons on the nuclear equation of state in a Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock model, Phys

    F. Sammarruca, Effects of Lambda hyperons on the nuclear equation of state in a Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-Fock model, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 034301. arXiv:0902.0832, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 79.034301

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Z.-W. Liu, J. Song, K.-W. Li, L.-S. Geng, Strangeness S= −3 and S=−4 baryon-baryon interactions in relativistic chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2) (2021) 025201. arXiv:2011.05510, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.025201

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Song, Z.-W

    J. Song, Z.-W. Liu, K.-W. Li, L.-S. Geng, Test of the hyperon-nucleon interaction within leading order covariant chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 105 (3) (2022) 035203. arXiv:2107.04742, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.035203

    2022 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Li, X.-L

    K.-W. Li, X.-L. Ren, L.-S. Geng, B.-W. Long, Leading order relativistic hyperon-nucleon interactions in chiral effective field theory, Chin. Phys. C 42 (1) (2018) 014105. arXiv:1612.08482, doi:10.1088/ 1674-1137/42/1/014105

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    K.-W. Li, T. Hyodo, L.-S. Geng, Strangeness S= −2 baryon-baryon in- teractions in relativistic chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 98 (6) (2018) 065203. arXiv:1809.03199, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 98.065203

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Engelmann, H

    R. Engelmann, H. Filthuth, V . Hepp, E. Kluge, InelasticΣ−p-interactions at low momenta , Phys. Lett. 21 (5) (1966) 587–589. doi:10.1016/ 0031-9163(66)91310-2

    1966

  79. [87]

    Sechi-Zorn, B

    B. Sechi-Zorn, B. Kehoe, J. Twitty, R. A. Burnstein, Low-energy lambda- proton elastic scattering, Phys. Rev. 175 (1968) 1735–1740. doi:10. 1103/PhysRev.175.1735

    1968

  80. [88]

    Liu, K.-W

    Z.-W. Liu, K.-W. Li, L.-S. Geng, Strangeness S = −2 baryon-baryon in- teractions and femtoscopic correlation functions in covariant chiral ef- fective field theory*, Chin. Phys. C 47 (2) (2023) 024108. arXiv: 2201.04997, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac988a

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Polinder, J

    H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meissner, Hyperon-nucleon inter- actions: A Chiral effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. A 779 (2006) 244–266. arXiv:nucl-th/0605050, doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2006.09.006

    2006 arXiv

  82. [90]

    J. A. Kadyk, G. Alexander, J. H. Chan, P. Gaposchkin, G. H. Trilling, Lambda p interactions in momentum range 300 to 1500 mev/c, Nucl. Phys. B 27 (1971) 13–22. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71) 90076-9

    1971 doi

  83. [91]

    J. M. Hauptman, J. A. Kadyk, G. H. Trilling, Experimental Study of Lambda p and xi0 p Interactions in the Range 1-GeV/c-10-GeV/c, Nucl. Phys. B 125 (1977) 29–51. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77) 90222-X

    1977 doi

  84. [92]

    Alexander, U

    G. Alexander, U. Karshon, A. Shapira, G. Yekutieli, R. Engelmann, H. Filthuth, W. Lughofer, Study of the lambda-n system in low-energy lambda-p elastic scattering, Phys. Rev. 173 (1968) 1452–1460. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.173.1452

    1968 doi

  85. [93]

    Eisele, H

    F. Eisele, H. Filthuth, W. Foehlisch, V . Hepp, G. Zech, Elastic sigma+- p scattering at low energies, Phys. Lett. B 37 (1971) 204–206. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(71)90053-0

    1971 doi

  86. [96]

    arXiv:2006.02007, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab994b

    2006 arXiv

  87. [97]

    D. L. Mihaylov, J. Haidenbauer, V . M. Sarti, Constraining the p Λ in- teraction from a combined analysis of scattering data and correlation functions, Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138550. arXiv:2312.16970, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138550

    2024 arXiv

  88. [98]

    S. Shen, H. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, P. Ring, Towards an abinitio covariant density functional theory for nuclear structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 109 (2019) 103713. arXiv:1904.04977, doi:10.1016/j. ppnp.2019.103713. 9

    2019 arXiv

  89. [137]

    arXiv:2210.15241, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac65fc

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.