Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

$\phi$ meson properties in dense resonance matter at finite temperature

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dense hot hadronic matter with resonance baryons leaves the phi meson's mass nearly intact but greatly broadens its decay width.

desk verdict Plausible but cutoff-limited extension of chiral SU(3) phi phenomenology; the mass-shift numbers need a vacuum subtraction and uncertainty budget before they are usable, though the qualitative broadening result is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07065 v1 pith:NEYOHKST submitted 2025-05-11 hep-ph nucl-th

Manpreet Kaur , Arvind Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 12.40.-y13.20.Jf21.65.+f25.75.-q
keywords phimesonin-mediummassshiftdecaywidthbroadeningchiralSU(3)hadronicmodelresonancebaryonskaon-antikaonloopheavy-ioncollisionsstrangeness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish how the phi meson changes when it is embedded in dense hadronic matter that contains not only nucleons and hyperons but also spin-3/2 resonance baryons at finite temperature. The authors compute the density- and temperature-dependent kaon and antikaon masses in the chiral SU(3) hadronic mean-field model and feed them into the one-loop phi-to-kaon-antikaon self-energy. They find a striking split: the phi mass shifts by only a few percent, while its decay width grows from roughly 7 MeV to tens of MeV, and at four times nuclear saturation density can exceed 100 MeV. A sympathetic reader would care because the width of the phi spectral function is what dilepton and kaon-antikaon measurements in heavy-ion collisions can actually see, and a large broadening without a large mass shift changes how those spectra should be interpreted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-stage calculation. First, the chiral SU(3) hadronic mean-field model produces density- and temperature-dependent scalar fields and baryon scalar and vector densities, which enter the kaon and antikaon self-energies and give unequal in-medium masses $m^*_K$ and $m^*_{\bar K}$. Second, those masses are inserted into the one-loop $\phi K\bar K$ self-energy; a dipole form factor with cutoff $\Lambda_c$ in the range 2 to 4 GeV regularizes the real part, and the imaginary part yields the decay width. The split between the strongly falling antikaon mass and the weakly changing kaon mass is what opens the phi decay phase space and controls the broadening.

What would settle it

Measure the phi meson's dilepton invariant-mass spectrum at baryon densities near saturation in nuclear-target or heavy-ion collisions: the paper predicts a width growing from about 7 MeV at saturation density to tens of MeV at $T=100$ MeV and beyond 100 MeV at $4\rho_0$ in the hot, strangeness-rich medium, so a measured width that stays near the vacuum value of about 4 MeV would rule out the claimed density dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In an isospin-asymmetric resonance medium at saturation density and $T=100$ MeV, the average kaon mass falls by 3.6% and the average antikaon mass by 11.8%; through the $\phi K\bar K$ loop this lowers the phi mass by about 1.56%. The same phase-space opening that produces this modest shift drives the width: at zero temperature and saturation density the in-medium width is already about 7 MeV, and it rises steadily with baryon density and temperature, exceeding 100 MeV at $4\rho_0$ in the hot, strangeness-rich resonance medium. The precise mass numbers depend on the dipole cutoff $\Lambda_c$ between 2 and 4 GeV, but the qualitative result that the width is strongly enhanced while the mass shift stays small holds for all cutoffs studied. The paper presents this as the signature of resonance baryons in the medium, with decuplet states contributing at high densities and temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative mass shift rests on a phenomenological dipole form factor with a cutoff $\Lambda_c$ between 2 and 4 GeV used to tame the kaon-antikaon loop integral, and the paper gives no independent measurement or calculation that fixes that cutoff.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At saturation density and $T=100$ MeV the phi mass falls by only about 1.56% even though the antikaon mass falls by 11.8%, so the in-medium phi is a broad state with a nearly stationary peak.
  • The phi decay width rises monotonically with baryon density and temperature for every cutoff from 2 to 4 GeV, exceeding 100 MeV at $4\rho_0$ in the hot, strange resonance medium.
  • Including spin-3/2 resonance baryons changes the results mainly at high density and temperature; at $T=0$ and zero strangeness the phi mass with and without delta baryons is almost identical.
  • A larger cutoff $\Lambda_c$ produces a larger mass drop but a slightly smaller width, so a measurement of either quantity constrains the effective $\phi K\bar K$ vertex.
  • These in-medium masses and widths are the input transport-model simulations use to predict phi yields and kaon-to-phi ratios in heavy-ion collisions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the picture is right, the cutoff sensitivity means only the qualitative message is safe: precise phi mass shifts in dense matter cannot be quoted until the $\phi K\bar K$ vertex form factor is fixed by an independent probe, such as lattice QCD or near-threshold kaon photoproduction.
  • Because the width at several times saturation density can reach or exceed 100 MeV, phi mesons produced inside a heavy-ion fireball would mostly decay while the medium is still dense, so the visible signature would be a suppressed phi yield and modified kaon momentum correlations rather than a clean peak shift.
  • The same two-stage machinery could be applied to other hidden-strangeness channels or to charmed vector mesons, whose in-medium widths would inherit the same kaon and antikaon mass asymmetry if their self-energies respond similarly.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the in-medium mass and decay width of the φ meson in isospin asymmetric hadronic matter containing both octet and decuplet baryon resonances at finite temperature. The kaon and antikaon masses are obtained from the chiral SU(3) mean-field model; these enter a one-loop φK\bar K self-energy whose real part is regularized with a phenomenological dipole form factor with cutoff Λ_c varied between 2 and 4 GeV, and whose width is computed from a phase-space formula with g_φ fitted to the vacuum width. The authors find that at T=100 MeV and saturation density the kaon and antikaon masses decrease by 3.6% and 11.8%, producing a 1.56% decrease in m_φ, while the decay width rises from about 7 MeV to tens of MeV and can exceed 100 MeV at 4ρ0.

Significance. The qualitative physics—φ meson broadening driven by reduced K and \bar K masses in a hot, dense resonance medium—is timely and relevant for J-PARC E16, CBM, and PANDA, and the explicit inclusion of the full decuplet baryon sector goes beyond earlier octet-only studies. The calculation is anchored to several external inputs, including nuclear saturation properties, kaon-nucleon scattering lengths, and the vacuum φ width, and the cutoff dependence is displayed in Tables II and III. However, the quantitative predictions are not yet robust because the regularization of the real part of the self-energy is incompletely specified and the dominant uncertainty, Λ_c, is not propagated into the quoted numbers.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The real part of the φ self-energy is not properly renormalized. m0_φ is called the bare mass but no prescription is given for fixing it. Since ReΠ*_φ as defined in Eq. (15)/(16) is nonzero at ρ_B=0, Eq. (14) cannot return m_φ=1020 MeV if m0_φ is taken to be the physical mass; a vacuum subtraction or counterterm is required. The manuscript should state how m0_φ is fixed and whether the quoted mass shifts are relative to the vacuum value after subtraction, and Tables II and III should include the vacuum row needed for this comparison.
  2. [Table II and Sec. III.B] The mass shift depends strongly on the unconstrained cutoff Λ_c. For example, at T=100 MeV, fs=0.5, Ia=0.3, and ρ_B=4ρ0, m*_φ changes from 983.0 MeV at Λ_c=2 GeV to 963.3 MeV at 3 GeV and 949.5 MeV at 4 GeV, so the shift from 1020 MeV roughly doubles from 37 to 70 MeV. The abstract's 1.56% number is therefore not representative of the model's uncertainty. I request a systematic Λ_c scan reported as an uncertainty on all central quantitative claims, or an external constraint on Λ_c.
  3. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (17)] The coupling g_φ is fixed by reproducing the vacuum width using the same formula that is then used to compute the in-medium width. As a result, the predicted broadening is essentially the kinematical consequence of the input kaon/antikaon masses and m*_φ, rather than an independent prediction of the loop calculation. The manuscript should state this explicitly and, ideally, provide a cross-check using the imaginary part of the regularized self-energy rather than only the tree-level phase-space formula.
  4. [Figs. 2-3 and Tables II-III] At the higher densities and temperatures considered, the antikaon masses fall below 200 MeV, approaching values where the chiral mean-field and one-loop perturbative approximations become questionable. Since the central claims include results at 4ρ0 and above, the model's domain of validity should be stated, and results outside that domain should be flagged as extrapolations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistent citation formats, e.g., "caculated" in Sec. III.B, "revi." in Refs. [86] and [91], and missing spaces before reference numbers in several places; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Sec. II.C] The definition of the average antikaon mass should use parentheses: m*_{\bar K} = (m*_{K^-}+m*_{\bar K^0})/2; the current typesetting is ambiguous.
  3. [Before Eq. (16)] The phrase "after renormalization" is misleading because no subtraction scheme or counterterm is introduced; the text should say "after regularization with a form factor" or describe the renormalization procedure explicitly.
  4. [Table IV] Table IV does not state the strangeness fraction fs used in the comparison; from the surrounding text it appears that fs=0, but the caption should say so explicitly.
  5. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) is an implicit equation for m*_φ, since ReΠ*_φ depends on m*_φ through the loop energy denominators; the solution procedure (e.g., iterative) should be described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phi-mass shift and broadening are computed from externally anchored kaon self-energies and a scanned cutoff, not from re-fit phi observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The in-medium kaon and antikaon masses, which are the main inputs to the phi self-energy, are obtained from the chiral SU(3) mean-field model whose parameters are anchored to nuclear saturation properties, baryon potentials, and kaon-nucleon scattering lengths, not to the phi mass or width. The phi-K-Kbar coupling g_phi = 4.539 is fixed from the empirical vacuum phi width using the same tree-level width formula, Eq. (17); this is standard calibration, and the in-medium width is not forced because it is evaluated at the independently computed shifted kaon masses and is sensitive to the model's density and temperature dependence. The real part of the phi self-energy is regularized by a dipole form factor with a cutoff Lambda_c scanned over 2-4 GeV, with the sensitivity shown in Tables II and III; a free regulator is a fitting and uncertainty issue, not a circular reduction. The paper's self-citations supply a published model and a previous computation of resonance-medium kaon masses, but those inputs are externally falsifiable and are not invoked as uniqueness constraints. One reproducibility concern remains: the paper never states explicitly how the bare mass m0_phi in Eq. (14) is fixed or whether a vacuum subtraction is applied to RePi*, but this is a correctness and regularization-uncertainty issue, not a circularity, because it does not make the predicted phi mass shift equal to any fitted input by construction.

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

The calculation rests on an established chiral SU(3) mean-field model with couplings fitted to saturation properties, kaon-nucleon scattering lengths, and the vacuum phi width. The main ad hoc element is the dipole form-factor cutoff Lambda_c, varied over 2-4 GeV without independent constraint. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Dipole form-factor cutoff Lambda_c = Varied at 2, 3, 4 GeV
    Sec. II.C, Eq. (16). The loop integral is regulated by a dipole form factor with cutoff Lambda_c. The paper varies it over 2-4 GeV and the results depend strongly on it, with no independent determination.
  • phi-K-Kbar coupling g_phi = 4.539
    Sec. II.C. Fitted to the empirical vacuum phi decay width using Eq. (17). All in-medium widths inherit this value.
  • Range parameters d1 and d2 = 2.56/m_K and 0.73/m_K
    Sec. II.B, Eq. (8). These values were fitted to kaon-nucleon scattering lengths and enter the kaon and antikaon self-energies.
  • Baryon-meson couplings and mi3 = Table I values
    Table I. Adjusted to reproduce nuclear saturation properties such as B/A = -16 MeV at rho0 = 0.15 fm^-3 and baryonic potentials; these couplings determine the scalar and vector fields that drive kaon mass shifts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Chiral SU(3) mean-field model with baryons and mesons is a valid description of dense hadronic matter up to 5 rho0.
    Core framework in Sec. II.A; validity is assumed rather than derived from QCD, and it is the foundation for all in-medium fields and K masses.
  • domain assumption The dominant in-medium modification of the phi meson is captured by the one-loop phi-K-Kbar diagram; other channels are negligible.
    Invoked in Sec. II.C with a citation to Ref. [88]; the paper does not compute contributions from other hadronic channels.
  • domain assumption Average on-shell kaon and antikaon masses capture the medium effect in the loop integral and decay width.
    Sec. II.C defines m*_K and m*_anti-K as isospin averages and uses them in Eqs. (15)-(17), neglecting in-medium widths and momentum dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper A dipole form factor with cutoff Lambda_c between 2 and 4 GeV is the correct regularization for the phi-K-Kbar loop.
    Eq. (16); Lambda_c is not derived from QCD or fitted to data, only varied over a phenomenological range, and results depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\phi$ meson properties in dense resonance matter at finite temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NEYOHKST

@misc{pith2026250507065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\phi$ meson properties in dense resonance matter at finite temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NEYOHKST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07065}
}
abstract

The effective mass and decay width of the $\phi$ meson in the isospin asymmetric hot and dense resonance matter are studied using the effective Lagrangian framework considering the $\phi K \bar K $ interactions at one-loop level. In addition to spin$-1/2$ octet baryons, we consider the effect of resonances $\Delta^{++,+,0,-}, \Sigma^{*\pm,0},\Xi^{*0,-}, \Omega^{-}$, on the properties of $\phi$ meson. The in-medium effects on the $\phi$ meson properties are simulated through the effective masses of kaons and antikaons computed using the chiral SU(3) hadronic mean field model in the presence of resonance baryons. The loop integral appearing in the computation of $\phi$ meson self energies is regularized using the dipole form factor with a cutoff parameter. The presence of resonance baryons within the medium at finite temperature is observed to significantly modify the effective mass and decay width of $\phi$ mesons. Examining the $\phi$ meson masses and decay width within a dense medium is anticipated to be essential for understanding experimental results from heavy-ion collision experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. φKK¯ interaction at one loop level. The in-medium masses of K and K¯ mesons calculated in the isospin asymmetric resonance 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The average effective kaon mass m∗ K is plotted for resonance medium as a function of baryonic density ratio ρB/ρ0 and temperature T under various conditions of isospin asymmetry parameter Ia and strangeness fraction fs of the medium. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The average effective antikaon mass m∗ K¯ is plotted for resonance medium with respect to the baryonic density ratio ρB/ρ0 and temperature T. The impact of isospin asymmetry parameter Ia and strangeness fraction fs of the medium on m∗ K¯ is also considered. poration of strange particles within the medium at a given temperature, where all spin− 1 2 octet (p, n, Λ, Σ ±,0 , Ξ −,0 ) as well as spin− 3 2 decuplet (∆++,+,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of m∗ φ in resonance and non-resonance matter as a function of baryon density ratio ρB/ρ0 for different values of Λc, Ia, and fs at temperature T = 0 MeV. up to the considered ρB/ρ0 ratio in this study, as depicted in Figs. 4 (a) and (b). This con￾sistency i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison of m∗ φ in both resonance and non-resonance matter is presented as a function of baryon density ratio ρB/ρ0, considering various values of Λc, Ia, and fs at temperature T = 100 MeV. shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The three-dimensional representation of effective mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The in-medium decay width Γ∗ φ of φ meson in dense resonance matter with respect to baryon density ratio ρB/ρ0 for various values of Λc, Ia, and fs at temperature T = 0 MeV. Each subplot also compares the cases in which decuplet baryons are not taken into account withi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The in-medium decay width Γ∗ φ of the φ meson is plotted for dense resonance matter with respect to baryon density ratio ρB/ρ0 for various values of Λc, Ia, and fs at temperature T = 100 MeV. These findings are compared in each subplot with the situation in which only…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The 3D representation of the in-medium decay width of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Polarization-dependent mass modifications of $\phi$ meson with finite momentum in nuclear matter

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In nuclear matter, the phi meson's longitudinal polarization mass decreases quadratically with momentum; the transverse polarization mass stays constant.

  2. Towards compressed baryonic matter densities: D meson diffusion

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Using relaxation-time kinetic theory with a chiral hadronic model, the authors estimate that D meson spatial diffusion in dense nuclear matter decreases rapidly in a dilute-gas regime and mildly in a degenerate-gas regime.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

147 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Leupold et al

    S. Leupold et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 19, 147 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    is subtracted to ensure that 7 the vacuum energy is zero. The Eq. ( 2) is subjected to minimization with respect to the mesonic fields through the following relations ∂Ω ∂σ = ∂Ω ∂ζ = ∂Ω ∂δ = ∂Ω ∂χ = ∂Ω ∂ω = ∂Ω ∂ρ = ∂Ω ∂φ = 0. (4) At finite values of baryon density,ρB, temperature,T , isospin asymmetry,Ia, and strangeness fraction, fs of the medium, the non-...

  3. [3]

    Maruyama et al

    T. Maruyama et al. , Phys. Lett. B 659, 192 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    for finite T , Ia, and fs within the medium. The effective mass of the φ meson is calculated from the real part of Π ∗ φ(p) through relation [ 88] m∗2 φ = ( m0 φ ) 2 + ReΠ∗ φ(m∗2 φ ), (14) where m0 φ is the bare mass of the φ meson. The real part of self-energy is given as [ 48, 88] ReΠ∗ φ = −4 3g2 φ P ∫ d3q (2π)3⃗ q2 (E∗ K +E∗ ¯K) E∗ KE∗ ¯K((E∗ K +E∗ ¯K)2 ...

  5. [5]

    At fs = 0.5, these mass shift values for K ( ¯K) change to −11.5 ( −16.7) and −17.7 ( −58) MeV inducing shift of −6.3 MeV and −15.7 MeV in m∗ φ

    At T = 0 and 100 MeV, in the non-strange ( fs = 0) isospin asymmetric (Ia = 0.3) resonance medium, at nuclear saturation density, ρ0, average kaons (antikaons) mass shift of 22 ( −44.5) and 15 ( −78.3) MeV leads to only −5 MeV and −13 MeV mass shift ofm∗ φ, respectively. At fs = 0.5, these mass shift values for K ( ¯K) change to −11.5 ( −16.7) and −17.7 (...

  6. [6]

    Pushkina et al

    I. Pushkina et al. , Phys. Lett. B 609, 265 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    R. S. Hayano and T. Hatsuda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2949 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    A. G. Knospe, EPJ Web Conf. 171, 09001 (2018)

    2018

Show all 147 references
  1. [9]

    with mK and m ¯K denote the vacuum masses of kaons and antikaons, respectively. C. In-medium mass and decay width of φ meson Figure 1: φK ¯K interaction at one loop level. The in-medium masses ofK and ¯K mesons calculated in the isospin asymmetric resonance 11 medium are used ...

  2. [10]

    Wang et al

    P. Wang et al. , Phys. Rev. C 75, 045202 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Tolos and L

    L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112, 103770 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Rafelski and J

    J. Rafelski and J. Letessier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4695 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    Evans, New J

    L. Evans, New J. Phys. 9, 335 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Harrison, T

    M. Harrison, T. Ludlam, and S. Ozaki, Nucl. Instrum. Meth . A 499, 235 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Friman et al

    B. Friman et al. , Lect. Notes Phys. 814 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Kumar et al

    L. Kumar et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 904, 256c (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Odyniec, J

    G. Odyniec, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 37, 094028 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Herlert, EPJ Web Conf

    A. Herlert, EPJ Web Conf. 71, 00064 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Di Nezza et al

    P. Di Nezza et al. , PoS SPIN2023, 036 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Agarwal, Phys

    K. Agarwal, Phys. Scripta 98, 034006 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Senger, Cent

    P. Senger, Cent. Eur. J. Phys. 10, 1289 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Nilsson, Phys

    T. Nilsson, Phys. Scripta T 166, 014070 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    V. D. Kekelidze and et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 967, 8847 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Rapp et al

    R. Rapp et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 65, 209 (2010). 28

    2010

  17. [25]

    Sawada, Nucl

    S. Sawada, Nucl. Phys. A 782, 434 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Hotchi et al

    H. Hotchi et al. , Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 060402 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    V. D. Kekelidze and et al. , Phys. Part. Nucl. 48, 727 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Fukushima and Y

    K. Fukushima and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. D 75, 036002 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Milov, Eur

    A. Milov, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 721 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  23. [31]

    Alexandru et al

    A. Alexandru et al. , Rev.Mod. Phys. 94, 015006 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Bloch and T

    J. Bloch and T. Wettig, JHEP 03, 100 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Tsushima et al

    K. Tsushima et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 630, 691 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Muroya et al

    S. Muroya et al. , Prog. Theor. Phys. 110, 615 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Takaishi, Prog

    T. Takaishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 153, 277 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    Tsushima et al

    K. Tsushima et al. , Phys. Rev. C 59, 2824 (1999)

    1999

  29. [37]

    Saito and A

    K. Saito and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 327, 9 (1994)

    1994

  30. [38]

    Pich, Rep

    A. Pich, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, 563 (1995)

    1995

  31. [39]

    Cao, Eur

    G. Cao, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 264 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Bochkarev and J

    A. Bochkarev and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4066 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Huovinen and P

    P. Huovinen and P. Petreczky, Nucl. Phys. A 837, 26 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    S. R. Wadia, Phys. Rev. D 24, 970 (1981)

    1981

  35. [43]

    Z. Y. Zhang et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 625, 59 (1997)

    1997

  36. [44]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    T. Waas, M. Rho, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 617, 449 (1997)

    1997

  38. [46]

    Hatsuda et al

    T. Hatsuda et al. , Phys. Rev. C 46, R34 (1992)

    1992

  39. [47]

    Kumar and A

    A. Kumar and A. Mishra, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 164 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Kumar and A

    R. Kumar and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 102, 045206 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Wang et al

    P. Wang et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 744, 273 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    Papazoglou et al

    P. Papazoglou et al. , Phys. Rev. C 59, 411 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Mishra et al

    A. Mishra et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 45, 169 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Dexheimer and S

    V. Dexheimer and S. Schramm, AstroPhys. J. 683, 943 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Schaefer, J

    B.-J. Schaefer, J. M. Pawlowski, and J. Wambach, Phys. R ev. D 76, 074023 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Chahal et al

    N. Chahal et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 94, 1028 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Zschiesche et al

    D. Zschiesche et al. , Phys. Rev. C 70, 045202 (2004). 29

    2004

  48. [56]

    Cruz-Camacho et al

    N. Cruz-Camacho et al. , arXiv:2409.06837 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kaur and A

    M. Kaur and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114054 (2024)

    2024

  50. [59]

    T. K. Herbst, J. M. Pawlowski, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Lett. B 696, 58 (2011)

    2011

  51. [60]

    Stiele, E

    R. Stiele, E. S. Fraga, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Le tt. B 729, 72 (2014)

    2014

  52. [61]

    Ramos and E

    A. Ramos and E. Oset, Nucl. Phys. A 671, 481 (2000)

    2000

  53. [62]

    Schaffner-Bielich, V

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, V. Koch, and M. Effenberger, Nucl. Ph ys. A 669, 153 (2000)

    2000

  54. [63]

    Liu and H.-X

    W.-Y. Liu and H.-X. Chen, arXiv:2312.11212 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  55. [64]

    Tolos et al

    L. Tolos et al. , Phys. Rev. C 70, 025203 (2004)

    2004

  56. [65]

    Tolos et al

    L. Tolos et al. , Phys. Lett. B 635, 85 (2006)

    2006

  57. [66]

    Tolos et al

    L. Tolos et al. , Phys. Rev. C 77, 015207 (2008)

    2008

  58. [67]

    Wang, EPJ Web Conf

    Y.-F. Wang, EPJ Web Conf. 291, 02004 (2024)

    2024

  59. [68]

    G. S. Bali et al. , PoS ConfinementX, 197 (2012)

    2012

  60. [69]

    D. J. Wilson et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 241901 (2024)

    2024

  61. [70]

    Rozynek and G

    J. Rozynek and G. Wilk, J. Phys. G 36, 125108 (2009)

    2009

  62. [71]

    Adel and T

    A. Adel and T. Alharbi, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 1 (2017)

    2017

  63. [72]

    G. S. Bali et al. , JHEP 02, 044 (2012)

    2012

  64. [73]

    Ruggieri and G

    M. Ruggieri and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. D 93, 094021 (2016)

    2016

  65. [74]

    Peterson et al

    J. Peterson et al. , Phys. Rev. D 108, 063011 (2023)

    2023

  66. [75]

    Bhattacharyya et al

    A. Bhattacharyya et al. , Phys. Rev. C 91, 041901 (2015)

    2015

  67. [76]

    Magdy, M

    N. Magdy, M. Csan´ ad, and R. A. Lacey, J. Phys. G 44, 025101 (2017)

    2017

  68. [77]

    Braun, B

    J. Braun, B. Klein, and B.-J. Schaefer, Phys. Lett. B 713, 216 (2012)

    2012

  69. [78]

    Okubo, Phys

    S. Okubo, Phys. Lett. 5, 165 (1963)

    1963

  70. [79]

    Ruggieri, Z

    M. Ruggieri, Z. Y. Lu, and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. D 94, 116003 (2016)

    2016

  71. [80]

    Senger, Nucl

    P. Senger, Nucl. Phys. A 835, 102 (2010)

    2010

  72. [81]

    Yong, Phys

    G.-C. Yong, Phys. Rev. D 108, L091507 (2023)

    2023

  73. [82]

    T. Song, J. Aichelin, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C 601, 024903 (2022)

    2022

  74. [83]

    Blaizot and R

    J.-P. Blaizot and R. M. Galain, Phys. Lett. B 271, 32 (1991)

    1991

  75. [84]

    Iizuka, Prog

    J. Iizuka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 37, 21 (1966)

    1966

  76. [85]

    H. J. Lipkin, Nucl. Phys. B 244, 147 (1984)

    1984

  77. [86]

    Asakawa and C

    M. Asakawa and C. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 572, 732 (1994). 30

    1994

  78. [87]

    Hatsuda et al

    T. Hatsuda et al. , Prog. Theor. Phys. 95, 1009 (1996)

    1996

  79. [88]

    J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ ınezet al. , Phys. Lett. B 771, 113 (2017)

    2017

  80. [89]

    Kuwabara and T

    H. Kuwabara and T. Hatsuda, Prog. Theor. Phys. 94, 1163 (1995)

    1995

  81. [90]

    was an earlier experiment that investigated the in-medium modificat ion of φ meson by measuring its decay into e+e− and K ¯K pairs in p +A collisions, observing no modification of invariant mass spectra of K ¯K at nuclear saturation density. In Ref. [ 93], SPring8 collab- oratio...

  82. [91]

    Oset et al

    E. Oset et al. , Phys. Lett. B 508, 237 (2001)

    2001

  83. [92]

    Bhattacharyya et al

    A. Bhattacharyya et al. , Phys. Revi. C 55, 1463 (1997)

    1997

  84. [93]

    Klingl, N

    F. Klingl, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 624, 527 (1997)

    1997

  85. [94]

    J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ ınezet al. , Phys. Rev. C 96, 035201 (2017)

    2017

  86. [95]

    Muto et al

    R. Muto et al. , Phys. revi. lett. 98, 042501 (2007)

    2007

  87. [96]

    Mibe et al

    T. Mibe et al. , Phys. Revi. C 76, 052202 (2007)

    2007

  88. [97]

    X. Qian, W. Chen, et al. , Phys. Lett. B 680, 417 (2009)

    2009

  89. [98]

    Ishikawa et al

    T. Ishikawa et al. , Phys. Lett. B 608, 215 (2005)

    2005

  90. [99]

    Sako et al

    H. Sako et al. , J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol. 1-2, 100012 (2024)

    2024

  91. [100]

    Aoki et al

    K. Aoki et al. , J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol. 3, 100019 (2025)

    2025

  92. [101]

    W. T. Chiang et al. , Phys. Revi. C 69, 065208 (2004)

    2004

  93. [102]

    Lutz, Phys

    M. Lutz, Phys. Lett. B 426, 12 (1998)

    1998

  94. [103]

    Klingl, T

    F. Klingl, T. Waas, and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B 431, 254 (1998)

    1998

  95. [104]

    Gubler and K

    P. Gubler and K. Ohtani, Phys. Rev. D 90, 094002 (2014)

    2014

  96. [105]

    W. S. Chung, G.-Q. Li, and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 625, 347 (1997)

    1997

  97. [106]

    S. Pal, C. M. Ko, and Z.-w. Lin, Nucl. Phys. A 707, 525 (2002)

    2002

  98. [107]

    E. Y. Paryev, Nucl. Phys. A 1032, 122624 (2023)

    2023

  99. [108]

    Kumar and A

    A. Kumar and A. Mishra, arXiv:2408.07633 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  100. [109]

    Mondal and A

    A. Mondal and A. Mishra, arXiv:2502.08320 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  101. [110]

    Tu and S.-G

    Z.-H. Tu and S.-G. Zhou, AstroPhys. J. 925, 16 (2022)

    2022

  102. [111]

    Wu and W

    C. Wu and W. Guo, arXiv:2308.00007 [nucl-th]

  103. [112]

    J. Song, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1602, 012008 (2020)

    2020

  104. [113]

    L¨ omker, PoS EPS-HEP2023, 216 (2024)

    J. L¨ omker, PoS EPS-HEP2023, 216 (2024)

    2024

  105. [114]

    Rosano, PoS ICHEP2022, 1066 (2022)

    A. Rosano, PoS ICHEP2022, 1066 (2022)

    2022

  106. [115]

    Kiselev, Phys

    S. Kiselev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 85, 965 (2022)

    2022

  107. [116]

    P. F. Bedaque, Phys. Lett. B 387, 1 (1996)

    1996

  108. [117]

    J. M. Torres-Rincon, B. Sintes, and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C 91, 065206 (2015). 31

    2015

  109. [118]

    Xu, Y.-L

    Y.-J. Xu, Y.-L. Liu, and M.-Q. Huang, Commun. Theor. Ph ys. 63, 209 (2015)

    2015

  110. [119]

    Azizi and G

    K. Azizi and G. Bozkır, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 521 (2016)

    2016

  111. [120]

    Azizi, N

    K. Azizi, N. Er, and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 94, 114002 (2016)

    2016

  112. [121]

    S. M. Ouellette and R. Seki, Phys. Lett. B 404, 108 (1997)

    1997

  113. [122]

    Kumar et al

    A. Kumar et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 4 (2024)

    2024

  114. [123]

    C. Y. Ryu et al. , Phys. Lett. B 674, 122 (2009)

    2009

  115. [124]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Kumar, and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 128 (2019)

    2019

  116. [125]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Kumar, and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 422 (2020)

    2020

  117. [126]

    Zschiesche et al

    D. Zschiesche et al. , Phys. Rev. C 63, 025211 (2001)

    2001

  118. [127]

    Lenske and M

    H. Lenske and M. Dhar, Lect. Notes Phys. 948, 161 (2018)

    2018

  119. [128]

    N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Lett. B 70, 392 (1982)

    1982

  120. [129]

    J. C. T. Oliveira et al. , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1291, 012038 (2019)

    2019

  121. [130]

    A. R. Raduta et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 914 (2020)

    2020

  122. [131]

    Dexheimer et al

    V. Dexheimer et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 216 (2021)

    2021

  123. [132]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 166, 1568 (1968)

    1968

  124. [133]

    Bardeen and B

    W. Bardeen and B. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 177, 2389 (1969)

    1969

  125. [134]

    Mishra et al

    A. Mishra et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 41, 205 (2009)

    2009

  126. [135]

    Mishra et al

    A. Mishra et al. , Phys. Rev. C 78, 024901 (2008)

    2008

  127. [136]

    Barnes and E

    T. Barnes and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. C 49, 1166 (1994)

    1994

  128. [137]

    C. M. Ko et al. , Phys. Rev. C 45, 1400 (1992)

    1992

  129. [138]

    Klingl, N

    F. Klingl, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Z. Phys. A 356, 193 (1996)

    1996

  130. [139]

    Krein, A

    G. Krein, A. W. Thomas, and K. Tsushima, Phys. Lett. B 697, 136 (2011)

    2011

  131. [140]

    F. E. Close and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094004 (2005)

    2005

  132. [141]

    Godfrey and N

    S. Godfrey and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 32, 189 (1985)

    1985

  133. [142]

    Li and C

    G.-Q. Li and C. M. Ko, Nucl. Phys. A 582, 731 (1995)

    1995

  134. [143]

    Gubler and W

    P. Gubler and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 954, 125 (2016)

    2016

  135. [144]

    Cabrera and M

    D. Cabrera and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C 67, 045203 (2003)

    2003

  136. [145]

    Weil et al

    J. Weil et al. , PoS BORMIO2011, 053 (2011)

    2011

  137. [146]

    H. W. Barz et al. , Open Nucl. Part. Phys. J. 3, 1 (2010)

    2010

  138. [147]

    Aoki et al

    K. Aoki et al. , Few Body Syst. 64 (2023)

    2023

  139. [148]

    Destefanis et al

    M. Destefanis et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 245, 199 (2013). 32

    2013

Pith tools

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