Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Perspectives for hyperon and hypernuclei physics

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that light hypernuclei are unique few-body laboratories for non-perturbative QCD, and that the coming round of measurements will settle the hypertriton binding-energy discrepancy, the A=4 charge-symmetry puzzle, and the…

desk verdict A dependable, well-organized perspective on hypernuclear physics that adds little new but gives an accurate field map; worth publishing after small cleanups. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00864 v2 pith:OMGSCJPK submitted 2025-06-01 nucl-th nucl-ex

Jin-Hui Chen , Li-Sheng Geng , Emiko Hiyama , Zhi-Wei Liu , Josef Pochodzalla This is my paper
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords hypernucleihyperon-nucleoninteractionhypertritonbindingenergychargesymmetrybreakingnnLambdastatefemtoscopychiraleffectivefieldtheorylatticeQCD
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

Hypernuclei, ordinary nuclei with one or more strange baryons added, are the smallest systems in which the strong interaction can be studied with strangeness as a controlled label. This perspective argues that they are unique few-body laboratories for non-perturbative QCD: the extra hyperon acts as a clean impurity that exposes how hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon forces differ from the nucleon-nucleon force. The authors bring together three open problems that the next generation of measurements is positioned to settle: the disagreement between two relativistic heavy-ion experiments over the hypertriton's binding energy, the puzzling charge-symmetry-breaking pattern in A=4 mirror hypernuclei, and the unresolved question of whether a neutral nn\Lambda state is bound. They also survey the theoretical toolbox, including chiral effective field theory, lattice QCD, and cluster models, that would interpret the new data. A sympathetic reader would take the central message to be that strangeness-bearing nuclei are now a precision frontier, not a curiosity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the light hypernuclei themselves: the hypertriton (${}^{3}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$) as the benchmark for hyperon-nucleon spin dependence and halo structure; the A=4 mirror pair ${}^{4}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{H}$ and ${}^{4}_{\Lambda}\mathrm{He}$ as the charge-symmetry-breaking probe; and the isotriplet nn\Lambda as the test case for whether three-body hypernuclear binding exists where simple estimates say no. The theoretical machinery that carries the interpretation is a ladder of interactions, from meson-exchange potentials and cluster models to chiral effective field theory up to next-to-next-to-leading order and lattice QCD, with relativistic chiral forces as a newer ingredient that can be checked against femtoscopic correlation functions. Femtoscopy, the measurement of momentum correlations between particles emitted close in space and time, supplies the bridge between scattering data and few-body calculations.

What would settle it

A high-statistics invariant-mass search for the weak decay of nn\Lambda, from the new FRS/WASA-style measurement with a lithium beam, would settle the central exotic claim: if no peak appears near a binding energy of about 1 MeV with a weak-decay lifetime, the tentative signal is background. A second decisive check would be a hypertriton binding-energy measurement from the ongoing heavy-ion analyses that converges on the old emulsion average, which would dissolve the discrepancy that motivates part of the program.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is prospective rather than a single new result: it is a demonstration that hypernuclear observables have reached the sensitivity where they can discriminate between competing strong-interaction theories. The hypertriton's binding energy is the linchpin; the two recent heavy-ion values differ by about two standard deviations, and both sit against the older emulsion average, so the field's benchmark is not yet fixed. The A=4 mirror pair shows a charge-symmetry-breaking effect of about 350 keV in the ground state and near zero in the excited state, a pattern that existing \Lambda N interactions with \Lambda\Sigma mixing cannot reproduce simultaneously; the heavy-ion result gives opposite signs of similar magnitude in the two states, consistent with one chiral effective field theory calculation. The third pillar is the nn\Lambda search: one invariant-mass experiment reported a candidate bound state at roughly 1 MeV binding, a missing-mass search saw no significant structure, and theory regards the state as likely unbound, so a dedicated invariant-mass measurement with higher statistics is the decisive next step.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the tentative nn\Lambda signal reported by one invariant-mass experiment is a real bound state rather than a background fluctuation; the paper itself notes that a missing-mass search found no such structure and that theory expects the state to be unbound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the hypertriton discrepancy is resolved by the coming high-statistics measurements, the hypertriton again becomes a reliable calibration point for the spin-dependent \Lambda-nucleon interaction and for understanding halo nuclei.
  • If the A=4 charge-symmetry-breaking pattern, with opposite signs in the ground and excited states, survives higher-statistics data, it will single out interactions that include an explicit charge-symmetry-breaking term and will constrain the \Lambda p and \Lambda n scattering lengths.
  • If the nn\Lambda state is confirmed as bound near 1 MeV, three-body hyperon-nucleon forces must be stronger than current chiral and lattice calculations predict; if it is not found, the new upper limits will cap its production cross section.
  • High-statistics femtoscopy of p-\Lambda, p-K, p-\Xi, and p-\Omega pairs can provide the scattering information needed to push chiral hyperon-nucleon theories beyond next-to-next-to-leading order.
  • Measured pp, \Sigma^+\Sigma^+, and \Xi^-\Xi^- correlation functions would give a quantitative test of SU(3) flavor symmetry and its breaking in the baryon-baryon sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not say so explicitly, but a null result from the new nn\Lambda search would not refute the broader hypernuclear program; it would simply convert the question from an existence claim into a production upper limit, as happened in the earlier missing-mass search.
  • A natural testable extension, left implicit by the review, is a joint systematic analysis of the two heavy-ion hypertriton datasets, which reconstruct different decay channels and carry different efficiency corrections; that comparison could narrow or explain the apparent binding-energy discrepancy.
  • The charge-symmetry-breaking pattern in A=4 has a direct analogue in the A=7 isotriplet hypernuclei, where current data hint at the opposite ordering of \Lambda p and \Lambda n binding; coordinated measurements of all three A=7 systems would test whether a single mechanism can account for both.
  • Because the same femtoscopy techniques extend to three-body correlations such as p-p-\Lambda and deuteron-\Lambda, they could become a direct probe of the three-body forces that govern neutron-star interiors; the paper gestures at the equation-of-state connection but does not develop it.
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.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a perspective/review of current and near-future hyperon and hypernuclei physics. It surveys experimental facilities and techniques, discusses the hypertriton binding-energy discrepancy between STAR and ALICE, the unresolved charge-symmetry-breaking puzzle in A=4 mirror hypernuclei, the search for a possible nnLambda bound state, femtoscopy constraints on hyperon-nucleon interactions, and theory developments ranging from meson-exchange and quark models through lattice QCD and chiral effective field theory, including the authors' relativistic ChEFT and cluster-model calculations. It concludes with an outlook identifying high-statistics experiments at FAIR, J-PARC, and the LHC as the path toward resolving these puzzles.

Significance. As a perspective, the value lies in a compact status report and a roadmap. The key experimental numbers are transmitted with uncertainties, and the manuscript is transparent about unresolved tensions, notably the STAR versus ALICE hypertriton values and the tentative nature of the nnLambda signal. The theory sections usefully juxtapose phenomenological, lattice, and chiral-EFT results, and the authors explicitly flag where predictions remain model-dependent. There is no machine-checkable derivation or parameter-free prediction to be assessed; the claims are appropriately hedged for a perspective. Provided the unsourced quantitative estimates and the presentation issues below are fixed, the manuscript is a useful contribution to the community.

minor comments (6)
  1. [II.B] The statements that about 3% of antiproton-nucleon annihilations at the nuclear surface produce strangeness and that approximately 1% of annihilations lead to hypernucleus production are given without a citation; these quantitative claims need a supporting reference or should be explicitly qualified as estimates.
  2. [II.C / Refs. [23], [25]] References [23] and [25] are the same paper (C. Rappold et al., Phys. Rev. C 88, 041001 (2013)); the sentence 'Following tentative observation at GSI [25]' should cite [23], and the duplicate entry should be removed from the reference list.
  3. [Fig. 1] As rendered, Fig. 1 contains numerous stray numbers and no readable legend, and the caption does not explain how the facilities are coded; please replace it with a clean version and an informative caption.
  4. [II.C] The detector name appears as 'W ASA' and the laboratory as 'J-Lab' in this section; please use 'WASA' and 'JLab' for consistency with standard usage and the rest of the paper.
  5. [II.G] The paragraph on 11LambdaLambdaBe repeats the phrase 'B_LambdaLambda of 11LambdaLambdaBe was observed' and would be clearer if it separated the 2009 Hida event from the J-PARC E07 measurement and specified which state each determination refers to.
  6. [Author affiliations] The affiliation line 'Johan nes Gutenburg-Universität' contains a spacing error and a misspelling; it should read 'Johannes Gutenberg-Universität'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a perspective/review with no derivation chain, and its self-cited theory results are external published calculations presented alongside independent benchmarks.

full rationale

This manuscript is a perspectives/review article, not a derivation or measurement. Its central claims—that hypernuclei are unique laboratories for non-perturbative QCD and that forthcoming experiments and theory will address the hypertriton binding-energy discrepancy, the A=4 charge-symmetry-breaking puzzle, and the possible nnLambda state—are forward-looking statements supported by cited experimental data and published calculations. No equation in the paper is derived from its own output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper does cite the authors' own prior works, notably Refs. [17], [82]–[85], [87], [90], [94], and [95], but these are published, independently reviewable calculations (global averages, relativistic ChEFT Hamiltonians, and cluster-model studies) and are not used to manufacture a new result. They are placed beside external benchmarks: STAR and ALICE data, lattice QCD results, J-PARC E40 scattering data, and other theoretical frameworks. The most fragile premise—the tentative nnLambda bound-state signal—is explicitly presented as uncertain: the paper notes the JLab search found no structure (Ref. [24]) and states that theoretically the state is 'likely to be unbound.' This transparent flagging of the fragility of the premise is the opposite of circular reasoning. The manuscript also reports numerical quantities such as the global hypertriton average with uncertainties and scatter measures, consistent with the cited literature rather than being generated by the paper itself. Therefore no step in the paper reduces by definition, by construction, or by self-citation to its own input, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced because the paper is a review; all potentials and low-energy constants come from cited literature. The axioms listed are domain assumptions the review relies on when interpreting experiments and theory.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hypernuclei are unique laboratories for probing non-perturbative QCD.
    This is the framing statement of the abstract and introduction; it is a widely accepted domain assumption in strangeness nuclear physics, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Chiral effective field theory with fitted low-energy constants provides a valid description of hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions.
    Section II.F relies on cited chiral EFT results; the LECs are fitted to scattering data in the cited papers and are not derived here.
  • domain assumption Femtoscopic correlation functions can be used to extract baryon-baryon scattering information.
    The review uses ALICE femtoscopy data (Section II.E) as evidence for the strength of nucleon-Xi and nucleon-Omega interactions.
  • domain assumption The STAR and ALICE hypertriton binding energies measure the same physical quantity despite different production mechanisms.
    The review directly compares B_Lambda from STAR and ALICE; this presupposes that production mechanism does not shift the measured binding energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perspectives for hyperon and hypernuclei physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMGSCJPK

@misc{pith2026250600864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perspectives for hyperon and hypernuclei physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMGSCJPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00864}
}
abstract

Hypernuclei, nuclei containing one or more hyperons, serve as unique laboratories for probing the non-perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Recent progress in hypernuclear physics, driven by advanced experimental techniques and theoretical innovations, is briefly reviewed with a focus on key findings and unresolved challenges, such as the precise determination of the hypertriton binding energy, investigations of charge symmetry breaking in mirror hypernuclei, and the search for exotic systems, including the neutral nn$\Lambda$ state. Experimental breakthroughs, including invariant-mass analyses and femtoscopy studies in heavy-ion collisions, as well as high-resolution $\gamma$-spectroscopy, have enabled precise studies of light hypernuclei and offered critical insights into the hyperon-nucleon interaction. Theoretical progress, including ab initio calculations based on chiral effective field theory and lattice QCD, has further enhanced our understanding of hyperon-nucleon and hyperon-hyperon interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Global planned or operational facilities studying properties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Predicted proton-proton, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Calculated energy spectra of the low-lying states of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Full citation record

  1. Light and heavy $\Lambda$ hyperclusters in nuclear matter with relativistic-mean-field models

    nucl-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In relativistic-mean-field calculations, Lambda hyperclusters in nuclear matter lose binding as density rises and melt at a Mott density, with light clusters destabilized and heavier ones stabilized by the hyperon.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [23]

    Rappold, E

    C. Rappold, E. Kim, T. R. Saito, O. Bertini, S. Bianchin, V . Bozkurt, M. Kavatsyuk, Y . Ma, F. Maas, S. Minami, et al. (HypHI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C88, 041001 (2013)

    2013

  2. [25]

    Rappold et al

    C. Rappold et al. (HypHI), Phys. Rev. C88, 041001 (2013)

    2013

  3. [1]

    D. H. Davis, Nucl. Phys. A754, 3 (2005)

    2005

  4. [2]

    R. H. Dalitz, Nucl. Phys. A754, 14 (2005)

    2005

  5. [3]

    A. Gal, E. V . Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035004 (2016), 1605.00557

    arXiv 2016

  6. [4]

    J. Chen, D. Keane, Y .-G. Ma, A. Tang, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rept. 760, 1 (2018), 1808.09619

    arXiv 2018

  7. [5]

    Tolos and L

    L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.112, 103770 (2020), 2002.09223

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    Petschauer, N

    S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C93, 014001 (2016)

    2016

Show all 102 references
  1. [7]

    S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. D. Cohen, W. Detmold, H. W. Lin, T. C. Luu, K. Orginos, A. Parreno, M. J. Savage, and A. Walker-Loud (NPLQCD), Phys. Rev. D87, 034506 (2013), 1206.5219

    2013 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Petschauer, J

    S. Petschauer, J. Haidenbauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Weise, Front. in Phys.8, 12 (2020), 2002.00424

    2020 arXiv

  3. [9]

    R. H. Dalitz and S. F. Tuan, Annals Phys.10, 307 (1960)

    1960

  4. [10]

    Cho et al

    S. Cho et al. (ExHIC), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.95, 279 (2017), 1702.00486

    2017 arXiv

  5. [11]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, 9 TABLE I: Calculated binding energies (in units of MeV) ofN NΞandN N NΞwith the ESC08c and HAL QCD potentials with respect to the d+ Ξand 3H/3He + Ξthresholds, respectively. N NΞ N N NΞ (T, Jπ) ( 1 2 , 1 2 + ) ( 1 2 , 3 ...

    2018 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Chen, F.-K

    J.-H. Chen, F.-K. Guo, Y .-G. Ma, C.-P. Shen, Q.-Y . Shou, Q. Wang, J.-J. Wu, and B.-S. Zou, Nucl. Sci. Tech.36, 55 (2025), 2411.18257

    2025 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Dalitz and G

    R. Dalitz and G. Rajasekharan, Physics Letters1, 58 (1962), ISSN 0031-9163

    1962

  8. [14]

    Rayet and R

    M. Rayet and R. H. Dalitz, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996) 46, 786 (1966), ISSN 1826-9869

    1966

  9. [15]

    B. W. Downs and R. H. Dalitz, Phys. Rev.114, 593 (1959)

    1959

  10. [16]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Science328, 58 (2010), 1003.2030

    2010 arXiv

  11. [17]

    J. Chen, X. Dong, Y .-G. Ma, and Z. Xu, Sci. Bull.68, 3252 (2023), 2311.09877

    2023 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Kamada, J

    H. Kamada, J. Golak, K. Miyagawa, H. Witala, and W. Gloeckle, Phys. Rev. C57, 1595 (1998), nucl-th/9709035

    1998 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Sun, D.-N

    K.-J. Sun, D.-N. Liu, Y .-P. Zheng, J.-H. Chen, C. M. Ko, and Y .-G. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 022301 (2025)

    2025

  14. [20]

    J. Adam, L. Adamczyk, J. R. Adams, J. K. Adkins, G. Agak- ishiev, M. M. Aggarwal, Z. Ahammed, N. N. Ajitanand, I. Alekseev, J. Alford, et al. (STAR), Nature Physics16, 409 (2020), ISSN 1745-2481

    2020

  15. [21]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 102302 (2023), 2209.07360

    2023 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Juric et al., Nucl

    M. Juric et al., Nucl. Phys. B52, 1 (1973)

    1973

  17. [24]

    K. N. Suzuki et al., PTEP2022, 013D01 (2022), 2110.09104

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. A. Miller, B. M. K. Nefkens, and I. Slaus, Phys. Rept.194, 1 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    T. O. Yamamoto et al. (J-PARC E13), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 222501 (2015), 1508.00376

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. N. Nakamura et al. (HKS (JLab E01-011)), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 012502 (2013), 1207.0571

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Botta, T

    E. Botta, T. Bressani, and A. Feliciello, Nucl. Phys. A960, 165 (2017), 1608.07448

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y . Yamamoto, T. Motoba, and M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. C80, 054321 (2009), 0911.4013

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gal, Phys

    A. Gal, Phys. Lett. B744, 352 (2015), 1503.01687

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Few Body Syst.62, 105 (2021), 2107.01134

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. C107, 024002 (2023), 2210.03387

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sch ¨afer, N

    M. Sch ¨afer, N. Barnea, and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. C106, L031001 (2022), 2202.07460

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gazda and A

    D. Gazda and A. Gal, Nucl. Phys. A954, 161 (2016), 1604.03434

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Esser et al

    A. Esser et al. (A1 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 232501 (2015), 1501.06823

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nagao et al

    S. Nagao et al. (A1 Hypernuclear), Nuovo Cim. C47, 232 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Achenbach, F

    P. Achenbach, F. Garibaldi, T. Gogami, P. Markowitz, S. Na- gao, S. N. Nakamura, J. Reinhold, L. Tang, and G. M. Urci- uoli, Nuovo Cim. C47, 231 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Ukai, EPJ Web Conf.271, 01008 (2022)

    M. Ukai, EPJ Web Conf.271, 01008 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Steinheimer, K

    J. Steinheimer, K. Gudima, A. Botvina, I. Mishustin, M. Ble- icher, and H. Stocker, Phys. Lett. B714, 85 (2012), 1203.2547

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 202301 (2022), 2110.09513

    2022

  34. [42]

    Abdulhamid et al

    M. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C110, 054911 (2024), 2311.11020

    2024

  35. [43]

    Chen et al., Nucl

    J. Chen et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024), 2407.02935

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Lett. B834, 137449 (2022), 2207.00778

    2022

  37. [45]

    Gazda and A

    D. Gazda and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 122501 (2016), 1512.01049

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Liu, Y .-W

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

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    V ´azquez Doce, D

    O. V ´azquez Doce, D. Mihaylov, and L. Fabbietti, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A61, 102302 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 172301 (2021), 2105.05578

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Nature588, 232 (2020), [Erratum: Nature 590, E13 (2021)], 2005.11495

    2020 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B833, 137272 (2022), 2104.04427

    2022 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 092301 (2020), 1905.13470

    2020 arXiv

  44. [53]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2547 (1977)

    1977

  45. [54]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D 17, 768 (1978)

    1978

  46. [55]

    P. M. M. Maessen, T. A. Rijken, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C40, 2226 (1989)

    1989

  47. [56]

    T. A. Rijken, V . G. J. Stoks, and Y . Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 59, 21 (1999), nucl-th/9807082

    1999 arXiv

  48. [57]

    D. J. Millener, C. B. Dover, and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. C38, 2700 (1988)

    1988

  49. [58]

    Hasegawa et al., Phys

    T. Hasegawa et al., Phys. Rev. C53, 1210 (1996)

    1996

  50. [59]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and Y . Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024003 (2023)

    2023

  51. [60]

    Holzenkamp, K

    B. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A500, 485 (1989)

    1989

  52. [61]

    Reuber, K

    A. Reuber, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A570, 543 (1994)

    1994

  53. [62]

    Haidenbauer and U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. C72, 044005 (2005), nucl-th/0506019

    2005 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Straub, Z.-Y

    U. Straub, Z.-Y . Zhang, K. Brauer, A. Faessler, S. B. Khad- kikar, and G. Lubeck, Nucl. Phys. A483, 686 (1988)

    1988

  55. [64]

    Fernandez, A

    F. Fernandez, A. Valcarce, U. Straub, and A. Faessler, J. Phys. G19, 2013 (1993)

    1993

  56. [65]

    Zhang, A

    Z.-Y . Zhang, A. Faessler, U. Straub, and L. Y . Glozman, Nucl. Phys. A578, 573 (1994). 10

    1994

  57. [66]

    Wang, G.-h

    F. Wang, G.-h. Wu, L.-j. Teng, and J. T. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2901 (1992), nucl-th/9210002

    1992 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Fujiwara, C

    Y . Fujiwara, C. Nakamoto, and Y . Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 94, 215 (1995)

    1995

  59. [68]

    Fujiwara, Y

    Y . Fujiwara, Y . Suzuki, and C. Nakamoto, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.58, 439 (2007), nucl-th/0607013

    2007 arXiv

  60. [69]

    S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, A. Parreno, and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A747, 55 (2005), nucl-th/0311027

    2005 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Nemura, N

    H. Nemura, N. Ishii, S. Aoki, and T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B 673, 136 (2009), 0806.1094

    2009 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Sasaki et al

    K. Sasaki et al. (HAL QCD), Nucl. Phys. A998, 121737 (2020), 1912.08630

    2020 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Polinder, J

    H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer, and U.-G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. A779, 244 (2006), nucl-th/0605050

    2006 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Polinder, J

    H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B653, 29 (2007), 0705.3753

    2007 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Haidenbauer and U

    J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B684, 275 (2010), 0907.1395

    2010 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Haidenbauer, S

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 760 (2017), 1708.08071

    2017 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Haidenbauer, S

    J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U. G. Meissner, A. Nogga, and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A915, 24 (2013), 1304.5339

    2013 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and S. Petschauer, Nucl. Phys. A954, 273 (2016), 1511.05859

    2016 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga, and H. Le, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 63 (2023), 2301.00722

    2023 arXiv

  70. [79]

    H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 072502 (2025), 2409.18577

    2025 arXiv

  71. [80]

    J.-X. Lu, Y . Xiao, Z.-W. Liu, and L.-S. Geng (2025), 2501.17185

    2025 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Li, X.-L

    K.-W. Li, X.-L. Ren, L.-S. Geng, and B.-W. Long, Chin. Phys. C42, 014105 (2018), 1612.08482

    2018 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Z.-W. Liu, J. Song, K.-W. Li, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025201 (2021), 2011.05510

    2021 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Song, Z.-W

    J. Song, Z.-W. Liu, K.-W. Li, and L.-S. Geng, Phys. Rev. C 105, 035203 (2022), 2107.04742

    2022 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Liu, K.-W

    Z.-W. Liu, K.-W. Li, and L.-S. Geng, Chin. Phys. C47, 024108 (2023), 2201.04997

    2023 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Zheng, Z.-W

    R.-Y . Zheng, Z.-W. Liu, L.-S. Geng, J.-N. Hu, and S. Wang (2025), 2501.02826

    2025 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Myo and E

    T. Myo and E. Hiyama, Phys. Rev. C.107, 054302 (2023), 2304.07662

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Hiyama and K

    E. Hiyama and K. Nakazawa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 131 (2018)

    2018

  79. [88]

    H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 217 (2021), 2103.08395

    2021 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Gal and D

    A. Gal and D. J. Millener, Phys. Lett. B701, 342 (2011), 1104.3429

    2011 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Hiyama, M

    E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, Y . Yamamoto, and T. Motoba, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 212502 (2010), 1006.2626

    2010 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Nakazawa et al., PTEP2015, 033D02 (2015)

    K. Nakazawa et al., PTEP2015, 033D02 (2015)

    2015

  83. [92]

    S. H. Hayakawa et al. (J-PARC E07), Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 062501 (2021), 2010.14317

    2021

  84. [93]

    Yoshimoto et al., PTEP2021, 073D02 (2021), 2103.08793

    M. Yoshimoto et al., PTEP2021, 073D02 (2021), 2103.08793

    2021 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Hiyama, Y

    E. Hiyama, Y . Yamamoto, T. Motoba, T. A. Rijken, and M. Kamimura, Phys. Rev. C78, 054316 (2008), 0811.3156

    2008 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Hiyama, K

    E. Hiyama, K. Sasaki, T. Miyamoto, T. Doi, T. Hatsuda, Y . Yamamoto, and T. A. Rijken, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 092501 (2020), 1910.02864

    2020 arXiv

  87. [96]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and Y . Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 102, 054003 (2020), 1504.02634

    2020 arXiv

  88. [97]

    H. Le, J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 339 (2021), 2109.06648

    2021 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Shao et al

    T. Shao et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 162501 (2025), 2501.01232

    2025 arXiv

  90. [99]

    Zhou and J

    X. Zhou and J. Yang (HIAF project Team), AAPPS Bull.32, 35 (2022)

    2022

  91. [100]

    Miwa et al

    K. Miwa et al. (J-PARC E40), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 072501 (2022), 2111.14277

    2022 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 112002 (2019), 1904.12198

    2019 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Hildenbrand, S

    F. Hildenbrand, S. Elhatisari, Z. Ren, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 215 (2024), 2406.17638

    2024 arXiv

  94. [103]

    C. J. Yang, W. G. Jiang, S. Burrello, and M. Grasso, Phys. Rev. C106, L011305 (2022), 2110.01959

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.