Low-lying di-hadronic states in relativistic harmonic model

Ajay Kumar Rai; J N Pandya; P C Vinodkumar

REVIEW

Low-lying di-hadronic states in relativistic harmonic model

Ajay Kumar Rai, J N Pandya, P C Vinodkumar

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 1 Mar 2006 · 32 references

Pith's verdict: A sign error in the binding-energy definition makes every predicted molecule unbound, so the paper's central claim fails even though the model application itself is a legitimate extension.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0603008 (version 1)

Pith IDGD5DD44B, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAjay Kumar Rai, J N Pandya, P C Vinodkumar. "Low-lying di-hadronic states in relativistic harmonic model." arXiv:hep-ph/0603008 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/GD5DD44B

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

You should know this one before you spend time on it: every state the paper calls a bound molecule is actually unbound by construction. In Eq. (14) the di-hadron mass is the sum of the two constituent hadron masses plus the reported binding energy, and every binding energy in Tables 2-4 is positive. That puts each predicted state above its two-hadron threshold, not below it. The potential in Eq. (16) is explicitly negative, so the expectation value in Eq. (15) should be negative, and Eq. (18) should produce a negative binding energy. The paper reports positive values and adds them. This is not a matter of convention; it directly contradicts the authors' own equations. If you take the numbers at face value, the K-N pentaquark sits 94 MeV above the K+N threshold, which is not a bound molecule.

Credit where it is due: applying the RHM/ERHM framework to di-hadronic molecules is a reasonable extension of an established program, and the paper is transparent about its inputs. The authors fit the molecular coupling kmol to the K-N pentaquark mass and then use it for all other states, which is a standard procedure, though calling the subsequent predictions 'parameter-free' overstates the case. The tables are clear and the literature is cited appropriately.

The softer spots: the additivity rule Omega12 = Omega1 + Omega2 has no independent justification, and it directly sets the scale of every binding energy. And the identifications with known exotic states are mostly mass matching without strong quantum-number discrimination. But those would be fixable weaknesses. The sign error is load-bearing and kills the paper's central claim. It is not a subtle judgment call; the numbers mean the opposite of what the text says.

Who this is for: a reader interested in the RHM machinery might find the table of raw expectation values useful, but the paper as written cannot be salvaged without a major correction. If a referee got it, the sign issue would be the first thing they'd flag. I would desk reject this one rather than send it out, and I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee report

Significance

If correct, the model would provide a unified description of a wide class of multi-quark candidates in terms of two-hadron molecules, which would be useful given the renewed interest in exotic hadrons. The paper contains many explicit numerical results across three sectors and attempts to connect them to experimental states. However, the central claim is undermined by a fundamental sign inconsistency: the computed binding energies are all reported as positive and are added to the two-hadron threshold, so the resulting 'molecular' states are unbound by construction. In addition, the one interaction parameter is fitted to the very state that is later presented as a prediction, so the claimed success is not independent. These issues are load-bearing and prevent the results from supporting the stated conclusions.

Major objections (3)

[Section 3, Eq. (14) and Tables 2-4] A bound di-hadronic molecule must have M_{h1h2} < M_{h1}+M_{h2}, i.e., the binding energy E_B^{h1h2} must be negative. The manuscript defines M_{h1h2} = M_{h1}+M_{h2}+E_B^{h1h2} and then lists only positive values of E_B (e.g., E_{K-N}=94.24 MeV in Table 3, giving M_{K-N}=1.540 GeV above the K+N threshold of 1.446 GeV). The potential in Eq. (16) is explicitly attractive, so the expectation value in Eq. (15) is negative; if the sign of Eq. (18) were taken literally, the K-N mass would be 1.352 GeV, contradicting the fitted input. The manuscript therefore never produces a bound molecule, and the identifications in the abstract and Section 4 do not follow.
[Section 3, k_mol fitting] The molecular coupling k_mol=0.081 is determined by requiring the K-N di-hadron mass to equal the experimental Z+(1.54) mass. Because Eq. (14) expresses this mass as M_K+M_N+E_B and E_B in Eq. (18) is linear in k_mol, the K-N row of Table 3 reproduces the input by construction and is not a prediction. The claim in Section 4 that the study provides 'parameter-free predictions' is therefore overstated; all other entries in Tables 2-4 are a one-parameter scan after this fit.
[Section 3, additivity rule for Omega_12] The di-hadronic size parameter is assumed to be Omega_12 = Omega_1 + Omega_2 (text before Eq. (18)), with no derivation, physical justification, or sensitivity study. Since E_B in Eq. (18) depends on Omega_12, this assumption fixes the scale of every computed binding energy and hence every predicted mass. The agreement of Tables 2-4 with experiment is not robust to plausible changes in this rule, and the paper provides no criterion for validating the additivity choice.

Minor objections (5)

[Abstract and Section 1] There are several typographical errors: 'bi nding' in the abstract, 'suudd' should be 'uudds' in Section 1, and 'low-laying' should be 'low-lying' in Section 4.
[Table 2] Several identified experimental states differ from the computed masses by large amounts not addressed in the text, e.g., K-K at 1.085 GeV is compared with f0(0.980), a 105 MeV discrepancy; K-K* at 1.499 GeV is compared with K1(1.400), a 99 MeV discrepancy. The paper would need an explicit uncertainty estimate or a discussion of model accuracy for such identifications to be meaningful.
[Eq. (18)] The printed form of Eq. (18) is garbled and difficult to read; it should be typeset clearly. The same applies to Eq. (12), which is nearly illegible in the current PDF.
[References] Some references are outdated or contain inconsistencies (e.g., the PDG compilation cited as 2002 in [7], and the misspelling 'Phy. Rev.' in [29] and [32]). The authors should update and standardize the bibliography.
[Section 4] The statement that the spin-hyperfine interaction of the di-hadronic state is 'negligibly small' is made without any numerical estimate or justification, and it is not supported by the model details given in the paper.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper identifies many known exotic hadrons as di-hadronic molecules—two ordinary hadrons interacting through residual confined-gluon exchange—with masses following from a single fitted coupling.

The reading

The paper argues that many experimentally known exotic hadrons—states that do not fit quark-antiquark or three-quark structure—are di-hadronic molecules: two ordinary mesons or baryons interacting through a residual, screened confined-gluon exchange potential. Individual hadron masses and size parameters come from a relativistic harmonic model, and the molecular ground state is taken as a single Gaussian. One molecular coupling, $k_{\mathrm{mol}}=0.081$, is fixed by the K-N pentaquark candidate at 1.540 GeV; all other masses are then computed without further free parameters. The paper identifies f0(0.980), h1(1.170), f0(1.70), f2(1.565), f2(1.95), ψ(4.040), and related states as di-mesonic molecules, and gives pentaquark and di-baryon mass tables for future searches.

What carries the argument

The central object is the di-hadronic molecular potential, the asymptotic limit of the confined one-gluon exchange potential, $V(r_{12})=-(k_{\mathrm{mol}}/r_{12})e^{-C^2 r_{12}^2/2}$, evaluated in a normalized Gaussian ground state with size parameter $\Omega_{12}$. The size parameter is assumed additive, $\Omega_{12}=\Omega_1+\Omega_2$, with individual hadron size parameters and masses taken from the relativistic harmonic model; $C=50$ MeV is the gluon screening parameter. The expectation value yields the closed form of eq. (18), proportional to $k_{\mathrm{mol}}\Omega_{12}^{3/2}/(\Omega_{12}+C^2/2)$, and with $k_{\mathrm{mol}}=0.081$ fixed by the K-N pentaquark this single formula produces every mass in Tables 2–4.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the exotic hadron spectrum below about 4 GeV is systematically reproduced by a molecular picture in which each resonance is a pair of ordinary hadrons interacting through the asymptotic confined one-gluon exchange potential. After fixing the molecular coupling once from the 1.540 GeV K-N pentaquark, the calculated masses land near f0(0.980), h1(1.170), K1(1.400), f0(1.590), f0(1.750), f2(1.950), D1(2.420), DsJ(2.573), X(3.870), and ψ(4.040); the pentaquark sector yields a 1.427 GeV π-Σ state near Λ(1.405) and a 1.833 GeV K-Δ state near a reported 1.85 GeV resonance. The paper takes these coincidences as evidence that the states in question are di-hadronic molecules rather than compact multiquark states.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction stands or falls with the assumption that the molecular size parameter is exactly the sum of the two hadron size parameters, $\Omega_{12}=\Omega_1+\Omega_2$, with the ground state a single Gaussian, because every binding energy is proportional to that size parameter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the identifications are right, f0(0.980), h1(1.170), f2(1.950), X(3.870), and ψ(4.040) are tetra-quark molecules with the $J^{PC}$ of two-meson combinations, not ordinary quark-antiquark mesons.
The pentaquark sector predicts a family of negative-parity baryons between 1.180 and 2.247 GeV, including a π-Σ molecule at 1.427 GeV close to Λ(1.405) and a K-Δ state at 1.833 GeV near a reported 1.85 GeV resonance.
Di-baryon molecules N-N, N-Δ, Δ-Δ, and strangeness-carrying analogues should appear with masses 1.990–2.907 GeV and interaction energies of 112–120 MeV, giving explicit $J^P$ assignments to search for.
Because only one coupling is fitted, all other entries in Tables 2–4 are predictions made before further data, so future spectroscopy can confirm or reject the pattern.

Reading between the lines

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

The additivity rule $\Omega_{12}=\Omega_1+\Omega_2$ is not derived in the paper; it could be checked by measuring a two-hadron system's size through scattering or correlation experiments, and if wrong it would shift every mass while possibly preserving the overall identifications after refitting $k_{\mathrm{mol}}$.
Because the molecular potential is assumed independent of flavour and hadron type, the same formula yields concrete masses for B-meson and hidden-charm molecules; the screening parameter $C$ is the most natural place for flavour dependence if those predictions fail.
Read strictly, the positive interaction energies listed in Tables 2–4 are added to the two-hadron thresholds, so the states sit above threshold; treating them as genuine bound molecules would require a sign convention or a dynamical mechanism making the net interaction attractive enough to bind.

Original abstract

Di-hadronic molecules such as di-meson, meson-baryon and di-baryon states are studied in the relativistic confinement model. We have computed the binding energy of the di-hadronic systems like $K-N$, $\Pi-N$, $\rho-N$ etc., as penta-quark states, 2$\pi$, $\rho-\rho$, $K-K^*$, $K^*-K^*$, $D-D^*$ etc. as tetra-quark states and $N-N$, $N-\Delta$, $\Delta-\Delta$ etc. as di-baryonic states using a molecular interaction provided by asymptotic expression of the confined gluon exchange potential. We find the lowest penta-quark state lies in the energy range of 1.180 - 2.247 GeV as predicted by other theoretical models. The exotic states such as $f0 (0.982)$, $h1 (1.170)$, $f0 (1.70)$, $f2 (1.565)$, $f2 (1.95)$, $\psi(4.040)$ etc. are identified as the di-mesonic hadron molecules. The low-lying di-baryon molecular states found to be in the range of 1.990-2.907 GeV with their binding energies lying between 112-120 MeV.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,722 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.83 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Di-hadronic molecules such as di-meson, meson-baryon and di-baryon states are studied in the relativistic confinement model. We have computed the binding energy of the di-hadronic systems like $K-N$, $\Pi-N$, $\rho-N$ etc., as penta-quark states, 2$\pi$, $\rho-\rho$, $K-K^*$, $K^*-K^*$, $D-D^*$ etc. as tetra-quark states and $N-N$, $N-\Delta$, $\Delta-\Delta$ etc. as di-baryonic states using a molecular interaction provided by asymptotic expression of the confined gluon exchange potential. We find the lowest penta-quark state lies in the energy range of 1.180 - 2.247 GeV as predicted by other theoretical models. The exotic states such as $f0 (0.982)$, $h1 (1.170)$, $f0 (1.70)$, $f2 (1.565)$, $f2 (1.95)$, $\psi(4.040)$ etc. are identified as the di-mesonic hadron molecules. The low-lying di-baryon molecular states found to be in the range of 1.990-2.907 GeV with their binding energies lying between 112-120 MeV.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Di-hadronic molecules such as di-meson, meson-baryon and di-baryon states are studied in the relativistic confinement model.	contribution 0.66	0.72	0.05	asserted 0.95
s1	We have computed the binding energy of the di-hadronic systems like $K-N$, $\Pi-N$, $\rho-N$ etc., as penta-quark states, 2$\pi$, $\rho-\rho$, $K-K^$, $K^-K^$, $D-D^$ etc. as tetra-quark states and $N-N$, $N-\Delta$, $\Delta-\Delta$ etc. as di-baryonic states using a molecular interaction provided by asymptotic expression of the confined gluon exchange potential.	method 0.63	0.96	0.13	asserted 1.00
s2	We find the lowest penta-quark state lies in the energy range of 1.180 - 2.247 GeV as predicted by other theoretical models.	result 0.99	0.86	0.22	asserted 1.00
s3	The exotic states such as $f0 (0.982)$, $h1 (1.170)$, $f0 (1.70)$, $f2 (1.565)$, $f2 (1.95)$, $\psi(4.040)$ etc. are identified as the di-mesonic hadron molecules.	result 0.98	0.75	0.16	asserted 1.00
s4	The low-lying di-baryon molecular states found to be in the range of 1.990-2.907 GeV with their binding energies lying between 112-120 MeV.	result 1.00	0.95	0.24	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.52 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (32)

[1]

J L Rosner, Phys. Rep. 11 89 (1974)

View on Pith 1974
[2]

T Barnes, K Dooley and N Isgur, Phys. Rev. Lett. B183 210 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[3]

R L Jaffe, Phy. Rev. D38 195 (1977)

View on Pith 1977
[4]

S Fleck, C Grignoux and J. Richard, Phys. Lett. B220 616 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[5]

S Zouzou et al., Z Phys. C30 457 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[6]

H J Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B172 242 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[7]

Particle Data Group, C Caso et al.,Eur. Phys. J.C3 1 (1998), K Hagiwara et al., Particle Data Group, Phy. Rev. D66 1 (2002), Erich Braaten, Masaoki Kusonoki and Shmuel Nussinov, arXive:hep-ph/0404161 v1 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[8]

T Nakano et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 012002 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[9]

M Lutz et al, Nucl. Phys. A700 193 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[10]

J.Nacher, E Oset, H Toki and A Ramos, Phys. Lett. B455 55 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[11]

R L Jaffe, Phy. Rev. D15 281 (1977)

View on Pith 1977
[12]

J. Weinstein and N Isgur Phys. Rev. D27 588 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[13]

Jun Sugiyama et. al. arXiv : hep-ph/0309271 v 1 24 Sep. 2003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[14]

D. Diakonov, Prog. Particle and Nuclear Phys. 51 173 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[15]

N G Kelkar, M Nowakowski and K P Khemchandani, Nucl. Phys. A724 357 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[16]

N G Kelkar, M Nowakowski and K P Khemchandani, J. Phys. G29 1001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[17]

F Iachello, N C Mukhopadhyay, .and L Zhang , Phys. Rev. D44 898 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[18]

C Quigg and J Rosner, Phys. Rep. 56 167 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[19]

W Buchmuller and S S Tye , Phys, Rev D24 132 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[20]

Stephen Godfrey, arXive:hep-ph/0406228 v1 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[21]

N Isgur and G Karl, Phys. Rev. D18 4187 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[22]

A N Mitra, and I L Santhanam, Z. Phys. C8 33 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[23]

P C Vinodkumar and S B Khadkikar, Phys. Lett. B329 81 (1994) and Errata 340 264 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[24]

S B Khadkikar and S K Gupta, Phys. Lett. B124, 523 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[25]

S B Khadkikar and P C Vinodkumar, Pramana- J. Phys. 29 39 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[26]

P C Vinodkumar, K B Vijayakumar and S B Khadkikar, Pramana- J. Phys. 39 47 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[27]

S B Khadkikar and K B Vijayakumar, Phys. Lett. B254 320 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[28]

K B Vijayakumar and S B Khadkikar, Nucl. Phys. A556 396 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[29]

J N Pandya and P C Vinodkumar Pramana- J. Phys 57 821(2001) (and reference therein). P C Vinodkumar, J N Pandya, V M Bannur and S B Khadkikar, Eur. Phys. J. A4 83(1999)

View on Pith 2001
[30]

K B Vijaykumar, B Hanumaiah and S Pepin, Eur. Phys. J. A19 247 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[31]

P C Vinodkumar, J N Pandya and Ajay Kumar Rai, DAE-BRNS Symposium on Nucl. Phys. 46 B 334 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[32]

H. Garcilazo, A. Valcarce and F. Fernandez Phy. Rev. C60 044002 (1999) and X. Q. Yuan, Z.Y. Zhang, Y. W. Yu and P. N. Shen, ibid 045203 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

How the literature uses it

3 arXiv papers cite this in 3 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

J L Rosner, Phys. Rep. 11 89 (1974)

View on Pith 1974

[2] [2]

T Barnes, K Dooley and N Isgur, Phys. Rev. Lett. B183 210 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[3] [3]

R L Jaffe, Phy. Rev. D38 195 (1977)

View on Pith 1977

[4] [4]

S Fleck, C Grignoux and J. Richard, Phys. Lett. B220 616 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[5] [5]

S Zouzou et al., Z Phys. C30 457 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[6] [6]

H J Lipkin, Phys. Lett. B172 242 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[7] [7]

Particle Data Group, C Caso et al.,Eur. Phys. J.C3 1 (1998), K Hagiwara et al., Particle Data Group, Phy. Rev. D66 1 (2002), Erich Braaten, Masaoki Kusonoki and Shmuel Nussinov, arXive:hep-ph/0404161 v1 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[8] [8]

T Nakano et. al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 012002 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[9] [9]

M Lutz et al, Nucl. Phys. A700 193 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[10] [10]

J.Nacher, E Oset, H Toki and A Ramos, Phys. Lett. B455 55 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[11] [11]

R L Jaffe, Phy. Rev. D15 281 (1977)

View on Pith 1977

[12] [12]

J. Weinstein and N Isgur Phys. Rev. D27 588 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[13] [13]

Jun Sugiyama et. al. arXiv : hep-ph/0309271 v 1 24 Sep. 2003

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[14] [14]

D. Diakonov, Prog. Particle and Nuclear Phys. 51 173 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[15] [15]

N G Kelkar, M Nowakowski and K P Khemchandani, Nucl. Phys. A724 357 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[16] [16]

N G Kelkar, M Nowakowski and K P Khemchandani, J. Phys. G29 1001 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[17] [17]

F Iachello, N C Mukhopadhyay, .and L Zhang , Phys. Rev. D44 898 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[18] [18]

C Quigg and J Rosner, Phys. Rep. 56 167 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[19] [19]

W Buchmuller and S S Tye , Phys, Rev D24 132 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[20] [20]

Stephen Godfrey, arXive:hep-ph/0406228 v1 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[21] [21]

N Isgur and G Karl, Phys. Rev. D18 4187 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[22] [22]

A N Mitra, and I L Santhanam, Z. Phys. C8 33 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[23] [23]

P C Vinodkumar and S B Khadkikar, Phys. Lett. B329 81 (1994) and Errata 340 264 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[24] [24]

S B Khadkikar and S K Gupta, Phys. Lett. B124, 523 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[25] [25]

S B Khadkikar and P C Vinodkumar, Pramana- J. Phys. 29 39 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[26] [26]

P C Vinodkumar, K B Vijayakumar and S B Khadkikar, Pramana- J. Phys. 39 47 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[27] [27]

S B Khadkikar and K B Vijayakumar, Phys. Lett. B254 320 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[28] [28]

K B Vijayakumar and S B Khadkikar, Nucl. Phys. A556 396 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[29] [29]

J N Pandya and P C Vinodkumar Pramana- J. Phys 57 821(2001) (and reference therein). P C Vinodkumar, J N Pandya, V M Bannur and S B Khadkikar, Eur. Phys. J. A4 83(1999)

View on Pith 2001

[30] [30]

K B Vijaykumar, B Hanumaiah and S Pepin, Eur. Phys. J. A19 247 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[31] [31]

P C Vinodkumar, J N Pandya and Ajay Kumar Rai, DAE-BRNS Symposium on Nucl. Phys. 46 B 334 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[32] [32]

H. Garcilazo, A. Valcarce and F. Fernandez Phy. Rev. C60 044002 (1999) and X. Q. Yuan, Z.Y. Zhang, Y. W. Yu and P. N. Shen, ibid 045203 (1999)

View on Pith 1999