Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Backward nucleon production by heavy baryonic resonances in proton-nucleus collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Backward nucleons in proton-nucleus collisions come from heavy baryonic resonances rescattering inside the nucleus.

desk verdict Clean kinematic bounds for resonance-rescattering production of backward nucleons, but the UrQMD support is weaker than the abstract claims; still a legitimate paper for serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01365 v1 pith:3QYTHM4Q submitted 2019-08-04 nucl-th hep-ph

Oleksandra Panova , Anton Motornenko , Mark I. Gorenstein , Jan Steinheimer , Horst Stoecker This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph PACS 25.40.Ep25.75.-q25.75.Dw25.90.+k
keywords backwardnucleonproductioncumulativeeffectbaryonicresonancesproton-nucleuscollisionsresonancerescatteringUrQMDsimulationskinematicrestrictionsprotons
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 proposes that the backward nucleons observed at 180 degrees in proton-nucleus collisions, in a kinematic region that ordinary proton-nucleon reactions cannot reach, are produced by heavy baryonic resonances formed in the first collision and then rescattered through the nucleus. A resonance can undergo several successive collisions with nuclear nucleons, changing its mass and momentum, before finally emitting a nucleon backward either through the reaction $R+N\to N(180^\circ)+N$ or through the decay $R\to N(180^\circ)+\pi$. The paper derives, from energy-momentum conservation alone, the maximum kinetic energy of such backward nucleons when $n=2,3,\ldots$ nucleons are involved, and the resonance mass needed to reach that maximum. Transport-model simulations reproduce the observed atomic-number dependence and the energy spectra, including data for $p+\mathrm{Cu}$ at 9.5 GeV/c. If this picture is right, backward nucleons become a probe of heavy baryonic resonance states inside nuclei rather than simply evidence of pre-existing short-range correlations.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is a chain of successive baryonic-resonance rescatterings: a heavy resonance $R$, produced in a primary $p+N$ collision, propagates through the nucleus and collides with other nucleons ($R+N\to R+N$) before decaying, so that several nucleons $n=2,3,\ldots$ participate in creating the backward nucleon. The kinematic engine is energy-momentum conservation in one-dimensional longitudinal kinematics, which yields the maximal backward-nucleon kinetic energy $E^*_n$ from Eq. (6) for the two-nucleon final state and from Eq. (12) for the pionic decay channel, together with the resonance masses $M_{n-1}$ and $M_n$ from Eqs. (7) and (13). The same conservation equations also fix the resonance momentum $P_n$ required to reach these maxima. These formulas define what the paper means by the kinematic limits for backward nucleons and provide the quantitative targets that transport simulations and experiments can be checked against.

What would settle it

Measure the backward-proton spectrum for $p+\mathrm{C}$ and $p+\mathrm{Pb}$ at $p=158$ GeV/c: the mechanism predicts that the tail above roughly 0.4 GeV grows strongly with atomic number and is dominated by events of type $R+N\to N+N$; a spectrum whose high-energy tail does not grow with $A$ in this way, or that falls off before the $n=3$ bound of Eq. (6), would rule the central claim out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the cumulative backward-nucleon production in proton-nucleus collisions is driven by secondary reactions of heavy baryonic resonances inside the nucleus, not by multi-nucleon correlations present before the collision. A baryonic resonance $R$ created in a primary $p+N$ reaction can undergo successive $R+N\to R+N$ collisions with nuclear nucleons, thereby changing its mass and momentum, and then produce a backward nucleon either via $R+N\to N(180^\circ)+N$ or via the two-body decay $R\to N(180^\circ)+\pi$. For a given number $n$ of involved nuclear nucleons, the maximum kinetic energy of the backward nucleon is given by Eq. (6) for the first mechanism and by Eq. (12) for the decay mechanism, with the corresponding required resonance masses given by Eqs. (7) and (13). These maxima grow with projectile momentum up to about 10 GeV/c and then saturate; for example, the $n=2$ and $n=3$ limits reach about 0.24 GeV and 0.63 GeV, respectively, at infinite momentum. UrQMD simulations show that at large backward energies the dominant source is $R+N\to N+N$, especially in heavy targets, and the calculated spectra are consistent with measured $p+\mathrm{Cu}$ data.

Load-bearing premise

The chain works only if a heavy baryonic resonance, once produced, is long-lived enough and has a large enough rescattering cross section to hit one or more nucleons before decaying; the paper assumes this but gives no quantitative estimates of lifetimes, mean free paths, or cross sections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The maximum backward-nucleon kinetic energy rises with the number of nucleons a resonance hits, from about $0.24$ GeV for $n=2$ to about $0.63$ GeV for $n=3$ at infinite beam momentum, so heavier targets should show longer backward tails.
  • At beam momenta up to about 10 GeV/c, the backward spectrum probes baryonic resonances in the 3--4 GeV mass range; at higher momenta, increasing the beam energy buys little additional backward-nucleon energy.
  • UrQMD simulations give a backward-proton yield that grows roughly as $A^{2.46}$ for light nuclei and $A^{0.67}$ for heavier ones, and central collisions produce many more backward protons than peripheral ones.
  • In the simulations, $R+N\to N+N$ from resonances with mass above 1.5 GeV becomes the dominant source of the most energetic backward protons in $p+\mathrm{Pb}$.
  • Extending transport models to include interactions of high-mass string degrees of freedom should widen the predicted kinematic range for cumulative particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the chain picture is right, the measured endpoint of the backward spectrum at a fixed beam momentum reads off how many successive resonance--nucleon collisions the resonance survives; a cutoff below the $n=3$ bound would locate the effective lifetime and cross-section limit.
  • The same mechanism offers a common origin for cumulative-particle production and sub-threshold strangeness/charm production, so backward nucleons and heavy-flavour yields in $p+A$ collisions should be correlated observables at future facilities.
  • A clean discriminating test against short-range correlations is the $A$-scaling exponent: the resonance chain predicts a steep rise ($\alpha\simeq 2.46$ in light nuclei) that flattens for heavy nuclei, whereas pre-formed correlated pairs would give a different, roughly linear-in-$A$ trend.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that backward nucleons observed at 180 degrees in p+A collisions beyond the p+N kinematic limit arise from secondary reactions of heavy baryonic resonances. It derives maximum kinetic energies E*_n for n=2,3 involved nuclear nucleons for two mechanisms, R+N -> N+N and R -> N+pi, using energy-momentum conservation, yielding Eqs. (6), (7), (12), and (13). It then presents UrQMD simulations of p+He, p+C, and p+Pb at 6.9 and 158 GeV/c, examines the A-dependence and source decomposition of backward proton spectra, and compares with p+Cu data. The authors conclude that heavy resonance rescattering is responsible for the cumulative effect.

Significance. The kinematic bounds are clean, parameter-free consequences of conservation laws and provide a useful reference for cumulative-effect studies; the mass requirements in Eqs. (7) and (13) are concrete and testable. The UrQMD study is extensive and transparent about its model limitations. However, because states above 2.25 GeV are non-interacting strings in the simulation, the code does not exercise the proposed mechanism at the masses required for the most distinctive predictions, and the unquantified resonance-survival assumption leaves the causal claim unproven. The paper is a promising scenario paper rather than an established mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, second paragraph; Figs. 3 and 5] The UrQMD simulations do not test the central mechanism in the regime where it is needed. The text states that hadron-like states above 2.25 GeV are modeled as strings and that string degrees of freedom do not interact with other objects. However, the kinematic analysis of Sec. II requires multi-GeV resonances to reach the n=3 limits: for p=6.9 GeV/c, Eq. (7) with E*_3=0.44 GeV gives M_2 approximately 2.8 GeV, and at p=158 GeV/c the required mass is even larger. Since such states cannot rescatter in UrQMD, the simulated high-energy tail cannot arise from the proposed chain; the observed spectra are produced by Fermi motion, low-mass resonances, and N+N rescattering. The abstract's claim that the backward nucleons are 'shown to be due to' heavy-resonance rescattering therefore overstates what the simulations establish.
  2. [Section I, assumption in the introduction and Sec. II] The mechanism's viability rests on the unquantified assumption that a heavy baryonic resonance R survives long enough to undergo n-1 successive R+N collisions before decaying. No estimates are given for resonance widths or lifetimes, R+N cross sections, or mean free paths. A resonance of mass 2-3 GeV with a typical width of a few hundred MeV has a lifetime of order 1 fm/c and must survive several collisions inside a nucleus of radius several fm. The authors should provide a quantitative estimate (for example, comparing the mean free path l=1/(rho*sigma_RN) with c*tau_R=hbar*c/Gamma) or explicit model calculations. Without this, the paper establishes a kinematic upper bound, not a production mechanism.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 4(b)] The claimed agreement with data is not assessable as presented. The comparison requires an unspecified additional normalization factor for the measured data, and no uncertainties are quoted for either the data or the histograms. In addition, the energy range displayed is dominated by Fermi motion and N+N rescattering rather than by the proposed heavy-resonance mechanism, as Fig. 5 shows. Please specify the normalization procedure, include uncertainties, and, if possible, compare in the tail region where the resonance mechanism is expected to dominate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III] There is a typo in 'simulatioms' in the paragraph after Fig. 3; it should be 'simulations'.
  2. [Section III and Fig. 4(a)] The alpha values alpha=2.46 and alpha=0.67 are extracted from only three target nuclei, and no uncertainties are given; please state the fit procedure and errors.
  3. [Captions and notation] The definitions of the backward cone (180 degrees +/- 6 degrees and 180 degrees +/- 15 degrees) appear only in the text of Sec. III; please also state them in the captions of Figs. 3 and 5 for clarity.
  4. [Fig. 4(b)] Please clarify in the caption whether the experimental points are the original Frankel et al. data or a renormalized version, and specify the beam energy and acceptance of the data.
  5. [PACS numbers] The PACS entry '25.90+k' should likely be '25.90.+k'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic maximum energies are derived from conservation laws, UrQMD is an independent simulation, and the only mild issue is a non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central kinematic results E_n^* from Eqs. (2), (6), and (12) are obtained directly from the four-momentum conservation equations (1), (5), and (9) by a standard maximization condition (p_1 = ... = p_n = (p + k_n)/n), with no parameter fitted to the backward-proton data or to the UrQMD histograms. The companion quantities M_{n-1} and P_n (Eqs. (7), (8), (13), (14)) are algebraic consequences of the same conservation laws, not fitted inputs. UrQMD is an independent, pre-existing transport model; the comparison in Fig. 4(b) uses only an overall normalization factor for the data, and the source decomposition in Fig. 5 is a Monte Carlo diagnostic rather than a fit. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. III that states above 2.25 GeV are modeled as non-interacting strings, so the simulation does not test the high-mass resonance-rescattering branch; this is a limitation of the evidence for the causal claim, but it is not a circularity because the kinematic derivation does not use UrQMD as input. The scenario is credited to Ref. [27] by one of the present authors, but the assumption is stated explicitly in Sec. I and the derivations stand on the conservation-law calculation, so this self-citation is not load-bearing. There is no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to a fit or to the cited prior work.

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

No genuinely new particles or forces are introduced. The free_parameters list is empty because the central kinematic derivation uses only standard masses (nucleon and pion) and contains no fitted constants. The key extras are the ad hoc assumption of resonance survival for multiple rescatterings and the model-dependent assumptions of UrQMD.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Energy-momentum conservation applies to each p+N and R+N collision and to resonance decay.
    Used throughout Sec. II to derive the maximum backward-nucleon energies and resonance masses in Eqs. (6), (7), (12), and (13).
  • domain assumption To maximize backward-nucleon energy, it is sufficient to consider only longitudinal motion and no additional hadron production.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. II; this is a valid maximization condition for an upper bound, but it means the derived E* values are not guaranteed for realistic multi-particle final states.
  • ad hoc to paper Heavy baryonic resonances can survive long enough to undergo successive R+N -> R+N collisions before decaying.
    This is the paper's proposed mechanism, stated in Sec. I; no quantitative lifetime, mean free path, or cross-section support is given, and it is the load-bearing physical assumption.
  • domain assumption UrQMD with resonances up to 2.25 GeV and non-interacting strings is a suitable test bed for the mechanism.
    The paper uses UrQMD-3.4, but explicitly notes that strings cannot rescatter, so the simulation only tests the low-mass resonance part and cannot confirm the high-mass branch of the proposed mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Backward nucleon production by heavy baryonic resonances in proton-nucleus collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QYTHM4Q

@misc{pith2026190801365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Backward nucleon production by heavy baryonic resonances in proton-nucleus collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QYTHM4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01365}
}
abstract

The production of backward nucleons, $N(180^\circ)$, at $180^\circ$ in the nuclear target rest frame in proton-nucleus ($\mathrm{p}+A$) collisions is studied. The backward nucleons appearing outside of the kinematically allowed range of proton-nucleon ($\mathrm{p}+N$) reactions are shown to be due to secondary reactions of heavy baryonic resonances produced inside the nucleus. Baryonic resonances $R$ created in primary $\mathrm{p}+N$ reactions can change their masses and momenta due to successive collisions $R+N\rightarrow R +N $ with other nuclear nucleons. Two distinct mechanisms and kinematic restrictions are studied: the reaction $R+N\rightarrow N(180^\circ)+N$ and the resonance decay $R\rightarrow N(180^\circ)+\pi$. Simulations of $\mathrm{p}+A$ collisions using the Ultra-relativistic Quantum Molecular Dynamics model support these mechanisms and are consistent with available data on proton backward production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01365 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Maximal kinetic energies E∗ 2 and E∗ 3 of the backward nucleons given by Eq. (6) are shown as functions of the projectile proton momentum p by solid red and blue lines, respectively. Horizontal dotted lines show the upper limits at p → ∞. (b) The resonance masses M1 and M2 given by Eq. (7) are shown by solid red and blue lines, respectively. Dashed lines on (a) and (b) represent the same quantities but given by … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solid lines present the momentum Pn (8) of baryonic resonance in reaction R + N → N +N(180◦ ) for n = 2 (upper solid red line) and n = 3 (lower solid blue line). Dashed lines present Pn (14) in reaction R → N(180◦ ) + π for n = 2 (upper dashed red line) and n = 3 (lower dashed blue line). B. R → N(180◦ ) + π Let us assume now a resonance decay into the backward nucleon and pion. If n nuclear nucleons are involved, t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra of the backward protons as functions of their kinetic energy. For each reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The backward proton spectra at the fixed kinetic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) and (c) The UrQMD spectra of the backward protons (180 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim

    R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. 3, 147 (1965)

    1965

  2. [2]

    (1) and the maxima criteria ∂k2/∂p1 = ∂k2/∂p2 = 0 one finds nucleon momenta p1 = p2 = (p +k2)/2 which maximize the backward nucleon momentum k2 = k∗

    From Eq. (1) and the maxima criteria ∂k2/∂p1 = ∂k2/∂p2 = 0 one finds nucleon momenta p1 = p2 = (p +k2)/2 which maximize the backward nucleon momentum k2 = k∗

    work page

  3. [3]

    Nuclear Matter under Extreme Conditions

    This leads to the following algebraic equation for the maximal kinetic energy, E∗ 2≡ √ (k∗ 2)2 +m2−m, of the backward nucleon: E∗ 2 =m + √ p2 +m2− 2 √ m2 + (p +k∗ 2 2 )2 . (2) The solution of Eq. (2) for the kinetic energy, E∗ 2, is presented in Fig. 1 (a) by the lower solid (red) line. The value of E∗ 2 increases with the projectile proton momentum p, an...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Hagedorn and J

    R. Hagedorn and J. Rafelski, Phys. Lett. 97B, 136 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    M. I. Gorenstein, V. K. Petrov, and G. M. Zinovev, Phys. Lett. 106B, 327 (1981)

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Stoecker, A

    H. Stoecker, A. A. Ogloblin, and W. Greiner, Z. Phys. A303, 259 (1981)

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Vovchenko, M

    V. Vovchenko, M. I. Gorenstein, C. Greiner, and H. Stoecker, Phys. Rev. C99, 045204 (2019), 1811.05737

    arXiv 2019

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    S. A. Bass et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 41, 255 (1998), [Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.41,225(1998)], nucl-th/9803035

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bleicher et al., J

    M. Bleicher et al., J. Phys. G25, 1859 (1999), hep-ph/9909407

    1999 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cassing and E

    W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C78, 034919 (2008), 0808.0022

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cassing and E

    W. Cassing and E. L. Bratkovskaya, Nucl. Phys. A831, 215 (2009), 0907.5331

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Belkacem et al., Phys

    M. Belkacem et al., Phys. Rev. C58, 1727 (1998), nucl-th/9804058

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjostrand, Phys. Rept. 97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  7. [15]

    Beitel, K

    M. Beitel, K. Gallmeister, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C90, 045203 (2014), 1402.1458

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. M. Baldin et al., Yad. Fiz. 18, 79 (1973)

    1973

  9. [17]

    A. M. Baldin et al., Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20, 629 (1975), [Yad. Fiz.20,1201(1974)]

    1975

  10. [18]

    R. D. Amado and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1435 (1976)

    1976

  11. [19]

    Frankel, Phys

    S. Frankel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1338 (1977)

    1977

  12. [20]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Lett. 69B, 93 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept. 76, 215 (1981). 15

    1981

  14. [22]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept. 160, 235 (1988)

    1988

  15. [23]

    Frankfurt, M

    L. Frankfurt, M. Sargsian, and M. Strikman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23, 2991 (2008), 0806.4412

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. M. Baldin, Fiz. Elem. Chast. Atom. Yadra 8, 429 (1977), [,296(1978)]

    1977

  17. [25]

    V. V. Burov, V. K. Lukyanov, and A. I. Titov, Phys. Lett. 67B, 46 (1977)

    1977

  18. [26]

    A. V. Efremov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24, 633 (1976), [Yad. Fiz.24,1208(1976)]

    1976

  19. [27]

    A. V. Efremov, A. B. Kaidalov, V. T. Kim, G. I. Lykasov, and N. V. Slavin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 47, 868 (1988), [Yad. Fiz.47,1364(1988)]

    1988

  20. [28]

    M. A. Braun and V. V. Vechernin, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 92, 156 (2001), [,156(2001)]

    2001

  21. [29]

    M. I. Gorenstein and G. M. Zinovev, Phys. Lett. 67B, 100 (1977)

    1977

  22. [30]

    M. I. Gorenstein, G. M. Zinovev, and V. P. Shelest, Yad. Fiz. 26, 788 (1977)

    1977

  23. [31]

    I. G. Bogatskaya, M. I. Gorenstein, and G. M. Zinovev, Yad. Fiz. 27, 856 (1978)

    1978

  24. [32]

    I. G. Bogatskaya, C. B. Chiu, M. I. Gorenstein, and G. M. Zinovev, Phys. Rev. C22, 209 (1980)

    1980

  25. [33]

    D. V. Anchishkin, M. I. Gorenstein, and G. M. Zinovev, Phys. Lett. 108B, 47 (1982)

    1982

  26. [34]

    E. S. Golubyatnikova, G. A. Shakhanova, and V. L. Shmonin, Acta Phys. Polon. B15, 585 (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    B. N. Kalinkin and V. L. Shmonin, Phys. Scripta 42, 393 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    Motornenko and M

    A. Motornenko and M. I. Gorenstein, J. Phys. G44, 025105 (2017), 1604.04308

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Motornenko and M

    A. Motornenko and M. I. Gorenstein, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 10, 681 (2017), 1610.02950

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aichelin and C

    J. Aichelin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2661 (1985)

    1985

  31. [39]

    Mosel, Ann

    U. Mosel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 41, 29 (1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    Hartnack, L

    G. Hartnack, L. Sehn, J. Jaenicke, H. Stoecker, and J. Aichelin, Nucl. Phys. A580, 643 (1994)

    1994

  33. [41]

    Steinheimer and M

    J. Steinheimer and M. Bleicher, J. Phys. G43, 015104 (2016), 1503.07305

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Steinheimer, A

    J. Steinheimer, A. Botvina, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C95, 014911 (2017), 1605.03439

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gallmeister, M

    K. Gallmeister, M. Beitel, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C98, 024915 (2018), 1712.04018

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gazdzicki, M

    M. Gazdzicki, M. I. Gorenstein, and S. Mrowczynski, Eur. Phys. J. C5, 129 (1998), nucl- th/9701013

    1998

  37. [45]

    H. J. Weyer, Phys. Rept. 195, 295 (1990)

    1990

  38. [46]

    Bierlich, G

    C. Bierlich, G. Gustafson, L. L¨ onnblad, and H. Shah, JHEP 10, 134 (2018), 1806.10820

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Frankel et al., Phys

    S. Frankel et al., Phys. Rev. C20, 2257 (1979). 16

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.