The Baryon-Baryon Interaction in the Large-$N_c$ Limit

Thomas Vonk; Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

The Baryon-Baryon Interaction in the Large-$N_c$ Limit

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the large-$N_c$ limit of QCD reduces the 15 leading-order low-energy constants of the SU(3) baryon-baryon contact interaction to three independent ones, and fixes the axial couplings $F/D=2/3$ and $C/D=2$.

desk verdict A useful large-N_c reduction of hyperon-nucleon contact couplings, with solid sum rules against existing fits; the box-diagram derivation of C/D=2 is a real gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13677 v2 pith:2KP5K5IW submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph hep-lathep-thnucl-th

Thomas Vonk , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-lathep-thnucl-th

keywords large-NcQCDbaryon-baryonpotentialchiralperturbationtheoryhyperon-nucleoninteractionlow-energyconstantsspin-flavorsymmetrydecupletbaryonsF/Dratio

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

Hyperon-nucleon forces are poorly known because scattering data are sparse. This paper argues that the large-$N_c$ limit of QCD, where baryons behave as collections of $N_c$ quarks with an emergent spin-flavor symmetry, imposes sharp constraints on the chiral effective potential that describes those forces. Matching the leading-order contact potential of SU(3) chiral perturbation theory to the large-$N_c$ Hartree potential reduces the 15 low-energy constants to three linear combinations, and consistency of one- and two-meson exchange requires the axial ratios $F/D=2/3$ and $C/D=2$. If these constraints survive at $N_c=3$, hyperon-nucleon potentials become much more predictive, which matters for hypernuclei and for the role of hyperons in neutron stars.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the contracted SU(6) spin-flavor algebra generated by the operators $\hat S_i$, $\hat T_a$, and $\hat G_{ia}$, together with the Hartree Hamiltonian built from them, whose baryon-baryon matrix elements form the large-$N_c$ potential. The crucial fact is that matrix elements of $\hat T^a$ and $\hat G^{ia}$ scale differently depending on strangeness: for baryons with strangeness of order one, the strange-flavor components are suppressed while the up-down components grow with $N_c$. This strangeness-dependent scaling dictates which operator combinations survive at leading order, produces the sum rules among the low-energy constants, and explains why pion exchange is $O(N_c)$ while kaon and eta exchanges are suppressed.

What would settle it

A direct evaluation of the box and crossed-box loop integrals in Eq. (4.31) with the full spin-transition operators for decuplet intermediate states would settle the assumption; if the integrands are not equal up to the stated $2/3$ prefactor at leading order in $1/N_c$, the cancellation and the $C/D=2$ result collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the large-$N_c$ Hartree potential and the SU(3) chiral potential describe the same low-energy object, and matching the two at leading order fixes the structure of the contact interaction. Only the central part $c_S$ and the spin-spin part $c_T$ of the contact potential are of order $N_c$; all other contact pieces are suppressed by $1/m_B^2$. The matching yields the relations $C_S^{(2)}\approx -C_S^{(1)}$, $C_T^{(2)}\approx \tfrac{5}{13} C_T^{(1)}$, and $C_T^{(3)}\approx -\tfrac{6}{13} C_T^{(1)}$, which reduce the six leading-order coefficients to three independent ones. One-meson exchange is mandatory to generate the missing $O(N_c)$ tensor force, and matching its spin-flavor structure to the operator basis gives $F/D=2/3$. At two-meson exchange, naive power counting gives an $O(N_c^2)$ contribution from box diagrams, but including decuplet intermediate states with $C=\tfrac{6}{5} g_A$ (equivalently $C/D=2$) cancels these terms between box and crossed-box diagrams, leaving a controlled $O(1)$ two-meson-exchange piece.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of $C/D=2$ assumes, without explicitly evaluating the loop integrals, that the two-meson box and crossed-box diagrams give identical leading-order spin and momentum structure for intermediate octet and decuplet baryons, differing only by a factor $2/3$ for each decuplet line; if this equality fails, the cancellation of the $N_c^2$ contributions does not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Hyperon-nucleon potential fits can be carried out with only three independent leading-order contact low-energy constants instead of fifteen, with the derived sum rules predicting $C^{\Sigma\Sigma}_{1S0}$ and $C^{\Sigma\Sigma}_{3S1}$ from the $\Lambda\Lambda$ and $\Lambda\Sigma$ channels.
One-pion exchange carries the entire $O(N_c)$ tensor force; kaon exchange is $O(1)$ and eta exchange is suppressed by $1/N_c$, which justifies neglecting eta exchange in hyperon-nucleon potentials.
With $F/D=2/3$ and $C/D=2$, the one-meson and two-meson exchange diagrams are described by a single parameter: $D=\tfrac{3}{5}g_A$, $F=\tfrac{2}{5}g_A$, and $C=\tfrac{6}{5}g_A$.
Among two-meson exchange diagrams, box, crossed-box, and triangle diagrams are of order one while football diagrams are $O(1/N_c^2)$, so two-meson exchange is dominated by the box, crossed-box, and triangle contributions.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension would be to compute the three surviving low-energy constant combinations on the lattice at physical quark masses; deviations beyond $1/N_c$ corrections would signal that the reduction does not hold at $N_c=3$.
The same large-$N_c$ ratios $F/D=2/3$ and $C/D=2$ could be checked independently in meson-baryon scattering or in baryon axial transition form factors, since those processes probe the same contracted spin-flavor symmetry.
The strangeness-dependent scaling rules suggest that interactions involving two strange baryons, such as cascade-nucleon or cascade-cascade potentials, may require modified sum rules; the paper's analysis is developed for baryons with strangeness of order one.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

One thing you should know: this paper is worth reading for the contact-term analysis alone. The reduction of the fifteen LO LECs to three, and the sum rules in Eq. (3.21), are new and they check out against the fitted hyperon-nucleon potentials from Ref. [44]. The author overlap there is fair to flag, but the fits were made without imposing large-N_c constraints, so the benchmark is legitimate.

The OME section is clean: matching to the Hartree potential forces F/D=2/3, and the hierarchy of pion, kaon, eta exchange comes out naturally. That is all standard large-N_c lore, but it is nice to see it laid out explicitly in this context.

The soft spot is Section 4.2.5. The paper wants the O(N_c^2) pieces of box and crossed-box to cancel with decuplet intermediate states, and states this happens when C=6/5 g_A. The loop-function equality V_box = -V_crossed is asserted, not shown. The stress-test concern is real: the decuplet spin transition operators satisfy S_i S_j^\dagger = (2/3)\delta_ij - (i/3)\epsilon_ijk\sigma_k, so the cross-product term has a different sign and coefficient than the octet case. Whether that term vanishes in the relevant kinematics is not demonstrated. The flavor contractions in Eq. (4.33) are also not shown. So the derivation as written does not establish the constraint. The paper does cite the known literature for C/D=2, so the result is probably right, but the reader should not have to take it on faith.

That is a moderate gap, not a fatal one. The contact-term and OME sections stand on their own, and the TME section is a consistency check rather than the main payload. The paper is honest about where it differs from Ref. [41] and about the limits of the large-N_c power counting. It deserves a serious referee. The fix is straightforward: either supply the box-loop calculation in an appendix or explicitly defer to the complete derivation in the cited papers.

For a reader working on hyperon-nucleon interactions, this is a useful map of which LECs matter. I would send it to review, with the request to fill or properly cite the missing box-diagram algebra.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript analyzes the large-N_c structure of the SU(3) chiral perturbation theory baryon-baryon potential up to next-to-leading order. The paper's central claims are: (i) the fifteen leading-order contact low-energy constants reduce to three independent combinations at leading order in 1/N_c; (ii) consistency with the large-N_c Hartree potential requires F/D=2/3 for the octet axial-vector coupling and C=6/5 g_A (equivalently C/D=2) for the octet-decuplet coupling; and (iii) the resulting large-N_c sum rules for hyperon-nucleon contact interactions reproduce the previously fitted values of Ref. [44] reasonably well. The analysis combines the contracted SU(6) spin-flavor operator basis with the chiral power counting and treats contact, one-meson, and two-meson exchange contributions in turn.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a systematic way to reduce the number of low-energy constants in the baryon-baryon potential and to identify which meson-exchange diagrams must be retained at leading order. The benchmark against the independent hyperon-nucleon fits in Table 3.1 is a genuine strength, as is the explicit derivation of the O(N_c) hierarchy among pion, kaon, and eta exchanges. However, the derivation of the C=6/5 g_A consistency condition in Section 4.2.5 is asserted rather than demonstrated, and since that condition is one of the three headline constraints, the central claim cannot be fully assessed until the missing calculation is supplied.

major comments (2)

[4.2.5, Eqs. (4.31)-(4.32)] The equality V_0^Box = -V_0^CrossedBox, which is needed to cancel the seemingly O(N_c^2) box and crossed-box contributions, is not demonstrated. The text states that the equality follows "without explicitly performing the integrals," but no explicit calculation is given. In particular, the claim that octet and decuplet loop functions agree at leading order up to a factor 2/3 per decuplet line is not obvious from the spin structure: Eq. (4.14) gives S_i S_j^dagger = (2/3) delta_ij - (i/3) epsilon_ijk sigma_k, whereas the octet combination sigma_i sigma_j contains +i epsilon_ijk sigma_k, so the cross-product terms differ in both sign and coefficient. An additional parity or angular-integration argument is required to show that the epsilon terms do not spoil the claimed factor, but no such argument is supplied. Because this cancellation is the mechanism that selects C=6/5 g_A, the step is load-bearing and needs to be completed.
[4.2.5, Eq. (4.33)] The cancellation that leads to C=6/5 g_A is stated as "This is achieved if ..." without displaying the flavor contractions or the algebra of the sums over the octet and decuplet indices. The reader cannot verify that the O(N_c^2) part of the amplitude vanishes precisely at C/D=2, nor can the claimed residual O(1/N_c^2) correction be checked. Since C/D=2 is one of the three main results, the authors should either provide the explicit spin-flavor sums and the resulting condition, or clearly present the result as a conjecture supported by the cited literature (Refs. [34,54,55]) rather than as a derivation performed in this paper.

minor comments (4)

[3.3 and Abstract] The abstract and summary state a reduction from fifteen to three low-energy constants, but Section 3.3 shows that only the combinations C_S and C_T are constrained; the status of the C_5 LECs, which enter only through subleading momentum-dependent terms, should be clarified so that the reader understands exactly which three combinations remain independent.
[Table 3.1] The table is difficult to read as typeset: each row contains seven numbers while the column headers suggest six columns, and the predicted values are described as bold but no bold appears. The caption should specify which entries are the fitted values from Ref. [44] and which are the large-N_c predictions, and uncertainties should be shown or their absence justified.
[4.2.4] The triangle-diagram discussion also relies on a factor 2/3 for decuplet intermediate states and on the statement that V_0^Crossed = V_0^Triangle at leading order; this is plausible but stated very tersely. A short derivation of the spin factor would make the presentation more self-contained, even though the triangle contribution is not as load-bearing as the box cancellation.
[4.1 and elsewhere] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors, for example "remarkebly" in Section 4.1, "cleary" in Section 4.2.3, "summerize" in Appendix B, and "correspondigly" in Section 2.3. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the central large-N_c constraints are matched to an independent Hartree spin-flavor potential, and the only author-overlap benchmark (Ref. [44]) was not fitted with large-N_c priors.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived by matching SU(3) chiral perturbation theory amplitudes to the large-N_c Hartree baryon-baryon potential, not by fitting the target results into the inputs. Section 3.3 maps the LO contact LECs onto the operator expansion of Eq. (2.10), using the independently established scaling rules of Eqs. (2.3)-(2.4), and obtains nontrivial linear relations such as C_T^(2)/C_T^(1)=5/13 and C_T^(3)/C_T^(1)=-6/13. These are algebraic consequences of the contracted SU(6) spin-flavor structure, not identities assumed in advance. Section 4.1 derives F/D=2/3 by requiring g_BBPhi^abc to be proportional to t^abc, which is a genuine matching condition: the SU(3) couplings D and F are not defined through that ratio. Section 4.2.5 attempts to fix C=6/5 g_A by demanding cancellation of the O(N_c^2) box and crossed-box terms. This section has an explicit derivation gap: the equality of the loop functions for octet and decuplet intermediate states is asserted ('as has to be shown'; 'without explicitly performing the integrals, we find...'), and the flavor-contraction algebra leading to Eq. (4.34) is not displayed. That is an omitted proof and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the value C=6/5 g_A is not an input to the computation, and the paper also cites external, non-overlapping references [34,54,55] for the same known ratio. Section 3.4 compares the large-N_c sum rules to best-fit hyperon-nucleon LECs from Ref. [44], which one present author co-authored; however, the text gives no indication that those fits were constrained by the large-N_c sum rules, and the table uses three fitted LECs to predict two distinct ones, so the check is an independent benchmark rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No self-definitional reduction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation was found. The score of 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing author overlap in the benchmark reference and the unproven intermediate equality in Sec. 4.2.5, the latter being a derivation gap rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the central large-N_c relations are derived from symmetry and compared with previous fits. The main axiom burden is the standard large-N_c plus chiral perturbation theory framework. One assumption specific to this paper is the unproved equality of box and crossed-box loop functions, which carries the C/D=2 derivation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Large-N_c baryons with strangeness O(1) obey the contracted SU(6) spin-flavor scaling rules of Eq. (2.4), with T^a ~ 1 for a=1..3, sqrt(N_c) for a=4..7, and N_c for a=8.
Invoked throughout Section 3.3 and in the one- and two-meson exchange power countings; taken from Refs. [17-19] without re-derivation.
domain assumption The baryon-baryon potential can be derived in a static, non-relativistic limit with m_B ~ N_c, q0 ~ 1/N_c, and momenta of O(N_c^0), yielding the suppression rule of Eq. (2.7).
Used to assign 1/m_B^2 ~ 1/N_c^2 suppressions to subleading contact and meson-exchange terms; standard large-N_c baryon setup from Kaplan and Manohar, Ref. [29].
domain assumption The Hartree potential in Eq. (2.9) and the contracted SU(6) operator basis are complete for the two-baryon system.
The matching in Sections 3.3 and 4.1 assumes this form of the potential; taken from Refs. [20-22,29].
domain assumption The chiral Lagrangians in Eqs. (3.4), (3.24), (4.1), and (4.12) and the power counting of Eq. (3.1) correctly describe the baryon-baryon interaction up to next-to-leading order.
The paper builds on the chiral perturbation theory framework of Refs. [44-46,56-59] without re-deriving the Lagrangians.
ad hoc to paper For box and crossed-box diagrams, the loop functions V_0^Box and V_0^CrossedBox are equal at leading order for octet and decuplet intermediate baryons up to a factor 2/3 per decuplet line.
The equality is asserted in Section 4.2.5 without explicit evaluation of the integrals; it is load-bearing for the cancellation of O(N_c^2) terms and the derivation of C=6/5 g_A.
domain assumption SU(3) flavor symmetry is assumed for the leading-order large-N_c matching, with SU(3) breaking entering only through quark-mass insertions of order epsilon/N_c.
Used in Sections 3.3 and 3.5 to translate the leading-order sum rules to the next-to-leading-order contact terms; rationale follows Refs. [29,51,52].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Baryon-Baryon Interaction in the Large-$N_c$ Limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KP5K5IW

@misc{pith2026241213677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Baryon-Baryon Interaction in the Large-$N_c$ Limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KP5K5IW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13677}
}

abstract

We analyze the large-$N_c$ structure of the baryon-baryon potential derived in the framework of SU(3) chiral perturbation theory up to next-to-leading order including contact interactions as well as one-meson and two-meson exchange diagrams. Moreover, we assess the impact of SU(3) symmetry breaking from a large-$N_c$ perspective and show that the leading order results can successfully be applied to the hyperon-nucleon potential. Our results include a reduction of the number of relevant low-energy constants of the leading order contact interaction from fifteen to three, and we show that consistency is preserved if the $F/D$ ratio is given by $2/3$ and the $C/D$ ratio for the baryon decuplet-to-octet coupling is given by 2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13677 by the authors.

**Figure 3.1.** Feynman diagrams of the baryon-baryon interaction in chiral perturbation theory up to next-to-leading order. Solid lines denote octet baryons and dashed lines pseudoscalar mesons. Dots represent leading order vertices, whereas the diamond denotes a next-to-leading order contact interaction vertex. and B the SU(3) baryon octet, B = 1 √ 2 X 8 a=1 λ aB a (3.3) then the leading order contact interaction terms correspon… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.1.** Example of a seven meson exchange diagram of the baryon-baryon interaction. Intermediate mesons are noninteracting. by simple BBΦ vertices in any order. An example of such a diagram with seven intermediate mesons is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.2.** Triangle diagrams. Dashed lines denote exchange mesons, solid lines baryons. Double lines denote either octet or decuplet intermediate baryons. In the latter case, the flavor index e should be replaced by a capital E to indicate a range from 1 to 10. 4.2.3 Football diagram Beginning with the football diagram, the resulting potential only contributes to the central part of the baryonbaryon potential, V 1 0 in Eq. (… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.3.** Figure 4.3: Box and crossed box diagrams. Dashed lines denote exchange mesons, solid lines baryons. Double lines denote either octet or decuplet intermediate baryons. For each intermediate decuplet, the flavor index should be replaced by its capital counterpart to indicate a r…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[44]

Polinder, J

H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer and U.- G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A779(2006), 244-266 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.09.006 [arXiv:nucl- th/0605050 [nucl-th]]

work page arXiv 2006
[41]

X. Liu, V. Limkaisang, D. Samart and Y. Yan, Phys. Lett. B789(2019), 530-537 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.044 [arXiv:1710.10068 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[1]

Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl

J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A804(2008), 309- 321 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.01.005 [arXiv:0801.3791 [astro-ph]]

arXiv 2008
[2]

Hiyama and T

E. Hiyama and T. Yamada, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63 (2009), 339-395 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009.05.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009.05.001 2009
[3]

A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford and D. J. Mil- lener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) no.3, 035004 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004 [arXiv:1605.00557 [nucl-th]]

arXiv 2016
[4]

Tolos and L

L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112(2020), 103770 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103770 [arXiv:2002.09223 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2020
[5]

Hildenbrand and H

F. Hildenbrand and H. W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. C 100(2019) no.3, 034002 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C102 (2020) no.3, 039901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.034002 [arXiv:1904.05818 [nucl-th]]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts and J. Hessels, Nature467(2010), 1081-1083 doi:10.1038/nature09466 [arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]]

arXiv 2010

Show all 67 references

[7]

Antoniadis, P

J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, N. Wex, T. M. Tauris, R. S. Lynch, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Kramer, C. Bassa, V. S. Dhillon and T. Driebe,et al.Science340(2013), 6131 doi:10.1126/science.1233232 [arXiv:1304.6875 [astro- ph.HE]]

2013 arXiv
[8]

H. J. Schulze and T. Rijken, Phys. Rev. C84(2011), 035801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.035801

2011 doi
[9]

Lonardoni, A

D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi and F. Ped- eriva, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) no.9, 092301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.092301 [arXiv:1407.4448 [nucl-th]]

2015 arXiv
[10]

H. Tong, S. Elhatisari and U.-G. Meißner, [arXiv:2405.01887 [nucl-th]]

arXiv
[11]

’t Hooft, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72(1974), 461 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90154-0

1974 doi
[12]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B160(1979), 57-115 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90232-3

1979 doi
[13]

T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A260(1961), 127-138 doi:10.1098/rspa.1961.0018

1961
[14]

T. H. R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys.31(1962), 556-569 doi:10.1016/0029-5582(62)90775-7

1962 doi
[15]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223(1983), 433-444 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90064-0

1983 doi
[16]

J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. D30(1984), 1795 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.1795

1984 doi
[17]

J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. Lett.52(1984), 87 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.87 Thomas Vonk, Ulf-G. Meißner: The Baryon-Baryon Interaction in the Large-N c Limit 17 Γi Mi(p2, p1) 1 1 + (p1−p2)2 8m2 + i 4m2 (p1 ×p 2)·σ γ0 1 + (p1+p2)2 8m2 − i 4m2 (p1 ×p 2)·σ γi (p1+p2)i...

1984 doi
[18]

R. F. Dashen and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 315(1993), 425-430 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91635-Z [arXiv:hep-ph/9307241 [hep-ph]]

1993 arXiv
[19]

R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D51(1995), 3697-3727 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3697 [arXiv:hep-ph/9411234 [hep-ph]]

1995 arXiv
[20]

M. A. Luty and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B426(1994), 71-93 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90126-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310369 [hep-ph]]

1994 arXiv
[21]

R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D49(1994), 4713 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D51 (1995), 2489] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.2489 [arXiv:hep- ph/9310379 [hep-ph]]

1994
[22]

Carone, H

C. Carone, H. Georgi and S. Osofsky, Phys. Lett. B 322(1994), 227-232 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91112-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310365 [hep-ph]]

1994 arXiv
[23]

E. E. Jenkins, Phys. Lett. B315(1993), 441-446 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91638-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/9307244 [hep-ph]]

1993 arXiv
[24]

E. E. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D53(1996), 2625-2644 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.2625 [arXiv:hep-ph/9509433 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[25]

E. E. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D54(1996), 4515-4531 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4515 [arXiv:hep-ph/9603449 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[26]

Y. s. Oh and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A4(1999), 363-380 doi:10.1007/s100500050245 [arXiv:hep-ph/9901354 [hep- ph]]

1999 arXiv
[27]

Flores-Mendieta, S

R. Flores-Mendieta, S. A. Garcia-Monreal, L. R. Ruiz- Robles and F. A. Torres-Bautista, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.11, 114014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114014 [arXiv:2403.15354 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[28]

D. B. Kaplan and M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B 365(1996), 244-251 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)01277-X [arXiv:hep-ph/9509371 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[29]

D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. C56 (1997), 76-83 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.56.76 [arXiv:nucl- th/9612021 [nucl-th]]

1997
[30]

M. K. Banerjee, T. D. Cohen and B. A. Gel- man, Phys. Rev. C65(2002), 034011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.65.034011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109274 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[31]

D. R. Phillips, D. Samart and C. Schat, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) no.6, 062301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.062301 [arXiv:1410.1157 [nucl-th]]

2015 arXiv
[32]

Samart, C

D. Samart, C. Schat, M. R. Schindler and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C94(2016) no.2, 024001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024001 [arXiv:1604.01437 [nucl-th]]

2016 arXiv
[33]

T. R. Richardson, M. R. Schindler and R. P. Springer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023), 123- 152 doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102020-014052 [arXiv:2212.13049 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[34]

M. F. M. Lutz and E. E. Kolomeitsev, Nucl. Phys. A 700(2002), 193-308 doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01312-4 [arXiv:nucl-th/0105042 [nucl-th]]

2002 arXiv
[35]

Flores-Mendieta and J

R. Flores-Mendieta and J. L. Goity, Phys. Rev. D 90(2014) no.11, 114008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.114008 [arXiv:1407.0926 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[36]

Y. Heo, C. Kobdaj and M. F. M. Lutz, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.9, 094035 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.094035 [arXiv:1908.11816 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[37]

Flores-Mendieta, C

R. Flores-Mendieta, C. I. Garcia and J. Her- nandez, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no.9, 094032 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.094032 [arXiv:2102.06100 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Y. Heo, C. Kobdaj and M. F. M. Lutz, Eur. Phys. J. A59(2023) no.1, 1 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00905-5 [arXiv:2201.04319 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[39]

D. R. Phillips and C. Schat, Phys. Rev. C88(2013) no.3, 034002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.034002 [arXiv:1307.6274 [nucl-th]]

2013 arXiv
[40]

Epelbaum, A

E. Epelbaum, A. M. Gasparyan, H. Krebs and C. Schat, Eur. Phys. J. A51(2015) no.3, 26 doi:10.1140/epja/i2015- 15026-y [arXiv:1411.3612 [nucl-th]]

2015 arXiv
[42]

Haidenbauer, S

J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A915(2013), 24- 58 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.06.008 [arXiv:1304.5339 [nucl-th]]

2013 arXiv
[43]

D. Lee, S. Bogner, B. A. Brown, S. Elhatisari, E. Epelbaum, H. Hergert, M. Hjorth-Jensen, H. Krebs, N. Li and B. N. Lu,et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) no.6, 062501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.062501 [arXiv:2010.09420 [nucl-th]]

2021 arXiv
[45]

Polinder, J

H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer and U.- G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B653(2007), 29-37 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.07.045 [arXiv:0705.3753 [nucl-th]]. 18 Thomas Vonk, Ulf-G. Meißner: The Baryon-Baryon Interaction in the Large-N c Limit

2007 arXiv
[46]

Petschauer and N

S. Petschauer and N. Kaiser, Nucl. Phys. A916(2013), 1-29 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.07.010 [arXiv:1305.3427 [nucl-th]]

2013 arXiv
[47]

Haidenbauer, U.-G

J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner and S. Petschauer, Nucl. Phys. A954(2016), 273-293 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2016.01.006 [arXiv:1511.05859 [nucl-th]]

2016 arXiv
[48]

Haidenbauer, U.-G

J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner and A. Nogga, Eur. Phys. J. A56(2020) no.3, 91 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020- 00100-4 [arXiv:1906.11681 [nucl-th]]

2020 arXiv
[49]

Haidenbauer, U.-G

J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, A. Nogga and H. Le, Eur. Phys. J. A59(2023) no.3, 63 doi:10.1140/epja/s10050- 023-00960-6 [arXiv:2301.00722 [nucl-th]]

2023 arXiv
[50]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B251(1990), 288-292 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90938-3

1990 doi
[51]

E. E. Jenkins, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.48(1998), 81-119 doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.48.1.81 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803349 [hep-ph]]

1998 arXiv
[52]

J. Dai, R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D53(1996), 273-282 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.273 [arXiv:hep-ph/9506273 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[53]

Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Eur

Y. Aokiet al.[Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no.10, 869 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10536-1 [arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]]

2022 arXiv
[54]

Flores-Mendieta, C

R. Flores-Mendieta, C. P. Hofmann and E. E. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D61(2000), 116014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.116014 [arXiv:hep-ph/9911432 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[55]

Flores-Mendieta, C

R. Flores-Mendieta, C. P. Hofmann, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 034001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.034001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0001218 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[56]

E. E. Jenkins, M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar and M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B302(1993), 482-490 [erra- tum: Phys. Lett. B388(1996), 866-866] doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(93)90430-P [arXiv:hep-ph/9212226 [hep-ph]]

1993 arXiv
[57]

T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein and J. Kambor, J. Phys. G24(1998), 1831-1859 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/24/10/003 [arXiv:hep-ph/9712496 [hep-ph]]

1998 arXiv
[58]

Sasaki, E

K. Sasaki, E. Oset and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. C74(2006), 064002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.064002 [arXiv:nucl-th/0607068 [nucl-th]]

2006 arXiv
[59]

Haidenbauer, S

J. Haidenbauer, S. Petschauer, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) no.11, 760 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5309-4 [arXiv:1708.08071 [nucl-th]]

2017 arXiv
[60]

E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B255 (1991), 558-562 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90266-S

1991 doi
[61]

Haidenbauer, U.-G

J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner and S. Petschauer, Eur. Phys. J. A51(2015) no.2, 17 doi:10.1140/epja/i2015- 15017-0 [arXiv:1412.2991 [nucl-th]]

2015 arXiv
[62]

J. J. de Swart, Rev. Mod. Phys.35(1963), 916- 939 [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys.37(1965), 326-326] doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.35.916

1963 doi
[63]

Leutwyler, Phys

H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B374(1996), 163- 168 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)85876-X [arXiv:hep- ph/9601234 [hep-ph]]

1996
[64]

Kaiser and H

R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C17 (2000), 623-649 doi:10.1007/s100520000499 [arXiv:hep- ph/0007101 [hep-ph]]

2000
[65]

A. J. MacFarlane, A. Sudbery and P. H. Weisz, Commun. Math. Phys.11(1968), 77-90 doi:10.1007/BF01654302

1968 doi
[66]

Dittner, Commun

P. Dittner, Commun. Math. Phys.22(1971), 238-252 doi:10.1007/BF01877709

1971 doi
[67]

V. I. Borodulin, R. N. Rogalyov and S. R. Slabospitskii, [arXiv:1702.08246 [hep-ph]]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [44]

Polinder, J

H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer and U.- G. Meißner, Nucl. Phys. A779(2006), 244-266 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.09.006 [arXiv:nucl- th/0605050 [nucl-th]]

work page arXiv 2006

[2] [41]

X. Liu, V. Limkaisang, D. Samart and Y. Yan, Phys. Lett. B789(2019), 530-537 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.044 [arXiv:1710.10068 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[3] [1]

Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl

J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A804(2008), 309- 321 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.01.005 [arXiv:0801.3791 [astro-ph]]

arXiv 2008

[4] [2]

Hiyama and T

E. Hiyama and T. Yamada, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.63 (2009), 339-395 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009.05.001

work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2009.05.001 2009

[5] [3]

A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford and D. J. Mil- lener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88(2016) no.3, 035004 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035004 [arXiv:1605.00557 [nucl-th]]

arXiv 2016

[6] [4]

Tolos and L

L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 112(2020), 103770 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103770 [arXiv:2002.09223 [nucl-ex]]

arXiv 2020

[7] [5]

Hildenbrand and H

F. Hildenbrand and H. W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. C 100(2019) no.3, 034002 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C102 (2020) no.3, 039901] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.034002 [arXiv:1904.05818 [nucl-th]]

arXiv 2019

[8] [6]

Demorest, T

P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts and J. Hessels, Nature467(2010), 1081-1083 doi:10.1038/nature09466 [arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]]

arXiv 2010