Recalibration of the binding energy of hypernuclei measured in emulsion experiments and its implications

Declan Keane; Jinhui Chen; Peng Liu; Yu-Gang Ma; Zhangbu Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Recalibration of the binding energy of hypernuclei measured in emulsion experiments and its implications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper recalibrates early emulsion measurements of the Lambda separation energy of hypernuclei using modern particle and nuclear masses, finding the values are systematically about 100 keV larger than published.

desk verdict The recalibration is transparent bookkeeping, but the 1968/1973 central shift looks like an artifact of updating M_Λ without rescaling Q. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03134 v2 pith:3TNRRE5N submitted 2019-08-08 nucl-ex nucl-th

Peng Liu , Jinhui Chen , Declan Keane , Zhangbu Xu , Yu-Gang Ma This is my paper · ORCID

classification nucl-exnucl-th PACS 21.80.+a21.10.k21.10.Dr

keywords hypernucleiLambdaseparationenergyemulsionexperimentsmassrecalibrationhypertritonbindingchargesymmetrybreakingQ0correction

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

The paper tries to establish that the Lambda separation energies of light hypernuclei measured in the 1967, 1968, and 1973 emulsion experiments were systematically underestimated by roughly 100 keV because the particle and nuclear masses used at publication time were outdated. Recomputing the mass-dependent part of the energy balance with modern masses raises most values, with the largest relative effect on the hypertriton: the 1973 value moves from $0.15 \pm 0.08$ MeV to $0.27 \pm 0.08$ MeV, closer to STAR's 2019 result of $0.41 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.11$ MeV. Because these old numbers are still common inputs for theoretical work on hyperon-nucleon interactions, hypernuclear structure, and neutron stars, an upward shift of this size would tighten or change the conclusions of such studies. The paper also notes that its recalibrated values are closer than the originals to recent measurements for $A = 4$ and $A = 7$ hypernuclei.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is $B_\Lambda = Q_0 - Q$: the measured total kinetic energy $Q$ in a mesonic hypernuclear decay is subtracted from $Q_0$, a quantity built entirely from particle and nuclear masses. The paper rebuilds $Q_0$ for each decay channel using modern PDG and AMDC masses, defines $\Delta Q_0 = Q_0(\mathrm{2019}) - Q_0(\mathrm{year})$, and applies that shift to the published $B_\Lambda$. The calculation relies on two mass-table assumptions, namely the 1965 tables for the 1967 and 1968 papers and the 1971 tables for the 1973 paper, plus a per-channel list of decay modes for hypernuclei with $A = 3$-$15$.

What would settle it

Return to the original emulsion events and recompute $B_\Lambda$ event by event using modern masses; if the event-level average does not reproduce Table 3's combined values, the correction rule is wrong. A simpler check is to look up the bibliographies of Refs. [18], [19], and [20] to see whether they actually used the 1965 and 1971 mass tables.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the published $B_\Lambda$ values can be corrected channel by channel by replacing the old $Q_0$ with $Q_0$ computed from today's PDG and AMDC masses, where $B_\Lambda = Q_0 - Q$ and $Q$ is the measured kinetic energy released in the mesonic decay. The resulting shifts $\Delta Q_0$ are roughly 0.06-0.35 MeV per channel, and after applying them the recalibrated $B_\Lambda$ values are systematically about 100 keV larger than the originals, with $^6_\Lambda\mathrm{He}$ the only exception. The authors stop short of averaging the recalibrated values across experiments, on the ground that the emulsion systematic uncertainties are not yet understood well enough for that, and they acknowledge that the original systematic uncertainties from the range-energy relation and emulsion density still apply. They present the improved agreement with independent modern measurements, including STAR 2019 for the hypertriton, A1 2016 for $^4_\Lambda\mathrm{H}$, HKS 2016 for $^7_\Lambda\mathrm{He}$, and FINUDA 2009 for $^7_\Lambda\mathrm{Li}$, as evidence that the recalibrated values are better estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The correction assumes that the old papers used the mass tables the authors guess they used, and that the published combined $B_\Lambda$ values can be shifted by the per-channel $\Delta Q_0$ corrections without knowing how the decay channels were weighted in the original averages.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the recalibration is correct, the 1973 hypertriton separation energy is $0.27 \pm 0.08$ MeV rather than $0.15 \pm 0.08$ MeV, so the hypertriton is more deeply bound and the gap to STAR's 2019 value of $0.41 \pm 0.12 \pm 0.11$ MeV is much smaller.
Every commonly used light-hypernucleus $B_\Lambda$ from the 1967, 1968, and 1973 emulsions should be revised upward by about 100 keV, except $^6_\Lambda\mathrm{He}$, whose correction is slightly negative.
Comparisons among same-mass hypernuclei, such as the charge-symmetry-breaking differences among $A = 7$ species, change because the three species do not all shift by the same amount.
Theoretical constraints tuned to the old emulsion values, for example on the hyperon-nucleon interaction, the overbinding of $^5_\Lambda\mathrm{He}$, and hyperon-rich neutron-star matter, would need to be re-evaluated with the upward-shifted inputs.
The improved agreement with A1, HKS, and FINUDA measurements suggests the old emulsion values underestimated their systematic errors, consistent with the critique quoted from Ref. [39].

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension the paper does not perform is an event-level reanalysis: reweighting every original emulsion event by its measured $Q$ and modern masses, then averaging, would either confirm the combined values in Table 3 or reveal that some entries depend on the unknown channel-weighting rule.
If the same $Q_0$ logic were applied to the heavier hypernuclei compiled in Ref. [9] for $A > 15$, their $B_\Lambda$ values would likely also move by roughly 0.1 MeV, slightly reshaping the Woods-Saxon and semi-empirical curves shown in the paper's figures.
The paper's implicit prediction is that future high-precision hypertriton measurements, such as those expected from the J-PARC or RHIC beam-energy-scan programs, will land near the recalibrated value around $0.27$-$0.41$ MeV rather than near the old $0.13$-$0.15$ MeV.

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

Dear colleague,

The paper does a transparent thing—recomputes Q0 for the 1967–1973 emulsion hypernuclei using modern PDG/AMDC masses and shifts BΛ by the difference—and its Table 2 is a useful reference. But the central claim, that the recalibrated BΛ are systematically ~100 keV higher, is not established for the 1968 and 1973 data. The old runs normalized BΛ by measuring the Λ mass in the same emulsion stack, so range-energy and density errors largely cancel between Q0 and Q. The paper updates M_Λ to the modern value but leaves Q untouched, which breaks that cancellation. A quick estimate: the 0.11 MeV shift in M_Λ for 1973 corresponds to a fractional scale error ε ≈ -0.003, and with Q0 around 40 MeV the uncorrected rescaling of Q is ≈0.12 MeV—the same magnitude as the claimed effect. The paper mentions the compensating effect but never quantifies the residual. Without that, the upward shift could be an artifact.

What’s genuinely good: the per-channel ΔQ0 values are simple arithmetic, likely correct, and this is the first systematic application of modern masses to these old measurements. The hypertriton discussion is motivated, and the authors sensibly avoid averaging measurements with poorly understood systematics.

The soft spots: (1) The rule for combining the channel-specific ΔQ0 into the single recalibrated BΛ in Table 3 is never stated, so that table is not reproducible. (2) The validation by modern data is mixed. STAR, A1, and HKS points move closer, but JLab’s 9ΛLi and FINUDA’s 9ΛBe move away, so the blanket claim that all recalibrated values are better estimates is too strong. (3) The 1967 data are less affected by the normalization issue because that year used an external Λ mass, but the paper’s abstract lumps all years together.

Who is this for: anyone who uses the old emulsion BΛ as an input for hypernuclear or neutron-star theory. The tables deserve to exist, but the headline result needs rework. I would send it to peer review—the question matters and a competent referee can force the authors to address the scale-error coupling—but I would not take the abstract at face value.

Best, [Name]

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript recalibrates the Λ separation energies BΛ of light hypernuclei (A = 3–15) measured in emulsion experiments in 1967, 1968, and 1973, using modern particle and nuclear masses from the PDG and the AMDC. The authors compute per-decay-channel differences ΔQ0 between the Q0 values implied by the old and new masses (Table 2), then present combined recalibrated BΛ values (Table 3). They report that the recalibrated BΛ are systematically larger than the original published values by about 100 keV (except for 6ΛHe), bringing the 1973 hypertriton value from 0.15 ± 0.08 MeV to 0.27 ± 0.08 MeV, closer to the 2019 STAR result of 0.41 ± 0.12 ± 0.11 MeV. The paper argues that this recalibration provides better constraints for theoretical studies of hypernuclear structure, the hyperon-nucleon interaction, and neutron-star interiors.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the recalibration would materially affect the interpretation of historical emulsion data, which are still widely used as input in theoretical calculations. The per-channel ΔQ0 values in Table 2 are straightforward functions of the tabulated masses and are easily verified; the paper is transparent in this respect and does not introduce fitted parameters into the central derivation. The external comparisons with STAR, A1, HKS, and FINUDA provide useful context and, at face value, corroborate the direction of the shifts. However, the paper's main conclusion is not established because of an unquantified systematic coupling between the Λ-mass normalization and the measured Q values, as detailed in the major comments below.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2, Eq. (1) and Table 3] The central claim that the recalibrated BΛ are systematically larger by about 100 keV assumes that the published Q values can be held fixed while the Λ mass is replaced by the modern value. However, Sec. 2 states that the 1968 and 1973 measurements normalized BΛ by measuring the Λ mass from π− ranges in the same emulsion stack. Under the standard assumption of a common fractional scale error ε in the range-energy relation, one has Q_meas = (1+ε)Q_true and M_Λ^meas = M_Λ^true + ε Q_Λ, with Q_Λ ≈ 38 MeV. The difference between the modern Λ mass and the 1973 value (1115.68 vs 1115.57 MeV) implies ε ≈ −0.003, which gives an unaccounted correction of about −0.1 MeV to the recalibrated BΛ for channels with Q0 ≈ 38–43 MeV. This correction is the same magnitude as the claimed shift. The paper's statement that the compensating effect 'may not fully account for the systematic error' is qualitative; it does not quantify the residual or explain why Q can be treated as independent of the Λ-mass normalization. Without a quantitative treatment of this coupling, the main conclusion that the recalibrated values are systematically larger is not established.
[Tables 2 and 3] The per-decay-channel ΔQ0 values in Table 2 are used to produce the combined recalibrated BΛ values in Table 3, but the combination rule is not specified. For hypernuclei with multiple decay channels (e.g., 4ΛH, 5ΛHe, 7ΛLi), the text says the original BΛ is 'recalibrated for each decay channel listed in Table 2' and Table 3 gives 'a combination of all available decay channels,' yet neither the weighting scheme nor the selection of a reference channel is stated. This omission prevents the reader from reproducing Table 3 and makes it impossible to assess the sensitivity of the reported shifts to the choice of decay channel.
[Table 3 caption and Sec. 4] The recalibrated BΛ values are quoted with the same statistical uncertainties as the original measurements, with no contribution from the uncertainties of the modern masses, from the assumption about which historical mass tables were used, or from the range-energy systematic uncertainty that the paper itself identifies in Sec. 4 and in Refs. [28,39]. Given that the recalibration shifts are ~0.1 MeV and that p-shell emulsion systematics are estimated at 0.4–0.8 MeV in Ref. [39], the claim that the recalibrated values are 'more precise estimations' is not supported without a quantitative uncertainty budget for the recalibration procedure.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 1] The sentence 'it is timely and highly desirable to recalibrated these early measurements' contains a grammatical error; 'recalibrated' should be 'recalibrate'.
[Sec. 2] The sentence 'The ranges of π− from Λ decays in the emulsion experiments were chose to be 1-2 cm' has a typo; 'chose' should be 'chosen'.
[Sec. 2] The assumption that the 1967 and 1968 papers used the 1965 mass tables and that the 1973 paper used the 1971 tables is plausible but is supported only by the shared corresponding author. Testing this assumption against intermediate mass tables would strengthen the analysis, since a different choice of table would change ΔQ0 at the level of tens of keV.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains the garbled string 'NE-FINUDAΦDA'; this should be 'DAΦNE-FINUDA'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recalibration is anchored to external mass compilations and externally measured hypernuclear binding energies, with no fitted parameter entering the central derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that replacing the old Q0 values in B_Lambda = Q0 - Q with Q0 computed from modern PDG and AMDC masses shifts the early emulsion B_Lambda values upward by about 100 keV. This is a direct arithmetic propagation from externally tabulated masses (PDG 2018; AMDC 2017) and the original published Q values; no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted. The comparison points used for corroboration—STAR, A1, HKS, FINUDA, and JLab—are independent external measurements, not outputs of this paper's recalibration. The only fitted line in the paper, B_Lambda = 1.083A - 2.109, is an illustrative trend shown in Fig. 1 and is not used to derive the recalibrated values or the central conclusion. The paper explicitly acknowledges the assumption that Q need not be rescaled when the Lambda mass is updated: 'we believe that the compensating effect described above may not fully account for the systematic error, and a recalibration of the Q0 differences seems to be a more reliable method.' That is a stated systematic-risk assumption about the emulsion method, not a circular reduction of the result to its own inputs. The assumptions about which historical mass tables were used (1965 tables for 1967/1968, 1971 tables for 1973) are also external historical inputs, not self-referential definitions. Self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Peng Liu for STAR, and a preceding paper by the same group) are not load-bearing for the recalibration; the derivation does not depend on any unverified claim from those citations. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the validity of the old emulsion Q measurements, on an assumption about which historical mass tables were used, and on an unspecified rule for combining per-channel shifts. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced for the core result.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The measured kinetic energy Q from emulsion range-energy data does not need recalibration.
The recalibration only updates Q0 using modern masses and assumes original Q values remain valid. This enters in Section 2, Eq. (1).
ad hoc to paper The 1967 and 1968 B_Lambda papers used the 1965 nuclide mass tables, and the 1973 paper used the 1971 tables.
The authors state this assumption in Section 2 based on a shared corresponding author. If wrong, the Delta_Q0 values change by up to tens of keV.
domain assumption The published combined B_Lambda values can be corrected by adding a decay-channel-specific Delta_Q0 without event-level data.
The combination rule is not stated. Table 2 lists per-channel shifts, but Table 3 lists combined results without showing the mapping.
domain assumption PDG 2018 and AMDC 2017 mass compilations are the current best estimates for particle and nuclear masses.
The entire recalibration uses these external compilations as ground truth, per the Introduction and Table 1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recalibration of the binding energy of hypernuclei measured in emulsion experiments and its implications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3TNRRE5N

@misc{pith2026190803134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recalibration of the binding energy of hypernuclei measured in emulsion experiments and its implications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3TNRRE5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03134}
}

abstract

The $\Lambda$ separation energy for $\Lambda$-hypernuclei, denoted $B_\Lambda$, measured in 1967, 1968, and 1973 are recalibrated using the current best mass estimates for particles and nuclei. The recalibrated $B_\Lambda$ are systematically larger (except in the case of $^6_\Lambda$He) than the original published values by about 100 keV. The effect of this level of recalibration is very important for light hypernuclei, especially for the hypertriton. The early $B_\Lambda$ values measured in 1967, 1968, and 1973 are widely used in theoretical research, and the new results provide better constraints on the conclusions from such studies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[39]

Achenbach, S

P. Achenbach, S. Bleser, J. Pochodzalla et al, PoS, Hadron2017: 207 (2018)

work page 2018
[1]

Danysz and J

M. Danysz and J. Pniewski, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 44: 348-350 (1953)

work page 1953
[2]

Levi-Setti, W

R. Levi-Setti, W. E. Slater, and V. L. Telegdi, Il Nuovo Cimento Series 10, 10: 68-90 (1958)

work page 1958
[3]

E. M. Silverstein, Il Nuovo Cimento Series 10, 10: 41-67 (1958)

work page 1958
[4]

B. I. Abelev et al (STAR Collaboration), Science, 328: 58-62 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

Adam et al (ALICE Collaboration), Phys

J. Adam et al (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B, 754: 360-372 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Botta, T

E. Botta, T. Bressani, and G. Garbarino, Eur. Phys. J. A, 48: 41 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

M \"u ller and J

H. M \"u ller and J. R. Shepard, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 26: 1049-1064 (2000)

work page 2000

Show all 59 references

[8]

Chatterjee and I

D. Chatterjee and I. Vida \ n a, Eur. Phys. J. A, 52: 29 (2016)

2016
[9]

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

2016
[10]

Lonardoni, A

D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 092301 (2015)

2015
[11]

Contessi, N

L. Contessi, N. Barnea, and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121: 102502 (2018)

2018
[12]

S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. D. Cohen et al, Phys. Rev. D, 87: 034506 (2013)

2013
[13]

Adamczyk et al (STAR Collaboration), Phys

L. Adamczyk et al (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C, 97: 054909 (2018)

2018
[14]

J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Science, 304: 536-542 (2004)

2004
[15]

Fortin, S

M. Fortin, S. S. Avancini, C. Provid\^encia et al, Phys. Rev. C, 95: 065803 (2017)

2017
[16]

Rep., 760: 1-39 (2018)

Jinhui Chen, Declan Keane, Yu-Gang Ma et al, Phys. Rep., 760: 1-39 (2018)

2018
[17]

Mayeur, J

C. Mayeur, J. Sacton, P. Vilain et al, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1971-1996), 43: 180-192 (1966)

1966
[18]

Gajewski, C

W. Gajewski, C. Mayeur, J. Sacton et al, Nucl. Phys. B, 1: 105-113 (1967)

1967
[19]

G. Bohm, J. Klabuhn, U. Krecker et al, Nucl. Phys. B, 4: 511-526 (1968)

1968
[20]

Juric, G

M. Juric, G. Bohm, J. Klabuhn et al, Nucl. Phys. B, 52: 1-30 (1973)

1973
[21]

Tanabashi et al (Particle Data Group), Phys

M. Tanabashi et al (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D, 98: 030001 (2018)

2018
[22]

W. J. Huang, G. Audi, M. Wang et al, Chin. Phys. C, 41: 030002 (2017)

2017
[23]

M. Wang, G. Audi, F. G. Kondev et al, Chin. Phys. C, 41: 030003 (2017)

2017
[24]

Adam et al (STAR Collaboration), arXiv: 1904.10520

J. Adam et al (STAR Collaboration), arXiv: 1904.10520

1904
[25]

Peng Liu (for the STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A, 982: 811-814 (2019)

2019
[26]

Lonardoni, F

D. Lonardoni, F. Pederiva, and S. Gandolfi, Phys. Rev. C, 89: 014314 (2014)

2014
[27]

Lonardoni and F

D. Lonardoni and F. Pederiva, arXiv: 1711.07521

arXiv
[28]

G. Bohm, U. Krecker, C. Mayeur et al, Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970), 70: 384-390 (1970)

1970
[29]

A. H. Wapstra, Physica, 21: 367-384 (1954)

1954
[30]

Everling, L

F. Everling, L. A. K \"o nig, J. H. E. Mattauch et al, Nucl. Phys., 15: 342-355 (1960)

1960
[31]

Everling, L

F. Everling, L. A. K \"o nig, J. H. E. Mattauch et al, Nucl. Phys., 18: 529-569 (1960)

1960
[32]

L. A. K \"o nig, J. H. E. Mattauch, and A. H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys., 31: 18-42 (1962)

1962
[33]

J. H. E. Mattauch, W. Thiele, and A. H. Wapstra, Nucl. Phys., 67: 1-31 (1965)

1965
[34]

A. H. Wapstra and N. B. Gove, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 9: 267-301 (1971)

1971
[35]

A. H. Wapstra and K. Bos, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 19: 177-214 (1977)

1977
[36]

D. H. Davis, Contemp. Phys., 27: 91-116 (1986)

1986
[37]

D. H. Davis, Nucl. Phys. A, 547: 369c-378c (1992)

1992
[38]

D. H. Davis, Nucl. Phys. A, 754: 3-13 (2005)

2005
[40]

Mayeur, J

C. Mayeur, J. Sacton, P. Vilain et al, Il Nuovo Cimento A, 43: 180-192 (1966)

1966
[41]

A. H. Rosenfeld, A. Barbaro-Galtieri, W. J. Podolsky et al, Rev. Mod. Phys., 39: 1-51 (1967)

1967
[42]

Barash-Schmidt et al (Particle Data Group), http://pdg.lbl.gov/rpp-archive/files/cm-p00040028.pdf, retrieved 5th August 2019

N. Barash-Schmidt et al (Particle Data Group), http://pdg.lbl.gov/rpp-archive/files/cm-p00040028.pdf, retrieved 5th August 2019

2019
[43]

Schulz et al (A1 Collaboration), Nucl

F. Schulz et al (A1 Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A, 954: 149-160 (2016)

2016
[44]

Gogami et al (HKS (JLab E05-115) Collaboration), Phys

T. Gogami et al (HKS (JLab E05-115) Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C, 94: 021302(R) (2016)

2016
[45]

Botta, T

E. Botta, T. Bressani, and A. Feliciello, Nucl. Phys. A, 960: 165-179 (2017)

2017
[46]

Agnello et al (FINUDA Collaboration), Phys

M. Agnello et al (FINUDA Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B, 681: 139-146 (2009)

2009
[47]

G. M. Urciuoli et al (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C, 91: 034308 (2015)

2015
[48]

Gogami et al (HKS (JLab E05-115) Collaboration), Phys

T. Gogami et al (HKS (JLab E05-115) Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C, 93: 034314 (2016)

2016
[49]

Tang et al (HKS (JLab E05-115 and E01-011) Collaborations), Phys

L. Tang et al (HKS (JLab E05-115 and E01-011) Collaborations), Phys. Rev. C, 90: 034320 (2014)

2014
[50]

Agnello et al, Phys

M. Agnello et al, Phys. Lett. B, 698: 219-225 (2011)

2011
[51]

K. P. Santhosh and C. Nithya, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 133: 343 (2018)

2018
[52]

Richard, Q

J.-M. Richard, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, arXiv: 1604.04208v1

arXiv
[53]

Acharya et al (ALICE Collaboration), arXiv:1907.06906

S. Acharya et al (ALICE Collaboration), arXiv:1907.06906

1907 arXiv
[54]

Gal and H

A. Gal and H. Garcilazo, Phys. Lett. B, 791: 48-53 (2019)

2019
[55]

Nuclear Data Services of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), https://www-nds.iaea.org/, retrieved 5th August 2019

2019
[56]

Hiyama and T

E. Hiyama and T. Yamada, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 63: 339-395 (2009)

2009
[57]

Private communication with Prof. D. J. Millener and Prof. D. H. Davis
[58]

N Nakamura, T

S. N Nakamura, T. Gogami, and L. Tang (for the JLab hypernuclear Collaboration), JPS Conf. Proc., 17: 011002 (2017)

2017
[59]

Peng Liu, Jin-Hui Chen, Yu-Gang Ma et al, Nucl. Sci. Tech., 28: 55 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [39]

Achenbach, S

P. Achenbach, S. Bleser, J. Pochodzalla et al, PoS, Hadron2017: 207 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [1]

Danysz and J

M. Danysz and J. Pniewski, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 44: 348-350 (1953)

work page 1953

[3] [2]

Levi-Setti, W

R. Levi-Setti, W. E. Slater, and V. L. Telegdi, Il Nuovo Cimento Series 10, 10: 68-90 (1958)

work page 1958

[4] [3]

E. M. Silverstein, Il Nuovo Cimento Series 10, 10: 41-67 (1958)

work page 1958

[5] [4]

B. I. Abelev et al (STAR Collaboration), Science, 328: 58-62 (2010)

work page 2010

[6] [5]

Adam et al (ALICE Collaboration), Phys

J. Adam et al (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B, 754: 360-372 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Botta, T

E. Botta, T. Bressani, and G. Garbarino, Eur. Phys. J. A, 48: 41 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [7]

M \"u ller and J

H. M \"u ller and J. R. Shepard, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., 26: 1049-1064 (2000)

work page 2000