Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

In hot nuclear matter, chiral SU(3) in-medium nucleon modifications reduce shear viscosity and increase thermal conductivity relative to a free gas; isospin asymmetry boosts κ but barely affects η.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-03 18:30 UTC pith:CCX6JJTO

load-bearing objection Useful numerical application, but the isospin effect on kappa is mostly baked into the mean-free-path ansatz, so the headline claim is oversold. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.04820 v2 pith:CCX6JJTO submitted 2025-12-04 nucl-th hep-ph

Thermodynamic and transport properties of hot asymmetric nuclear matter within a chiral SU(3) model

Amruta Mishra , J. Schaffner-Bielich This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-ph
keywords hot nuclear matterchiral SU(3) modelshear viscositythermal conductivityisospin asymmetryrelaxation time approximationeta/s rationucleon effective mass
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that in hot nuclear matter the in-medium modifications of nucleons computed in the chiral SU(3) mean-field model change transport properties in a specific way: shear viscosity η is smaller than in a free nucleon gas, thermal conductivity κ is appreciably larger, and the viscosity-to-entropy ratio η/s drops with baryon density, more steeply at higher temperature. It further claims that isospin asymmetry (η_N=0.3) raises κ significantly while affecting η only marginally. These results matter because they predict how compressed baryonic matter would transport momentum and heat differently from a simple gas picture, with consequences for collective flow and hadron spectra in heavy-ion collisions. The quantitative engine is the relaxation-time approximation with a medium-averaged relaxation time built from in-medium masses, densities, and a fixed nucleon-nucleon cross-section.

Core claim

Using the chiral SU(3) mean-field model, the authors compute effective masses and chemical potentials of protons and neutrons in hot, isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter at given baryon density, temperature, and asymmetry parameter η_N=(ρ_n−ρ_p)/(2ρ_B). From these they evaluate the shear viscosity and thermal conductivity in the relaxation-time approximation. Their central finding is that the medium-modified nucleons make η smaller than in a free nucleon gas while making κ appreciably larger, and that both coefficients rise with isospin asymmetry, although the rise in η is marginal. They also find that η/s falls with increasing baryon density, with a more pronounced fall at higher temperature

What carries the argument

The chiral SU(3) mean-field model supplies density- and temperature-dependent nucleon masses m*_i from the scalar mean fields (σ, ζ, δ) and effective chemical potentials from the vector mean fields (ω, ρ). These enter the equilibrium distribution functions and single-particle energies used in the Boltzmann equation. The transport integrals for η and κ are then evaluated with a relaxation time averaged over the medium, τ_i=λ_i/<v_i>, where λ_i=1/(ρ_i σ_NN) and σ_NN=40 mb. This averaged relaxation time, together with the different proton and neutron densities, carries most of the density, temperature, and isospin dependence of the final coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy-dependent relaxation time can be replaced by the species-averaged value τ_i=1/(ρ_i σ_NN <v_i>) with a common cross-section of 40 mb for all nucleon pairs; if that replacement or the cross-section value is wrong, the quantitative transport coefficients—especially the isospin enhancement of κ—can shift substantially.

What would settle it

Compute η and κ keeping the full momentum-dependent relaxation time from the collision integral inside the integrands, without the replacement τ_i=λ_i/<v_i>, and compare the results for η_N=0 and η_N=0.3 with the paper's curves. If the κ enhancement disappears, the paper's main isospin result is an artifact of the averaging.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At fixed temperature and baryon density, η in the chiral SU(3) model is smaller than in the free nucleon gas, so a free-gas transport code would overestimate shear damping in dense matter.
  • η/s falls as baryon density increases, and the fall is steeper at T=100 and 150 MeV with in-medium nucleons, so high-density matter is predicted to be closer to a nearly perfect fluid at higher temperature.
  • κ is larger with in-medium nucleons and rises with density at T=50 and 100 MeV; at T=150 MeV it drops over the same density range, a non-monotonic behavior that differs from the free gas.
  • At η_N=0.3, κ increases by up to about a factor of two at high density in the chiral SU(3) model, making the heat conductivity sensitive to the neutron-proton asymmetry of the colliding system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The proton-neutron split in κ is largely driven by the longer proton mean free path in the more dilute proton component, since σ_NN is taken equal for all pairs; a density-dependent or isospin-dependent cross-section could undo the effect.
  • The opposite density trends of κ at T=50/100 versus T=150 suggest a competition between in-medium mass changes and phase-space occupation; the same interplay should show up in bulk viscosity, which the paper does not compute.
  • Extending the same averaged-relaxation-time scheme to pions and kaons would test whether the nucleon-only transport picture survives in a full hadronic mixture, where the single-relaxation-time assumption is less justified.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates thermodynamic properties (pressure, energy density, entropy density, speed of sound, entropy per baryon) and transport coefficients (shear viscosity η and thermal conductivity κ) of hot, isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter within a chiral SU(3) mean-field model. Nucleon effective masses and chemical potentials are computed self-consistently from the model for given baryon density, temperature, and asymmetry parameter η_N. Transport coefficients are obtained in the relaxation-time approximation, with the relaxation time replaced by a medium-dependent mean value τ_i = 1/(ρ_i σ_NN 〈v_i〉), σ_NN = 40 mb. The central results are that, relative to a free nucleon gas, the chiral SU(3) in-medium modifications reduce η, increase κ substantially, and make η/s drop more steeply with density at high T; isospin asymmetry (η_N=0.3) is reported to increase κ appreciably while affecting η only marginally. The study is motivated by CBM/FAIR physics.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a first chiral-SU(3)-based estimate of η and κ for hot asymmetric nuclear matter in a regime relevant to CBM. The use of a well-established mean-field model and the comparison with earlier RTA/BUU results are positive features. However, the quantitative transport predictions—especially the isospin dependence of κ—rest on an ad-hoc replacement of the energy-dependent relaxation time by a mean value with a single constant cross section, without sensitivity tests. The results should therefore be viewed as indicative rather than robust predictions. The paper is within the journal's scope but requires substantial revision to justify the central quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (30)-(31)] The momentum-dependent relaxation time in Eq. (27) is replaced by τ_i = λ_i/〈v_i〉 with λ_i = 1/(ρ_i σ_NN) and a single σ_NN = 40 mb for all isospin channels. Because η and κ in Eqs. (28)-(29) are linear in τ_i, the magnitude and density/isospin dependence of the transport coefficients are largely set by this ansatz. For η_N=0.3, ρ_p=0.2 ρ_B and ρ_n=0.8 ρ_B, so τ_p/τ_n ≈ 4〈v_n〉/〈v_p〉 from the density ratio alone; the chiral SU(3) medium enters only through a mild modification of 〈v_i〉. The paper neither solves the energy-dependent Eq. (27) nor tests the sensitivity to σ_NN or to isospin-dependent cross sections. Without such a study, the reported 'appreciable' isospin enhancement of κ cannot be attributed to the chiral SU(3) dynamics rather than to the input ansatz. Please provide either an energy-dependent treatment or a systematic sensitivity analysis.
  2. [Sec. III, distribution functions] The text after Eq. (29) states f_i^eq and \bar f_i^eq are 'given by equation (25)' (i.e., F_eq(cl)(1-F_eq(cl))), while earlier it states 'In the present work, we retain the form given by equation (24)' (i.e., the full quantum distribution) and later refers to Eq. (14). These statements are mutually contradictory. If the full Fermi-Dirac statistics are used in Eqs. (28)-(29), the derivation of τ_i from the collision integral (Eq. (27)), which assumes the approximate form, is not consistently applied, and the numerical results at high density/low temperature, where degeneracy matters, would change. Please state precisely which distribution is used and justify the combination of the approximate collision term with the full quantum equilibrium distributions.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. IV, Fig. 8] The abstract and summary state that the presence of isospin asymmetry leads to higher values of the shear viscosity η (even if marginal). However, in the results for T=50 MeV, Fig. 8 shows η in asymmetric matter is lower than in symmetric matter for ρ_B ≳ 2.3 ρ_0, with values 0.46 vs 0.45 fm^-3 at 5 ρ_0, and the text says 'The effect of the isospin asymmetry is observed to lead to a lower value of the shear viscosity coefficient.' This contradiction should be resolved; the conclusion should state the actual density/temperature dependence (e.g., marginal increase at low density and decrease at high density for T=50 MeV, and marginal effects at higher T).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors (e.g., 'folllows', 'sectiom', 'temeperature', 'funciton', 'visosity') that should be corrected in a revision.
  2. [Fig. 10] The caption and text refer to subplot (c) for the chiral SU(3) model, but the figure has only panels (a) and (b). Please align the panel labels.
  3. [Eqs. (15) and (29)] The sign of the vector-field combination (g_ωi ω + g_ρi ρ) in the dispersion relation (15) and in the thermal conductivity integrand (29) should be stated consistently, especially for the antiparticle contribution where the sign differs.
  4. [Sec. II] For reproducibility, the parameter set of the chiral SU(3) model (couplings g_σ, g_ζ, g_δ, g_ω, g_ρ, and meson potential parameters) should be listed or referenced explicitly, rather than only described in words.
  5. [Sec. IV, relaxation times] When comparing relaxation times with Refs. [1] and [5], the differing definitions and input (e.g., energy-dependent vs average cross sections) should be stated to make the comparison meaningful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: chiral SU(3) transport coefficients are genuine outputs; the mean-free-path input is acknowledged, not fitted to the predicted transport coefficients.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claims being made. The chiral SU(3) model parameters are fixed by vacuum hadron masses and nuclear-matter saturation properties (Sec. II), not by eta or kappa. The transport coefficients in Eqs. (28)-(29) are computed from the equilibrium distribution functions, in-medium effective masses/chemical potentials, and a relaxation time tau_i. The tau_i prescription in Eqs. (30)-(31) is an external input: lambda_i = 1/(rho_i sigma_NN) with sigma_NN = 40 mb taken from the literature, combined with the thermal average velocity <v_i>. No parameter is fit to reproduce eta or kappa, and the results are compared to independent benchmarks (Refs. [1,5,6]). The isospin asymmetry effect on kappa is indeed largely controlled by the input relation tau_p/tau_n = (rho_n/rho_p)*(<v_n>/<v_p>) for a common sigma_NN; however, the paper states this explicitly: 'the proton has a larger relaxation time as compared to neutron, due to smaller value of its density, which leads to a larger value of the mean free path (see equation (30))'. Attributing the enhancement to the density dependence of the ansatz rather than to chiral SU(3) dynamics is a modeling-sensitivity/correctness concern, not circularity: the output is not equivalent by definition to a fitted target, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. The absence of a sensitivity scan on sigma_NN weakens the quantitative claim but does not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the chiral SU(3) mean-field model with parameters fit to known hadronic inputs, plus a simplified relaxation-time prescription. The transport coefficients themselves are not used to fix any parameter, so the target-result circularity burden is low. No new particles or fields are introduced. The main unquantified inputs are sigma_NN and the averaged-tau approximation, which directly shape the isospin dependence claimed as a result.

free parameters (3)
  • Meson-nucleon coupling constants g_sigma, g_zeta, g_delta, g_omega, g_rho = Not tabulated in paper; taken from Refs [41-44]
    Enter the effective mass m_i^* (Eq. 3) and effective chemical potential mu_i^* (Eq. 4); their values set the in-medium dispersion relation used in the eta/kappa integrals.
  • Meson potential parameters k0, k1, k2, k3, k4 and dilaton vacuum value chi0 = Fit to vacuum hadron masses, eta/eta' masses, and p=0 at saturation; numerical values in Refs [41-44]
    Enter the thermodynamic potential (Eq. 9) through L0, L_vec, L_scale-break; determine pressure, energy density, entropy density and hence the enthalpy w in Eq. (29).
  • Nucleon-nucleon cross section sigma_NN = 40 mb
    Sets the mean free path lambda_i = 1/(rho_i sigma_NN) in Eq. (30). Because it is taken equal for pp, pn, nn, the isospin asymmetry of tau, and therefore of kappa, is almost entirely inherited from the proton/neutron density difference.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The chiral SU(3) mean-field Lagrangian with scalar (sigma, zeta, delta), vector (omega, rho), and dilaton chi fields describes hot nuclear matter.
    Section II, Eqs. (1)-(8). The entire thermodynamic background and the effective masses m_i^* come from this model. Its parameters are fit to hadron masses and saturation properties, not to transport coefficients.
  • domain assumption Mean-field/classical-field approximation: meson expectation values are space-time independent in equilibrium and only time-like vector components survive.
    Section II. Needed to define m_i^* and mu_i^*. Standard in this model, but an approximation that neglects fluctuations.
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxation-time approximation with a momentum-independent, medium-dependent tau_i = lambda_i/<v_i>, with lambda_i = 1/(rho_i sigma_NN) and sigma_NN = 40 mb.
    Eqs. (26)-(31). This choice sets the overall scale of eta/kappa and the isospin dependence of the results. The paper states the averaging assumption but does not quantify its uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantum statistics in the transport integrals use the full Fermi-Dirac form (14), while the relaxation-time expression (27) is derived with the approximate distribution F_cl(1-F_cl) (25).
    Section III, around Eqs. (23)-(27). The paper does not discuss this inconsistency; it is a potential source of systematic error in tau.
  • domain assumption First-order departure from local equilibrium, Landau-Lifshitz matching, and neglect of pion and other mesonic degrees of freedom in the transport calculation.
    Section III, Eqs. (20)-(22). The calculation treats nuclear matter as nucleon-dominated, which is appropriate for high baryon density but omits pion contributions that can matter at high T and low density.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16843 in / 14814 out tokens · 132863 ms · 2026-08-03T18:30:19.362604+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the thermodynamic and transport properties in hot nuclear matter accounting for the medium modifications of the nucleons within a chiral SU(3) model including effects from isospin asymmetry. Using the relaxation time approximation, the transport coefficients of the shear viscosity and thermal conductivity are studied. The shear viscosity, $\eta$, calculated within the chiral SU(3) model is observed to be smaller than the values calculated for free nucleon gas, whereas the thermal conductivity $\kappa$ is appreciably larger as compared to the free nucleon gas. The presence of isospin asymmetry in the medium leads to higher values of both the coefficients of shear viscosity ($\eta$) and thermal conductivity ($\kappa$), however, the effect is observed to be marginal for $\eta$. In the chiral SU(3) model, the effect of isospin asymmetry is observed to be larger for higher values of temperature. For T=150 MeV, there is observed to be a drop in the value of $\kappa$ as density is increased, contrary to the increase observed for the lower values of temperature, T=50 and 100 MeV. The shear viscosity coefficient to entropy density ratio $\eta/s$ drops with increasing baryon density that becomes more pronounced at higher temperatures in the chiral SU(3) model as compared to the case of a free nucleon gas. The present study of the thermodynamic as well as transport properties in hot nuclear matter is of relevance for relativistic heavy-ion collisions with different initial isospin asymmetry, in particular for the compressed baryonic matter experiment at the FAIR facility at GSI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04820 by Amruta Mishra, J. Schaffner-Bielich.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Pressure, p (in MeV/fm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Energy density (in MeV/fm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Entropy density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Entropy per baryon, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Masses of proton and neutron, calculated within the chiral SU(3) model, are plotted as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Relaxation times of proton and neutron (in fermis) are plotted as funcitons of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: for T=50, 100 and 150 MeV, both for symmetric (ηN =0) and asymmetric (with ηN =0.3) nuclear matter. This is plotted both for free nucleon gas (in panel (a)) as well as with medium modified nucleons calculated in the chiral SU(3) model (in panel (b)). In the free nucleon gas, the value of η is observed to be larger as temperature is raised and there is a steady increase with increase in density. However, in… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Shear viscosity coefficient to entropy density ratio, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Thermal conductivity coefficient, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and of around 2 (0.4) of Ref. [5]. In the asymmetric nuclear matter, the relaxation time is observed to be higher for the proton as compared to the neutron, mainly due to smaller number density of the proton as compared to neutrons. For T=50, 100 and 150 MeV, the 18 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Shear viscosity, (fm -3 ) 1 2 3 4 5 Free Nucleon gas (a) 0.3 0.4 0....

  2. [2]

    Prakash, M

    M. Prakash, M. Prakash, R. Venugopalan and G. Welke, Phys. Rep.227, 321 (1993)

    1993

  3. [3]

    Danielewicz, Phys

    P. Danielewicz, Phys. Lett. B146, 168 (1984)

    1984

  4. [4]

    Serot and J

    B.D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. E6, 515 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    Itakura, O

    K. Itakura, O. Morimatsu and H. Otomo, Phys. Rev. D77, 014014 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    For the symmetric nuclear matter (η N =0), the masses of the proton and neutron are degenerate. These masses become non-degenerate in presence of isospin asymmetry due to the interaction with the isovector scalarδmeson, which leads to a higher mass of the proton as compared to neutron. There is observed to be drop in the masses of the nucleons in the nucl...

  7. [7]

    Mornas, Nucl

    L. Mornas, Nucl. Phys. A573, 554 (1994)

    1994

  8. [8]

    Hakim and L

    R. Hakim and L. Mornas, Phys. Rev. C47, 2846 (1993)

    1993

  9. [9]

    S. Ayik, Y. B. Ivanov, V. N. Russkikh and W. N¨ orenberg, Nucl. Phys. A578, 640 (1994)

    1994

  10. [10]

    M. M. Abu-Samreh and H. S. K¨ ohler, Nucl. Phys. A552, 101 (1993)

    1993

  11. [11]

    A. S. Khvorostukhin, V. D. Toneev and D. N. Voskresensky, Nucl. Phys. A915, 198 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Chakraborty and J

    P. Chakraborty and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C83, 014906 (2011). 24

    2011

  13. [13]

    Albright and J

    M. Albright and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C93, 014903 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Noronha-Hostler, J

    J. Noronha-Hostler, J. Noronha and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C86, 024913 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    M. I. Gorenstein, M. Hauer and O. N. Moroz, Phys. Rev. C77, 024911 (2008)

    2008

  16. [16]

    Danielewicz and M

    P. Danielewicz and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D31, 53 (1985)

    1985

  17. [17]

    Hosoya and K

    A. Hosoya and K. Kajantie, Nucl. Phys. B250, 666 (1985)

    1985

  18. [18]

    A. S. Khvorostukhin, V. D. Toneev and D. N. Voskresensky, Phys. Rev. C84, 035202 (2011)

    2011

  19. [19]

    Gavin, Nucl

    S. Gavin, Nucl. Phys. A435, 826 (1985)

    1985

  20. [20]

    A. S. Khvorostukhin, V. D. Toneev and D. N. Voskresensky, Nucl. Phys. A845, 106 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Soloveva, D

    O. Soloveva, D. Fuseau, J. Aichelin, E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C103, 054901 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Danhoni and G

    I. Danhoni and G. D. Moore, arXiv: 2408.00524

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Sch¨ afer, I

    A. Sch¨ afer, I. Karpenko, X.-Y. Wu, J. Hammelmann and H. Elfner, Eur. Phys. Jour. A58, 230 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    I. A. Karpenko, P. Huovinen, H. Peterson and M. Bleicher, Phy. Rev. C91, 064901 (2015)

    2015

  25. [25]

    G¨ otz and H

    N. G¨ otz and H. Elfner, Phys. Rev. C106, 054904 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    G¨ otz, I

    N. G¨ otz, I. Karpenko and H. Elfner, arXiv: 2503.10181 (nucl-th)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    Kovtun, D

    P. Kovtun, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 111601 (2005)

    2005

  28. [28]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 042301 (2011): ibid. Phys. Rev. C 85, 024901 (2012)

    2011

  29. [29]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C83, 054912 (2011)

    2011

  30. [30]

    H. Song, S. A. Bass, U. Heinz, T. Hirano and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. C83, 054910 (2011); ibid, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 192301 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    B.Bl¨ attel, V. Koch, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C38, 1767 (1988)

    1988

  32. [32]

    Lang, B.Bl¨ attel, V

    A. Lang, B.Bl¨ attel, V. Koch, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, PLB245, 147 (1990)

    1990

  33. [33]

    Maruyama, B.Bl¨ attel, W

    T. Maruyama, B.Bl¨ attel, W. Cassing, A. Lang, U. Mosel, K. Weber, Phys. Lett. B297, 228 (1992)

    1992

  34. [34]

    Maruyama, W

    T. Maruyama, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, S. Teis, K. Weber, Nucl. Phys. A573, 653 (1994)

    1994

  35. [35]

    B.Bl¨ attel, V. Koch, K. Weber, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. A495, 381c (1989)

    1989

  36. [36]

    B.Bl¨ attel, V. Koch, A. Lang, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C343, 2728 (1991)

    1991

  37. [37]

    Koch, B.Bl¨ attel, W

    V. Koch, B.Bl¨ attel, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, Phys. Lett. B241, 174 (1990)

    1990

  38. [38]

    Koch, B.Bl¨ attel, W

    V. Koch, B.Bl¨ attel, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, Nucl. Phys. B532, 715 (1991)

    1991

  39. [39]

    Notes Phys.814, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010, B

    The CBM Physics Book, Lect. Notes Phys.814, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010, B. 25 Friman et al (Eds.)

    2010

  40. [40]

    Senger, Particles 2021, 4, 214-226, https://doi.org/10.3390/particles4020020

    P. Senger, Particles 2021, 4, 214-226, https://doi.org/10.3390/particles4020020

    work page doi:10.3390/particles4020020 2021

  41. [41]

    Bzdak, S

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Phys. Rept. 853, 1 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Alford, L

    Mark G. Alford, L. Bovard, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla and K. Schwenzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 041101 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Papazoglou, D

    P. Papazoglou, D. Zschiesche, S. Schramm, J. Schaffner-Bielich, H. St¨ ocker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C59, 411 (1999)

    1999

  44. [44]

    Zschiesche, A

    D. Zschiesche, A. Mishra, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C70, 045202 (2004)

    2004

  45. [45]

    Mishra, K

    A. Mishra, K. Balazs, D. Zschiesche, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 69, 024903 (2004)

    2004

  46. [46]

    Amruta Mishra, Arvind Kumar and S. P. Misra, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014003 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Rev.1661568 (1968)

    S.Weinberg, Phys. Rev.1661568 (1968)

    1968

  48. [48]

    Coleman, J

    S. Coleman, J. Wess, B. Zumino, Phys. Rev.1772239 (1969); C.G. Callan, S. Coleman, J. Wess, B. Zumino, Phys. Rev.1772247 (1969)

    1969

  49. [49]

    W. A. Bardeen and B. W. Lee, Phys. Rev.1772389 (1969)

    1969

  50. [50]

    Schechter, Phys

    J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D21, 3393 (1980)

    1980

  51. [51]

    Heide, Serge Rudaz and Paul J

    Erik K. Heide, Serge Rudaz and Paul J. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. A571, (2001) 713. 26

    2001

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.