Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Accelerator neutrinos on argon can measure the low-density hyperon potentials that decide whether neutron stars can host hyperons.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 04:13 UTC pith:LAAKH3KB

load-bearing objection A carefully scoped new chain from neutrino hyperon FSI to a low-density U_Y anchor; the several-MeV claim is honest once γ and transport systematics are counted, and M_max stays prior-dominated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09273 v1 pith:LAAKH3KB submitted 2026-07-10 nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-exhep-ph

Neutrino-induced hyperon final-state interactions as constraints on the in-medium hyperon potential

Jaroslaw Nowak This is my paper
classification nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-exhep-ph
keywords hyperon potentialneutrino-nucleus interactionsfinal-state interactionshyperon puzzleneutron-star equation of stateSBNDDUNEliquid argon
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.

The paper argues that charged-current neutrino and antineutrino interactions on argon produce Lambda and Sigma hyperons inside the nucleus, and that those hyperons feel the same density-dependent single-particle potentials that control hyperon appearance in neutron-star matter. At SBND and DUNE energies the trapped-Lambda fraction, the escaping hyperon momenta, and a kaon-vetoed Sigma-plus final-state tag all respond monotonically to the Lambda and Sigma potentials. Because the hyperons are born below nuclear saturation, the data mainly constrain the low-density shape of the potential rather than a single number at saturation; once that shape is fixed or marginalised, the same potentials can be fed into a relativistic mean-field equation of state to obtain a maximum mass. The forecast shows that the Lambda anchor remains useful at the several-MeV level after realistic systematics, while the Sigma extraction is presently limited by hyperon-nucleon cross-section uncertainty. A joint fit with existing hypernuclear and heavy-ion priors then yields a maximum-mass posterior set largely by the external high-density prior, not by the neutrino likelihood itself.

Core claim

Charged-current accelerator (anti)neutrino interactions on argon produce Lambda and Sigma hyperons inside the nucleus whose trapped fraction, escape momenta and kaon-vetoed FSI-Sigma-plus tag respond monotonically to the in-medium potentials U_Lambda and U_Sigma, furnishing a terrestrial low-density anchor that can be inserted into a hyperonic equation of state.

What carries the argument

The density-dependent single-particle potential U_Y(rho) of turnover form, applied either as an exit-energy shift or as continuous gradient-force transport inside the StrangeMC intranuclear cascade, which maps potential depths onto the trapped-Lambda fraction and escaping hyperon momenta.

Load-bearing premise

The simple energy-threshold trapping rule and the exit-shift (or gradient) transport prescription are taken to map the potential onto the trapped-Lambda fraction without a full hypernuclear-structure calculation of capture.

What would settle it

Measure the reconstructed Lambda-V0 yield and mean momentum (and the kaon-vetoed Sigma-plus rate) in SBND or DUNE near-detector argon samples and check whether they vary with beam energy and polarity as the predicted monotonic response surfaces require; a null or opposite dependence would falsify the claimed potential sensitivity.

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

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that charged-current (anti)neutrino interactions on 40Ar at SBND and DUNE produce Λ and Σ inside the nucleus whose final-state interactions encode the in-medium potentials U_Y(ρ). Using the internal StrangeMC generator, it maps the trapped-Λ fraction, escaping momenta and a kaon-vetoed FSI-Σ+ tag over (U_Λ, U_Σ), shows monotonic, sign-correct responses, and constructs a detector-level Fisher forecast. At fixed low-density exponent γ the statistical reach is δU_Λ ≃ 0.3 MeV and δU_Σ ≃ 3–4 MeV; marginalising over γ degrades the U_Λ anchor to 5.6 MeV because production is sub-saturation. The same potentials, inserted into a GM1 RMF EOS at established hypernuclear/Σ-atom depths, give M_max = 1.94 M_⊙ and Λ_1.4 = 1034. A joint Bayesian fit with hypernuclear, Σ-atom and heavy-ion priors yields M_max = 2.21^{+0.04}_{-0.15} M_⊙, set mainly by the external c_Λ prior. The paper is explicit that neutrinos measure the low-density function U_Y(ρ ≲ ρ_0) and that M_max is an inference, and it quantifies leading systematics (YN cross sections, exit-shift vs gradient transport).

Significance. If the chain holds, accelerator neutrinos supply an independent terrestrial low-density anchor on U_Λ complementary to hypernuclei and Σ-atoms, with a realistic several-MeV precision after γ-marginalisation and systematics. The novelty is the end-to-end link neutrino FSI → U_Y(ρ ≲ ρ_0) → hyperonic EOS → TOV/M_max, carefully separated into measured versus inferred quantities. Strengths include the quantified γ degeneracy (99.8% anti-correlation), the published binned response derivatives (Appendix B) that make the Fisher forecast reproducible, the honest hierarchy that U_Σ is YN-limited at O(150) MeV while U_Λ remains the robust handle, and the clear statement that the joint M_max posterior is prior-dominated. These are genuine contributions to the hyperon-puzzle literature even if the high-density sector remains unconstrained.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (3); Sec. X D] Sec. IV A and Eq. (3): the central U_Λ observable is the trapped-Λ fraction, which carries ~90% of the U_Λ information (Sec. X A) and is defined by the transport-level criterion E_out = E_in + U_Λ(ρ_v) ≤ m_Λ. The paper correctly states that shell structure, angular momentum and de-excitation are not modelled, and Sec. X D already finds that switching from exit-shift to gradient-force transport biases U_Λ by −5.8 MeV (Fisher-weighted). Because this bias is comparable to the γ-marginalised statistical error (5.6 MeV) and to the YN systematic (≲5 MeV), the claim of a 'robust several-MeV' anchor (abstract; Sec. X D) still rests on an incomplete capture model. A quantitative envelope for the residual capture-model uncertainty—e.g. a simple hypernuclear-structure estimate of the capture probability, or a broader variation of the trapping threshold—should be added so that the several-MeV floor
  2. [Sec. XIII; Table XI] Sec. XIII and Table XI: the entire sensitivity chain is generated with StrangeMC, an internal multi-channel Monte Carlo that is not community-benchmarked. The production layer is calibrated to published ΔS=0,1 cross sections and cross-checked against MicroBooNE CC-K+, and the cascade is forked from LUNAR, but the paper itself notes that no same-input cascade comparison with NuWro/GiBUU/GENIE exists for the strange sector. The three consistency checks in Table XI (yield O(10^4), QE dominance, Σ oΛ direction) are necessary but weak for a load-bearing transport model. Either a controlled same-input comparison for at least the trapped fraction and ⟨p_Λ⟩, or a clearer statement that absolute rates and the U_Σ handle remain provisional pending such a benchmark, is needed before the projected reach can be taken at face value.
  3. [Sec. X A] Sec. X A: the Fisher forecast is signal-only, uses representative beam energies rather than flux-folded spectra, and treats the three observables as statistically independent. The paper notes these make the ellipse 'somewhat optimistic' but sub-dominant to γ and YN. Given that the fixed-γ δU_Λ = 0.3 MeV is already superseded by systematics at the several-MeV level, the optimistic assumptions mainly affect the relative weight of beams and the quoted δU_Σ. A short flux-folded check (or a statement that the combined ellipse was re-evaluated with correlated observables) would make the forecast more defensible as a planning tool for SBND/DUNE.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1; Sec. III] Fig. 1 caption and Sec. III: the density lever-arm figure is helpful; consider marking the approximate production-density peak (ρ̄/ρ_0 ≃ 0.6–0.7) used in the γ-degeneracy argument of Sec. X B so the figure and text align.
  2. [Table VIII] Table VIII: the SBND-RHC row is flagged as an upper estimate because the QE model sits ~×1.6 above published curves at 1 GeV. Propagating that factor into the combined Fisher ellipse (or quoting a range) would clarify how exposure uncertainty enters the reach.
  3. [Sec. VII A] Sec. VII A: the residual feed-down background from undetected K^0_L after the charged-kaon veto is left unquantified. Even a rough estimate would strengthen the claim that the FSI-Σ+ tag is low-background.
  4. [Eq. (1); Sec. VIII] Eq. (1) and Sec. VIII: the turn-over form is anchor-preserving at ρ_0, which is well motivated; a one-sentence reminder that (c_Y, β) are never constrained by the neutrino data (only by the heavy-ion prior) would help readers who jump to the joint-fit section.
  5. [References] References: companion Letter [8] and companion paper [29]/[36] are cited as submitted/in preparation; ensure arXiv identifiers or DOIs are updated at proof stage so the chain is citable.
  6. [Figs. 2–7] Notation: U_Y(ρ_0) is sometimes written U_Y and sometimes U_Y(ρ_0) in figure axes (e.g. Figs. 2–7); consistent use of U_Y(ρ_0) would avoid confusion with the full density-dependent function.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: neutrino observables constrain low-density U_Y by construction of the cascade, while M_max is an explicit model-dependent inference set by external high-density priors.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. I, XIII; Refs. [7,8,36]]
    "The calculations use StrangeMC, an internal multi-channel Monte Carlo... inherited, with their existing validation, from the LUNAR proton-decay package [7]... A condensed account of the physics result appears in the companion Letter [8]."

    Minor: the production/cascade engine and companion summary are author-owned tools. They are not used to import a uniqueness claim or to redefine the target observables; external calibrations (Refs. [2–6]) and the explicit separation of measured vs. inferred quantities keep the central result independent. Score contribution is therefore only 1.

full rationale

The paper's chain is transparent and non-circular. Hyperon production and FSI observables (trapped fraction, momenta, FSI-Σ⁺) are generated by inserting a configurable U_Y(ρ) into StrangeMC transport; the monotonic response and Fisher forecast therefore measure that same low-density function (with acknowledged γ degeneracy and systematics). The identical U_Y(ρ₀) is then fed into an independent GM1 RMF + TOV solver whose supra-saturation knobs (c_Y, β, RMF set, octet content) are external; the paper repeatedly states that neutrinos do not constrain M_max or the high-density sector and that the joint posterior M_max = 2.21^{+0.04}_{-0.15} M_⊙ is set by the c_Λ prior. Self-citations (StrangeMC, LUNAR, companion Letter) supply the simulation tool and condensed account, not uniqueness theorems or fitted inputs re-labelled as predictions. The trapping proxy and exit-shift/gradient difference are modelling systematics, not definitional loops. The derivation is therefore self-contained against its stated external benchmarks and priors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard nuclear-physics toolkit (Woods-Saxon density, YN cross sections, RMF mean fields, TOV) plus a purpose-built Monte Carlo whose production layer is calibrated to published cross sections. Free parameters are the potential depths/exponents and the high-density turn-over coefficients that are either fixed by external data or marginalised. No new particles or forces are postulated; the main modelling choices are the transport prescription and the trapping proxy.

free parameters (5)
  • U_Λ(ρ₀) = −28 MeV (baseline); posterior −29.3±3.2 MeV
    Saturation depth of the Λ potential; fixed to hypernuclear value ~−28 MeV for baseline but treated as free parameter to be constrained by the neutrino observables.
  • U_Σ(ρ₀) = +30 MeV (baseline)
    Saturation depth of the Σ potential; fixed to Σ-atom value ~+30 MeV for baseline, free in the fit.
  • γ (low-density exponent) = 1 (baseline)
    Power-law slope of U_Y(ρ) below saturation; highly anti-correlated with U_Λ(ρ₀) and only weakly constrained by the data (δγ≈0.8).
  • c_Λ (high-density turn-over) = 15±15 MeV (prior)
    Supra-saturation stiffness coefficient; unconstrained by neutrino data and set by heavy-ion prior.
  • YN inelastic cross-section scale = nominal (literature parametrisations)
    Overall normalisation of hyperon–nucleon conversion and charge-exchange rates; varied by ±50 % as the dominant systematic on U_Σ.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Hyperons feel a density-dependent single-particle potential of the turnover form Eq. (1) that can be applied either as an exit energy shift or as a continuous gradient force.
    Standard mean-field ansatz in hypernuclear and dense-matter literature; the two transport realisations differ by ~6 MeV on U_Λ.
  • ad hoc to paper A slow Λ with E_out ≤ m_Y is trapped (transport-level proxy for hypernucleus capture); shell structure, angular momentum and de-excitation are not modelled.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. IV A; the absolute capture probability is not predicted, only the relative trapped fraction.
  • domain assumption GM1 (or GM3) relativistic mean-field with SU(6) vector couplings and scalar couplings fixed by the measured U_Y(ρ₀) correctly continues the potential above saturation.
    Standard RMF framework of Glendenning & Moszkowski; the paper quantifies the ~0.3 M_⊙ EOS-model systematic.
  • domain assumption The nuclear ground state and non-strange cascade can be taken from the LUNAR PDK package; hyperon production channels are calibrated to published SU(3) and chiral models.
    Sec. XIII; absolute rates carry the associated-production model spread of factor ~3–5.
invented entities (1)
  • StrangeMC multi-channel Monte Carlo no independent evidence
    purpose: Internal generator for strange final states, intranuclear hyperon transport and potential response on ⁴⁰Ar.
    Purpose-built research tool, not a community code; production layer calibrated to published cross sections and cascade forked from LUNAR. No independent public validation of the hyperon-FSI sector yet exists.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 29957 in / 3552 out tokens · 33701 ms · 2026-07-13T04:13:17.118003+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hyperon single-particle potentials $U_Y(\rho)$ control propagation in nuclei and hyperon onset in dense matter, where they soften the neutron-star equation of state and reduce the maximum mass -- the ``hyperon puzzle''. We show that charged-current accelerator (anti)neutrino interactions on $^{40}$Ar, producing $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$ inside the nucleus, can constrain these potentials. At SBND and DUNE energies, the trapped-$\Lambda$ fraction and escaping-hyperon momenta vary monotonically with $U_\Lambda$ and $U_\Sigma$, with a kaon-vetoed FSI-$\Sigma^+$ tag adding sensitivity. Inserted in a GM1 relativistic mean-field equation of state at established hypernuclear/$\Sigma$-atom depths, the same potentials give $M_{\rm max} = 1.94\,M_\odot$ and $\Lambda_{1.4}=1034$, below the heaviest pulsars and above the GW170817 bound typical of GM1-class mean fields. A detector-level Fisher forecast yields $\delta U_\Lambda \simeq 0.3\,$MeV and $\delta U_\Sigma \simeq 3$-$4\,$MeV for fixed low-density exponent $\gamma$. Since hyperons are produced below saturation, $U_\Lambda(\rho_0)$ and $\gamma$ are 99.8\% anti-correlated; marginalising over $\gamma$ degrades the anchor to $\delta U_\Lambda \simeq 5.6\,$MeV ($1.3\,$MeV with a $\pm 0.2$ prior), while $\delta U_\Sigma$ is unchanged. For $U_\Lambda$, comparable systematics arise from hyperon-nucleon final-state cross sections ($-5/{+}2\,$MeV) and the exit-shift/gradient transport prescription ($-6\,$MeV). For $U_\Sigma$, the same $YN$ uncertainty biases the fit by $\mathcal{O}(150)\,$MeV; removing the $\Sigma^+$ tag does not cure this, because the $\Lambda$ momentum spectrum carries most $U_\Sigma$ information and is itself $YN$-sensitive. The low-density $U_\Lambda$ anchor is a robust handle, at several-MeV rather than sub-MeV precision. A joint fit with terrestrial and heavy-ion priors gives $M_{\rm max} = 2.21^{+0.04}_{-0.15}\,\,$Msun, set mainly by the external $c_\Lambda$ prior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09273 by Jaroslaw Nowak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Density “lever arm”: the approximate range of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Sensitivity of the SBND-RHC (¯ν [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Trapped-Λ fraction versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Toy neutron-star maximum mass versus the hyperon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Toy neutron-star maximum mass over the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Generator observables over the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The FSI Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. GM1 RMF predictions with the hyperon couplings anchored to the anchored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The EOS-model systematic—mass–radius sequences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Hyperons produced by FSI in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Projected 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Joint posterior on ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The propagated posterior on the neutron-star maxi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Probability that a pion produces an associated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. BNB flux-averaged cross sections: StrangeMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.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

37 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    fake-CCQE

    Σ→Λconversion.The strong reaction ΣN→ ΛNin the medium, and the Σ/Λ yield, respond to how the two species are transported. 4.TheΣ + “fake-CCQE” tag.In antineutrino quasi-elastic production the weak vertex obeys ∆S= ∆Qand can make only Λ,Σ 0,Σ −—never Σ+. Any Σ+ is therefore a pure FSI product (Λp→ Σ+n, Σ 0p→Σ +n), a low-background (kaon- vetoed) tag of in-...

    2025

  2. [2]

    J. A. Nowak,Construction of a neutrino interactions Monte Carlo generator, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wroc law (2006)

    2006

  3. [3]

    S. K. Singh and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D74, 053009 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Rafi Alam, I

    M. Rafi Alam, I. Ruiz Simo, M. Sajjad Athar, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D82, 033001 (2010), arXiv:1004.5484

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    M. R. Alam, M. S. Athar, S. Chauhan, and S. K. Singh, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E25, 1650010 (2016), arXiv:1303.5924 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Fatima, M

    A. Fatima, M. Sajjad Athar, and S. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. D (2025), arXiv:2507.20754 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    MicroBooNE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 251804 (2025), arXiv:2503.00291 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Nowak, LUNAR: a Monte Carlo generator for bound- nucleon decay in liquid argon (2026), arXiv:2606.30872 [hep-ph]

    J. Nowak, LUNAR: a Monte Carlo generator for bound- nucleon decay in liquid argon (2026), arXiv:2606.30872 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    J. A. Nowak (2026), companion Letter, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

    2026

  10. [10]

    P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  11. [11]

    Antoniadiset al., Science340, 1233232 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875

    J. Antoniadiset al., Science340, 1233232 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  12. [12]

    Fonsecaet al., Astrophys

    E. Fonsecaet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L12 (2021), arXiv:2104.00880

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Chatterjee and I

    D. Chatterjee and I. Vida˜ na, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 29 (2016), arXiv:1510.06306

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Tolos and L

    L. Tolos and L. Fabbietti, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.112, 103770 (2020), arXiv:2002.09223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    G. F. Burgio, H.-J. Schulze, I. Vida˜ na, and J.-B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035004 (2016), arXiv:1605.00557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    P. K. Sahaet al., Phys. Rev. C70, 044613 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0405031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  18. [18]

    Bednarek, P

    I. Bednarek, P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, M. Bejger, and R. Ma´ nka, Astron. Astrophys.543, A157 (2012), arXiv:1111.6942

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Ohnishi, S

    A. Ohnishi, S. Jinno, Y. Murase, and Y. Nara, EPJ Web Conf. (2022), arXiv:2210.17202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Y. Nara, S. Jinno, Y. Murase, and A. Ohnishi, Phys. Rev. C (2022), arXiv:2208.01297

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Kohno, Y

    M. Kohno, Y. Nara,et al., arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2508.19560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Benitez Galan, L

    A. Benitez Galan, L. Alvarez-Ruso, M. Rafi Alam, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D 109, 033001 (2024), arXiv:2305.17004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    MicroBooNE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 231802 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    N. K. Glendenning and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 2414 (1991)

    1991

  25. [25]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J.677, 1216 (2008), arXiv:0711.2420

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [26]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. X9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    M. C. Milleret al., Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L28 (2021), arXiv:2105.06979. 18 TABLE XII. Observable values and (U Λ, UΣ) response derivatives at the truth point, per beam: the reconstructed-Λ fraction per produced hyperonf Λ, the Σ + fractionf Σ+ (truth level), and the mean reconstructed Λ momentum⟨p Λ⟩. Derivatives ∂Λ ≡∂/∂U Λ and∂ Σ ≡∂/∂U Σ are from the q...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    J. A. Nowak (2026), companion paper

    2026

  31. [31]

    Akbar, M

    F. Akbar, M. Rafi Alam, M. S. Athar, and S. K. Singh, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E (2014), arXiv:1409.2145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Fatima, M

    A. Fatima, M. S. Athar, and S. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. D (2016), arXiv:1608.02103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Fatima, M

    A. Fatima, M. S. Athar, and S. K. Singh, Phys. Rev. D (2021), arXiv:2106.14590

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Thorpe, J

    C. Thorpe, J. Nowak, K. Niewczas, J. T. Sobczyk, and C. Juszczak, Phys. Rev. C104, 035502 (2021), arXiv:2010.12361

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codebases , 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Kleiss, W

    R. Kleiss, W. J. Stirling, and S. D. Ellis, Comput. Phys. Commun.40, 359 (1986)

    1986

  37. [37]

    J. A. Nowak (2026), companion paper, submitted to Phys. Rev. D

    2026