Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Comprehensive study of mass modifications of light mesons in nuclear matter in the three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 The paper predicts that in nuclear matter nearly every light meson loses mass, and uses the omega meson's shift to fix the chiral invariant nucleon mass near 0.8 GeV.

desk verdict A useful first three-flavor eLSM+PDM sweep of in-medium meson masses, but the headline M0 preference rests on an uncontrolled local self-energy approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10509 v2 pith:WP4EONDR submitted 2019-08-28 nucl-th hep-ph

Daiki Suenaga , Phillip Lakaschus This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph PACS 12.39.Fe14.40.-n21.65.+f
keywords mesonmassmodificationsnuclearmatterextendedLinearSigmaModelParityDoubletchiralinvariantU(1)_Aanomalyone-loopnucleonself-energyeta-primemesicnuclei
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish a systematic map of how light meson masses change inside nuclear matter. It combines a three-flavor chiral Lagrangian for scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial-vector mesons with a two-flavor parity-doublet description of nucleons, computing one-loop nucleon corrections to the meson mean fields. The paper claims that almost all spin-0 mesons, except the pion, kaon, and lightest scalar-isoscalar meson, lose mass with increasing baryon density, and that all axial-vector mesons lose mass as well. It further claims that the density behavior of the $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons is controlled by the chiral invariant mass $M_0$, and that $M_0 \approx 0.8$ GeV is preferable because it reproduces the measured small negative shift of the $\omega$ at normal density. These shifts are observable signatures of partial chiral symmetry restoration and of a possible in-medium weakening of the U(1)$_A$ anomaly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model (a chiral effective Lagrangian containing nonets of scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial-vector mesons, with a determinant term encoding the U(1)$_A$ anomaly) coupled to the two-flavor Parity Doublet Model (the nucleon and its mirror parity partner, whose mass can have a chiral invariant piece $M_0$). Nuclear matter is generated at one-loop nucleon level: the grand potential with Fermi-sea nucleons plus mean fields $\varphi_N$, $\varphi_S$, and $\bar{\omega}_N$ is minimized by gap equations, and in-medium meson masses are read from propagator poles after adding the one-loop nucleon self-energy at the mean-field mass. This machinery turns the choice of $M_0$ and the strength $k_1$ of the direct U(1)$_A$ coupling to nucleons into concrete density-dependent mass curves for every meson multiplet.

What would settle it

Measure the $\omega$-meson mass shift at normal nuclear density with total uncertainty below about 20 MeV: the paper predicts a small negative shift near $-30$ MeV for $M_0=0.8$ GeV and a rising mass for $M_0=0.7$ GeV, so a zero or positive shift would rule out the preferred parameter choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a set of quantitative predictions: at normal nuclear density $\rho_0$, the $\eta'$ mass falls by roughly 200 MeV, larger than earlier estimates around 100 MeV; the $f_1^N$ mass falls by about 150–200 MeV; and the $\omega_S$ mass falls by only a few percent. For spin-0 mesons, all masses except the pion, kaon, and lightest scalar-isoscalar meson decrease with density. The $\rho$ and $\omega$ behavior hinges on $M_0$: for $M_0 = 0.8$ GeV the $\omega$ mass shift is small and negative, in line with the measured $-(29 \pm 19 \pm 20)$ MeV at $\rho_0$, while for $M_0 = 0.7$ GeV the $\omega$ mass rises, which the paper takes as evidence that $M_0 \approx 0.8$ GeV is preferable. The reduction of $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ to roughly 85\% and 87\% of vacuum values indicates partial chiral restoration, and the $\rho$ and $a_1$ masses tend toward degeneracy at higher density, as expected when chiral partners approach each other.

Load-bearing premise

Every quoted mass shift rests on the two-flavor truncation of the nucleon sector (strange-containing mesons get no direct one-loop nucleon coupling) and on evaluating self-energies at the mean-field mass rather than at the actual in-medium pole.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At normal nuclear density, the pion and kaon decay constants drop by roughly 15\% and 13\%, a direct in-medium signal of partial chiral restoration.
  • A roughly 200 MeV drop of the $\eta'$ mass would make $\eta'$ mesic nuclei easier to bind and would indicate substantial in-medium weakening of the U(1)$_A$ anomaly, although the currently measured potential depth is much smaller.
  • The $\rho$ and $a_1$ masses tend to degenerate with density, giving a concrete chiral-restoration observable for dilepton and photon-production experiments.
  • If $M_0 \approx 0.8$ GeV is correct, the $\omega$ meson shows a small negative mass shift at $\rho_0$, while a smaller $M_0$ makes it rise, which distinguishes chiral-invariant mass scenarios in ongoing J-PARC and Jefferson Lab measurements.
  • The model requires a small direct U(1)$_A$ coupling $k_1$ to nucleons; larger values make the $\eta$ mass turn negative at moderate density, predicting a parity-breaking $\eta$ condensation that is likely unphysical.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper evaluates self-energies at the mean-field mass, a fully self-consistent pole calculation could shift all quoted numbers; the ordering of shifts, not the precise magnitudes, is the robust part of the prediction.
  • The demonstrated three-flavor anomaly term (the $\kappa'$ replacement) is a natural interpolation: tuning its strength from 0 to 30 moves the $\eta'$ shift from about 200 MeV toward the measured roughly 44 MeV potential depth while generating a kaon shift of order 100–230 MeV at $\rho_0$, so kaonic-atom data could indirectly constrain the in-medium U(1)$_A$ anomaly.
  • The same mirror-assignment structure that sets the $\omega$ mass shift predicts a density-dependent $\omega NN$ coupling through the mixing angle $\theta$; comparing $\rho$ and $\omega$ shifts at the same density would test this predicted coupling difference directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript couples the three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model of Ref. [35] to a two-flavor Parity Doublet Model for nucleons, constructs nuclear matter at one-loop nucleon order, fits the remaining couplings to the saturation density, binding energy per nucleon, and incompressibility, and computes density-dependent masses of scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial-vector mesons from one-loop self-energies evaluated at zero three-momentum and at mean-field mass. The principal quantitative claims are that all spin-0 mesons except the pion, kaon, and the lightest scalar-isoscalar meson decrease in medium; that the eta-prime mass drops by about 200 MeV at normal nuclear density; that the rho and omega mass shifts depend strongly on the chiral invariant mass M0; that k1 is approximately zero on the basis of the eta mass behavior; and that the omega meson mass shift at rho0 favors M0 approximately 0.8 GeV. Appendices C and D provide explicit one-loop self-energy formulas, and Section V contains a demonstration that a three-flavor anomaly term can reduce the eta-prime shift toward the empirical potential depth.

Significance. If the quantitative results are secure, the paper provides a useful systematic map of light-meson mass shifts in nuclear matter across the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial-vector sectors, with direct relevance to ongoing J-PARC, CBELSA/TAPS, and SPring-8 programs. The explicit self-energy expressions in Appendices C and D are a clear strength: they are detailed, internally consistent, and make the calculation reproducible. The manuscript also shows care in exploring sensitivity to M0, k1, the N* mass, and the uncertain N* axial charge. However, the central conclusion that M0 is approximately 0.8 GeV is based on a small mass shift computed under an uncontrolled local approximation, and several quoted strange-sector predictions depend on a two-flavor truncation that the paper itself acknowledges to be incomplete. These issues make the main claims not yet fully secure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (B1), App. D] The in-medium mass is defined as m_tilde_X^2 = m_X^2 + Pi_X(m_X,0), i.e., the self-energy is evaluated at the mean-field mass m_X rather than at the actual pole m* satisfying m*^2 = m_X^2 + Pi_X(m*,0). This is not a harmless substitution for the omega meson: Eq. (D9) has strong q0 dependence through the denominators 4E_k^2 - q0^2 and through the N-N* loop with q0^4 and q0^2 terms, and m_omega itself depends on M0 through phi_N, phi_S, omega_bar_N, and theta. No error estimate is given for replacing q0 = m* by q0 = m_X. The M0 preference rests on the sign of Delta m_omega at rho0, which is about -29 MeV and smaller than the combined experimental uncertainty of roughly 39 MeV, so a moderate shift from the local approximation could change the sign and therefore the main conclusion. Please solve the pole condition or provide a quantitative bound on partial Pi_X / partial q0 over the relevant q0 interval, and do the same for the other channels whose quoted mass shifts are also obtained with this approximation.
  2. [Sec. III A and Sec. V] The two-flavor PDM explicitly omits direct couplings of strange-containing mesons to nucleons, yet the paper's quantitative claims for eta, eta-prime, K, phi, and f1S depend on those omitted couplings; their self-energies are set to zero in Appendices C and D or are built only from two-flavor projected fields. The demonstration in Sec. V introduces only the three-flavor anomaly term (31), and the authors state that this treatment violates chiral symmetry because kappa-prime is treated as density independent and that other allowed terms are omitted. This makes the quoted eta-prime shift of about 200 MeV and the comparison with V = -(44 +/- 16 +/- 15) MeV exploratory rather than a robust prediction. I ask the authors to either implement the full three-flavor PDM consistently or explicitly restrict the abstract and conclusions to the non-strange sector.
  3. [Sec. IV B and Sec. VI] The model's lightest scalar-isoscalar state fL0 has a vacuum mass of 0.18-0.27 GeV, far below the PDG range 400-500 MeV for f0(500), and the paper's own discussion states that a tetraquark or an additional scalar may be needed. Since the abstract's statement that only pi, K, and the lightest scalar-isoscalar meson do not decrease with density includes fL0 as a physical state, the 'comprehensive' claim is weakened. Please give an explicit validation criterion for identifying fL0 with f0(500), or state clearly which of the paper's conclusions are independent of this identification.
  4. [Sec. IV B] The experimental constraint for the omega meson is quoted as -(29 +/- 19(stat) +/- 20(syst)) MeV with an expected large imaginary part of 70 MeV, while the calculation provides only the real part of a zero-width pole. The comparison of a real one-loop mass shift with a quantity extracted from a broad optical potential needs at least a discussion of how the complex width affects the extraction, especially because the sign of the predicted shift is the decisive criterion for preferring M0 = 0.8 GeV.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (29), Sec. IV C] Please fix the unit typos: 'M0 = 0.8 MeV' in Sec. IV B should be 0.8 GeV; Eq. (29) writes K = 0.24 MeV but the text and Table III use 0.24 GeV; and Sec. IV C states 'm_- = 1.4 MeV' where GeV is clearly intended.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 2 caption] The symbols fL0 and fH0 are introduced only in a figure caption; please define them explicitly in the text at first use, together with their relationship to the f0(500), f0(1370), and f0(1700) assignments.
  3. [Sec. V] The paragraph introducing Eq. (31) notes that the three-flavor anomaly term is applied by replacing the k1 term while leaving all other terms unchanged; please state explicitly that the parameter set used in Fig. 8 is therefore not a self-consistent three-flavor fit, since otherwise the curves may be misinterpreted as a full three-flavor result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: in-medium meson mass shifts are genuine outputs of a parameter-fitted model; the M0 and k1 preferences are transparent post-hoc selections against external data, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The central results are the density-dependent meson masses obtained from one-loop nucleon self-energies in the eLSM+PDM. Model parameters are fixed to vacuum meson properties (Table I), nucleon vacuum properties (Table II), and nuclear matter saturation properties (Table III); the quoted ωN mass shift, η and η′ behaviors, and the spin-0/spin-1 mass curves are outputs of this fitted model, not quantities used in the fit. The statements that M0≈0.8 GeV and k1≈0 are preferable are post-hoc selections made by comparing computed curves with the experimental ωN shift and by discarding an unphysical η condensation; the paper presents them as preferences, not as predictions, and the underlying mass shifts are computed rather than re-fit. The local approximation ΠX(q0,0)→ΠX(mX,0) (Sec. IV B and Eq. B1) is an uncontrolled approximation that affects accuracy, but it is a well-defined calculational prescription, not a definition that makes the output equal to the input. Self-citations [49,72] are methodological references for the one-loop in-medium mass definition and are not load-bearing; the eLSM parameters are taken from the external Ref. [35], and the PDM is standard. The paper's own caveats, such as the two-flavor truncation for strange couplings, the explicit chiral-symmetry violation of the Sec. V κ′ demonstration, and neglected decay widths, are acknowledged limitations rather than circular reductions. No quoted equation reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central medium calculation depends on the eLSM/PDM Lagrangian structure, on the one-loop/local self-energy approximation, and on the empirical inputs used to fix about seven coupling parameters. None of these is derived from QCD in this paper; they are carried in from prior models or fitted to nuclear matter properties. The strangeness-truncation and large-Nc reductions are the most consequential modeling choices because they directly shape the eta', phi, and f1S shifts that the paper highlights.

free parameters (7)
  • M0 = 0.6-0.8 GeV; preferred 0.8 GeV
    The chiral invariant mass is scanned; the paper selects ~0.8 GeV to match the small omega-meson mass shift at normal density, so it enters the central claim.
  • k1 (tilde k1 = k1 * phi_N) = tilde k1 in {-5, 0, 5}; preferred 0
    The direct U(1)A anomaly coupling to nucleons is scanned; k1≈0 is preferred to avoid an imaginary eta mass and give a moderate eta shift.
  • lambda_1 = About -22.5 to -23.0
    Remaining scalar coupling in the reduced eLSM fitted to nuclear matter saturation and binding energy.
  • g4p = About 2.4 to 171.9
    Four-point spin-1 coupling fitted to the incompressibility K=0.24 GeV; without it the incompressibility is not reproduced.
  • k2 (tilde k2 = k2 * phi_N) = Values from -19.60 to 0.95 depending on parameter set
    Determined from the N*(1535)->Neta decay width, choosing the smaller absolute value solution.
  • G1, G2 = e.g. G1=3.922, G2=7.542 for M0=0.8, k1=0
    Parity-doublet Yukawa couplings fixed by the nucleon and N* masses and axial charges.
  • gV, hV, tilde_g = e.g. gV=3.847, hV=-9.186, tilde_g=-2.623 for M0=0.8, k1=0
    Vector couplings fixed by axial charges, nuclear matter saturation, and the requirement that the omega mean field is positive.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model Lagrangian in Eq. (6) is a valid low-energy effective description of light mesons.
    The entire vacuum and medium meson sector is computed from this Lagrangian, which is not derived from QCD but adopted from Ref. [35].
  • domain assumption The nucleon and N*(1535) are chiral partners in the mirror assignment, with a chiral invariant mass M0 (Parity Doublet Model).
    Introduced in Sec. III A and used to construct the nucleon sector; the existence and value of M0 are still debated.
  • domain assumption Nuclear matter is described at one-loop nucleon level with only N(939) forming a Fermi surface up to about 2 rho_0.
    Used in Eqs. (20) and in Appendix C; N- contributions are neglected at low density.
  • ad hoc to paper Strange-quark meson fields do not couple directly to nucleons in the Parity Doublet Model.
    Stated in Sec. III A as a simplification; it determines the strange-meson mass shifts and is later relaxed in the discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper Large-Nc suppression justifies dropping the h1 and g2 terms and setting g3=g4=g4p.
    Used to reduce Eq. (1) to Eq. (6); the paper states g4p is otherwise unconstrained and h1 omission is what keeps the phi mass shift small.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-energies can be reduced to local form, Pi_X(q0,0) to Pi_X(m_X,0), when computing medium masses.
    Defined in Sec. IV B and Appendix B; it neglects the momentum dependence of the one-loop self-energy.
  • ad hoc to paper Unphysical longitudinal modes of spin-1 mesons are removed by adopting a Proca-type Lagrangian prescription; terms proportional to |V^0|^2 are discarded.
    Stated in Appendix A after Eqs. (A3)-(A7).
  • domain assumption The dilaton field is frozen to its vacuum expectation value G0 and its dynamics are ignored.
    Stated in Sec. II; justified because the dilaton mass is larger than the light meson masses.
  • domain assumption Empirical nuclear matter inputs (rho_0=0.16 fm^-3, binding energy -16 MeV, incompressibility 0.24 GeV, nucleon masses, axial charges, decay width) are correct.
    These are external inputs from PDG and nuclear experiments used to fix remaining parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comprehensive study of mass modifications of light mesons in nuclear matter in the three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WP4EONDR

@misc{pith2026190810509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comprehensive study of mass modifications of light mesons in nuclear matter in the three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WP4EONDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10509}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive study of mass modifications of scalar, pseudo-scalar, vector, and axial-vector mesons in nuclear matter using the three-flavor extended Linear Sigma Model (eLSM) and the two-flavor Parity Doublet Model (PDM). The meson masses in nuclear matter are determined by calculating the one-loop nucleon corrections to the meson mean fields. As a result, we find all spin-$0$ meson masses except those of the pion, kaon, and the lightest scalar-isoscalar mesons decrease at finite baryon density. For spin-$1$ mesons, masses of all axial-vector mesons decrease in medium, and the density dependences of the $\rho$ and $\omega$ meson masses strongly depend on the value of chiral invariant mass ($M_0$). Also, our results suggest $M_0\approx0.8\, {\rm GeV}$ is preferable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10509 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online) The density dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) The density dependence of spin-0 (left) and spin-1 (right) meson masses with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) The density dependence of spin-0 (left) and spin-1 (right) meson masses with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) The density dependence of spin-0 (left) and spin-1 (right) meson masses with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) The density dependence of spin-0 (left) and spin-1 (right) meson masses with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (color online) The density dependence of spin-0 (left) and spin-1 (right) meson masses with ˆm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (color online) The density dependence of spin-0 (left) and spin-1 (right) meson masses with ˆm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (color online) The density dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fate of $\Sigma_c$, $\Xi_c'$ and $\Omega_c$ baryons at high temperature with chiral restoration

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At high temperature, parity partners of singly charmed baryons become degenerate, Sigma_c and Omega_c masses converge, and the Sigma_c to Lambda_c pi width closes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [35]

    Gallas, F

    S. Gallas, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 82, 014004 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014004 [arXiv:0907.5084 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2010

  2. [1]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984). doi:10.1016/0003-4916(84)90242-2

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(84)90242-2 1984

  3. [2]

    Here, to demonstrate how the η′ meson mass in nuclear matter is improved by Eq

    is not important) when we employ the three-flavor version of PDM. Here, to demonstrate how the η′ meson mass in nuclear matter is improved by Eq. (31), we only replace the k1 term in Eq. (7) by Eq. (31), and leave all other terms unchanged. Besides, we adopt the parameter set of the second line in Table IV apart from ˜k1. The resultant density dependence o...

  4. [3]

    effective mass

    mesons, we have defined the mass at finite chemical potential in the same manner as the 14 “effective mass” in Ref. [86] 9. In Eqs. (A3) - (A7), a term proportional to |Vµ=0|2 (V = ρ,K∗,f 1N,a 1,K 1) is present. Field theoretically, one simple way to remove the unphysical mode of the massive spin-1 meson is to start on a perturbation series by a Proca-type L...

  5. [4]

    16 and Ππ(q0,⃗0) = 8g2 NNπ π2 ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k| |⃗k|2Ek (4E2 k−q2

    + 2m+ π2 k1sin 2θ ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k||⃗k|2 Ek −4 (k1φNcos 2θ−gNN∗σ)2 π2 ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k||⃗k|2 Ek 2|⃗k|2q2 0 +m+(m+ +m−)(q2 0− (m+−m−)2) q4 0− 2(2|⃗k|2 +m2 + +m2 −)q2 0 + (m2 +−m2 −)2 , (C1) Πa0(q0,⃗0) = 8g2 NNσ π2 ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k| |⃗k|4 Ek(4E2 k−q2 0)− 2m+ π2 k1sin 2θ ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k||⃗k|2 Ek −4g2 NN∗σ π2 ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k||⃗k|2 Ek 2|⃗k|2q2 0 +m+(m+ +m−)(q2 0− (m+−m−)2) q4 0− 2(2...

  6. [5]

    unitary gauge

    + 2m+ π2 k1sin 2θ ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k||⃗k|2 Ek −4g2 NN∗π π2 ∫ kF 0 d|⃗k||⃗k|2 Ek 2|⃗k|2q2 0 +m+(m+−m−)(q2 0− (m+ +m−)2) q4 0− 2(2|⃗k|2 +m2 + +m2 −)q2 0 + (m2 +−m2 −)2 . (C4) The remaining spin-0 mesons do not couple with the nucleons directly so that Π σS(q0,⃗0) = Π K∗ 0 (q0,⃗0) = ΠηS(q0,⃗0) = ΠK(q0,⃗0) = 0. Appendix D: Self energies for the spin- 1 mesons In thi...

  7. [6]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 465 (1985). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90492-4

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90492-4 1985

  8. [7]

    Hatsuda and T

    T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept.247, 221 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)90022-1 [hep-ph/9401310]

    arXiv 1994

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    R. S. Hayano and T. Hatsuda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2949 (2010) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2949 [arXiv:0812.1702 [nucl-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [9]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rept. 142, 357 (1986). doi:10.1016/0370-1573(86)90117-1

    1986 doi

  3. [10]

    Sch¨ afer and E

    T. Sch¨ afer and E. V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 323 (1998) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.70.323 [hep- ph/9610451]

    1998

  4. [11]

    Bernard and U

    V. Bernard and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rev. D 38, 1551 (1988). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.38.1551

    1988 doi

  5. [12]

    Fejos and A

    G. Fejos and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 3, 036005 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.036005 [arXiv:1604.05982 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Fej¨ os and A

    G. Fej¨ os and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D95, 116011 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.116011 [arXiv:1701.03717 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Costa, M

    P. Costa, M. C. Ruivo and Y. L. Kalinovsky, Phys. Lett. B 560, 171 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00395-2 [hep-ph/0211203]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [15]

    S. D. Bass and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 634, 368 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.01.071 [hep- ph/0507024]

    2006

  9. [16]

    Nagahiro, M

    H. Nagahiro, M. Takizawa and S. Hirenzaki, Phys. Rev. C 74, 045203 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.045203 [nucl-th/0606052]

    2006 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Sakai and D

    S. Sakai and D. Jido, Phys. Rev. C 88, no. 6, 064906 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.064906 [arXiv:1309.4845 [nucl-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Sakai and D

    S. Sakai and D. Jido, PTEP 2017, no. 1, 013D01 (2017) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptw191 [arXiv:1607.07116 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    D. Jido, H. Masutani and S. Hirenzaki, PTEP 2019, 053 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptz031 [arXiv:1808.10140 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. D. Bass and P. Moskal, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, no. 1, 015003 (2019) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015003 [arXiv:1810.12290 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Suzuki et al

    K. Suzuki et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 072302 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.072302 [nucl-ex/0211023]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Muto et al

    R. Muto et al. [KEK-PS-E325 Collabora- tion], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 042501 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.042501 [nucl-ex/0511019]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [23]

    M. H. Wood et al. [CLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 78, 015201 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.78.015201 [arXiv:0803.0492 [nucl-ex]]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Itahashi et al

    K. Itahashi et al. , Prog. Theor. Phys. 128, 601 (2012) doi:10.1143/PTP.128.601 [arXiv:1203.6720 [nucl-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Y. K. Tanaka et al. [η-PRiME/Super-FRS Collabora- 18 tion], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 20, 202501 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.202501 [arXiv:1611.02948 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Y. K. Tanaka et al. [η-PRiME/Super-FRS Collab- oration], Phys. Rev. C 97, no. 1, 015202 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.015202 [arXiv:1705.10543 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Nanova et al

    M. Nanova et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collab- oration], Phys. Lett. B 710, 600 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.039 [arXiv:1204.2914 [nucl-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Nanova et al

    M. Nanova et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collab- oration], Phys. Lett. B 727, 417 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.10.062 [arXiv:1311.0122 [nucl-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Nanova et al

    M. Nanova et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collabora- tion], Phys. Rev. C 94, no. 2, 025205 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.025205 [arXiv:1607.07228 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Friedrich et al

    S. Friedrich et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 52, no. 9, 297 (2016) doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16297-4 [arXiv:1608.06074 [nucl- ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Nanova et al

    M. Nanova et al. [CBELSA/TAPS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. A 54, no. 10, 182 (2018) doi:10.1140/epja/i2018- 12639-6 [arXiv:1810.01288 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Czerwinski et al., Phys

    E. Czerwinski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 062004 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.062004 [arXiv:1404.5436 [nucl-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Muramatsu, arXiv:1307.6411 [physics.ins-det]

    N. Muramatsu, arXiv:1307.6411 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Metag, M

    V. Metag, M. Nanova and E. Y. Paryev, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 199 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.08.002 [arXiv:1706.09654 [nucl-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Parganlija, F

    D. Parganlija, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054024 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.054024 [arXiv:1003.4934 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Janowski, D

    S. Janowski, D. Parganlija, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054007 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.054007 [arXiv:1103.3238 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    W. I. Eshraim, S. Janowski, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 5, 054036 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.054036 [arXiv:1208.6474 [hep- ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Parganlija, P

    D. Parganlija, P. Kovacs, G. Wolf, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 1, 014011 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.014011 [arXiv:1208.0585 [hep- ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Janowski, F

    S. Janowski, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 11, 114005 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.114005 [arXiv:1408.4921 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Divotgey, P

    F. Divotgey, P. Kovacs, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, no. 1, 5 (2018) doi:10.1140/epja/i2018-12458-9 [arXiv:1605.05154 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Giacosa, Phys

    F. Giacosa, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054007 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054007 [hep-ph/0611388]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. H. Fariborz, R. Jora and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094004 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.094004 [arXiv:0801.2552 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lakaschus, J

    P. Lakaschus, J. L. P. Mauldin, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C 99, no. 4, 045203 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.045203 [arXiv:1807.03735 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. E. DeTar and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2805 (1989). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.39.2805

    1989 doi

  38. [46]

    Nemoto, D

    Y. Nemoto, D. Jido, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4124 (1998). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4124

    1998 doi

  39. [47]

    D. Jido, Y. Nemoto, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, Nucl. Phys. A 671, 471 (2000). doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00844-1

    2000 doi

  40. [48]

    D. Jido, T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3252 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3252 [hep- ph/9910375]

    2000

  41. [49]

    D. Jido, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 106, 873 (2001). doi:10.1143/PTP.106.873

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    Zschiesche, L

    D. Zschiesche, L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. C 75, 055202 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.75.055202 [nucl-th/0608044]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gallas, F

    S. Gallas, F. Giacosa and G. Pagliara, Nucl. Phys. A 872 (2011) 13 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2011.09.008 [arXiv:1105.5003 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Motohiro, Y

    Y. Motohiro, Y. Kim and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 92, no. 2, 025201 (2015) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. C 95, no. 5, 059903 (2017)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.025201, 10.1103/PhysRevC.95.059903 [arXiv:1505.00988 [nucl- th]]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Suenaga, Phys

    D. Suenaga, Phys. Rev. C 97, no. 4, 045203 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.045203 [arXiv:1704.03630 [nucl-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    C. E. Detar and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 399 (1987). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.399

    1987 doi

  47. [55]

    C. E. Detar and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. D 36, 2828 (1987). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.36.2828

    1987 doi

  48. [56]

    Aarts, C

    G. Aarts, C. Allton, D. De Boni, S. Hands, B. J¨ ager, C. Praki and J. I. Skullerud, JHEP 1706, 034 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2017)034 [arXiv:1703.09246 [hep- lat]]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Rosenzweig, A

    C. Rosenzweig, A. Salomone and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2545 (1981). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.2545

    1981 doi

  50. [58]

    Salomone, J

    A. Salomone, J. Schechter and T. Tudron, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1143 (1981). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.1143

    1981 doi

  51. [59]

    Rosenzweig, A

    C. Rosenzweig, A. Salomone and J. Schechter, Nucl. Phys. B 206, 12 (1982) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 207, 546 (1982)]. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90215-2, 10.1016/0550-3213(82)90485-0

    1982 doi

  52. [60]

    A. A. Migdal and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Lett. 114B, 445 (1982). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90089-2

    1982 doi

  53. [61]

    Gomm and J

    H. Gomm and J. Schechter, Phys. Lett. 158B, 449 (1985). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90451-4

    1985 doi

  54. [62]

    R. Gomm, P. Jain, R. Johnson and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 33, 801 (1986). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.801

    1986 doi

  55. [63]

    Harada and K

    M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 381, 1 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(03)00139-X [hep-ph/0302103]

    2003 arXiv

  56. [64]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90154-0

    1974 doi

  57. [65]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 57 (1979). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90232-3

    1979 doi

  58. [66]

    Olbrich, M

    L. Olbrich, M. Zetenyi, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 1, 014007 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.014007 [arXiv:1708.01061 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Casher, Phys

    A. Casher, Phys. Lett. 83B (1979) 395. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)91137-7

    1979 doi

  60. [68]

    L. Y. Glozman, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 037701 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.037701 [arXiv:0907.1473 [hep- 19 ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  61. [69]

    L. Y. Glozman, C. B. Lang and M. Schrock, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 014507 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.014507 [arXiv:1205.4887 [hep-lat]]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Suganuma, T

    H. Suganuma, T. M. Doi, K. Redlich and C. Sasaki, J. Phys. G 44 (2017) 124001 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/aa8e2f [arXiv:1709.05981 [hep-lat]]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    T. T. Takahashi and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D 78, 011503 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.011503 [arXiv:0801.4707 [hep-lat]]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Pochodzalla et al

    J. Pochodzalla et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1040 (1995). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1040

    1995 doi

  65. [73]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 202302 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.202302 [hep- ph/0111100]

    2002

  66. [74]

    T. D. Cohen, R. J. Furnstahl and D. K. Griegel, Phys. Rev. C 45, 1881 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.45.1881

    1992 doi

  67. [75]

    M. C. Birse, J. Phys. G 20, 1537 (1994) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/20/10/003 [nucl-th/9406029]

    1994 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Suenaga, S

    D. Suenaga, S. Yasui and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. C 96, no. 1, 015204 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.015204 [arXiv:1703.02762 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 3, 030001 (2018). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    Hatsuda and S

    T. Hatsuda and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. C 46, no. 1, R34 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.46.R34

    1992 doi

  71. [79]

    Rapp and J

    R. Rapp and J. Wambach, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 25, 1 (2000) doi:10.1007/0-306-47101-9 1 [hep-ph/9909229]

    2000 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Chanfray and P

    G. Chanfray and P. Schuck, Nucl. Phys. A 555, 329 (1993). doi:10.1016/0375-9474(93)90325-R

    1993 doi

  73. [81]

    G. E. Brown, G. Q. Li, R. Rapp, M. Rho and J. Wambach, Acta Phys. Polon. B 29, 2309 (1998) [nucl- th/9806026]

    1998

  74. [82]

    Rapp and J

    R. Rapp and J. Wambach, Eur. Phys. J. A 6, 415 (1999) doi:10.1007/s100500050364 [hep-ph/9907502]

    1999 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Gubler, T

    P. Gubler, T. Kunihiro and S. H. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 767, 336 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.077 [arXiv:1608.05141 [nucl-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Hartnack, H

    C. Hartnack, H. Oeschler, Y. Leifels, E. L. Bratkovskaya and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rept. 510, 119 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.004 [arXiv:1106.2083 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Olbrich, M

    L. Olbrich, M. Z´ et´ enyi, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 3, 034021 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.034021 [arXiv:1511.05035 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Schroter et al

    A. Schroter et al. , Z. Phys. A 350, 101 (1994). doi:10.1007/BF01290678

    1994 doi

  79. [87]

    Barth et al

    R. Barth et al. [KaoS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4007 (1997). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4007

    1997 doi

  80. [88]

    Saito, K

    K. Saito, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 1 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2005.07.003 [hep-ph/0506314]

    2007 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Nishihara and M

    H. Nishihara and M. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 5, 054022 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.054022 [arXiv:1506.07956 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Schaffner, J

    J. Schaffner, J. Bondorf and I. N. Mishustin, Nucl. Phys. A 625, 325 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(97)81464-9 [nucl-th/9607058]

    1997 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Sasaki, hep-ph/0504073

    C. Sasaki, hep-ph/0504073

    arXiv

Pith tools

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