SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Four-Body Faddeev-Type Calculation of the $\bar{K}NNN$ System: Preliminary Results

by N. V. Shevchenko

This is not the current version.

Submission summary

As Contributors: Nina Shevchenko
Arxiv Link: (pdf)
Date submitted: 2019-10-23 02:00
Submitted by: Shevchenko, Nina
Submitted to: SciPost Physics Proceedings
Proceedings issue: 24th European Few Body Conference (University of Surrey, U.K.)
Academic field: Physics
  • Nuclear Physics - Theory
  • Quantum Physics
Approach: Theoretical


The paper is devoted to the $\bar{K}NNN$ system, consisting of an antikaon and three nucleons. Four-body Faddeev-type AGS equations are being solved in order to find possible quasi-bound state in the system.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Submission & Refereeing History

Resubmission 1910.09826v2 on 16 December 2019

You are currently on this page

Submission 1910.09826v1 on 23 October 2019

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2019-12-9 (Invited Report)

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1910.09826v1, delivered 2019-12-09, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1380


SciPost Physics Proceedings

``Four-Body Faddeev-Type Calculation of the K̄ N N N System:
Preliminary Results''

N. V. Shevchenko

Studying the binding energies of mesonic nuclei is an important and active
field of research. In that, few-body systems where accurate numerical calculations can be carried out, play a special role. In the current manuscript the author reports on the development of a new 4-body code solving the AGS
equations for the KbarNNN system.

The paper is rather technical, and present two model calculations predicting a very deep 4-body bound state. After some modifications I believe that it can be published on SciPost Physics.

First of all, in Sec. 4 the author writes ``very preliminary results for ...''
and further down ``The results differ from those shown at the conference''.
These remark convey no confidence in the reported results. I advice the author
to either remove these remarks is she trust her results or remove Sec. 4 all-together, and report the results when she gain full confidence in her code.

On top of this, here few more minor comments:
- In the introduction the author writes ``more accurate calculations are needed'', but no argument is given. Does she suspects there is an error in the
reported results? does she has a better input?
- ``separabelize'' is not a word. Same for its derivatives.
- The second term in Eq. (15) is just a delta function.
- The argument why the EDPA is accurate enough and under what condition should be presented. This is clearly not a general truth.
- Rephrase ``At the begin we''.
- Eq. (17), the channels are not defined.
- What about 3-body interactions?
- Sec. 3.1 `` three our separable'' --> ``three separable''.
- There. A ref. to the potentials is missing.
- The fitted AV18 NN interaction - in what energy range does the fitted interaction reproduce the data?
- End of 3.2 ASG--> AGS
- If Sec. 4 is included in the manuscript comparison with other published works must be included and discussed.

  • validity: good
  • significance: good
  • originality: ok
  • clarity: low
  • formatting: reasonable
  • grammar: below threshold

Login to report or comment