a

r
X
i
v
:
1
1
0
8
.
0
7
8
7
v
1


[
n
u
c
l
-
t
h
]


3

A
u
g

2
0
1
1
ADP-11-25/T747
A study of hypernuclei within the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock Model
Neelam Guleria
1
,

Shashi K. Dhiman
1,2
,

and Radhey Shyam

3,4
1
Department of Physics, H. P. University, Shimla 171005, India
2
University Institute of Natural Sciences and Interface Technologies,
Himachal Pradesh Technical University, Hamirpur 177001, India
3
Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, AF/1, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata 700064,India
4
Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter (CSSM),
School of Chemistry and Physics, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
Abstract
We investigate the ground state properties of the single hypernuclei within a Skyrme Hatree-Fock
(SHF) model. The parameters of the Skyrme type eective lambda-nucleon (N) interaction including
both two- and three-body terms are obtained by tting to the experimental single particle energies of
hypernuclei with masses spanning a wide range of the periodic table. The SHF calculations performed with
the best t parameter set are found to describe well the experimental single particle spectra of hypernuclei
over a full mass range. The radii of the orbits in the hypernuclear ground states and the eective mass
in nuclear matter, are found to be sensitive to dierent parameter sets. The mass dependence of the total
binding energy per baryon of the hypernuclei has been analyzed and its consequence on their stability is
discussed.
PACS numbers: 21.80.+a, 21.10.Dr, 21.30.Fe

Electronic address: neelam.phy@gmail.com

Electronic address: shashi.dhiman@gmail.com

1
I. INTRODUCTION
Hypernuclei provide an unique opportunity to investigate the dynamics of the full meson and
baryon SU(3) avor octet. They are an excellent tool to extract information on the hyperon-
nucleon interaction. For a complete understanding of the baryon-baryon interactions in terms of
the meson-exchange or quark-gluon pictures, the basic experimental data are required also on the
hyperon-nucleon interaction together with the nucleon-nucleon interaction. Yet, relatively little
is understood about nuclei that contain one or more hyperons. It is possible that the study of
hypernuclei may help in unraveling fundamental issues regarding the ordinary nuclei in terms of
the quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which is the theory of the strongly interacting particles.
Since is the lightest among the hyperons (m

= 1.115 GeV), the hypernuclei are the most

investigated systems so far [18]. Through a series of experimental studies involving (K

),
(
+
, K
+
), (, K
+
) and (e, e

K
+
) reactions (see, e.g. Ref. [7] for a recent review of the experimen-
tal scenario) the shell structure has been mapped out over a wide range of the periodic table.
Systematic studies of the energy levels of light hypernuclei have enabled the extraction of con-
siderable amount of details about the N interaction. It is established that the spin-orbit part of
this force is weaker [9] than that of the NN system. This has also been useful in developing the
theoretical models of the hypernuclear production reactions where the quantum numbers and the
separation energies of single particle states are vital inputs [1015].
For several reasons it is necessary to have information about the behavior of a hyperon in
nuclear medium which can be provided by heavier hypernuclei. The basic quantities like
eective mass and the depth of the potential in nuclei can be obtained by investigating the
single particle energies in a wide range of heavier systems. These quantities are the important
basic parameters for a realistic discussion of the neutron stars [16]. The information on the
spin-orbit splitting in the heavier hypernuclei is of interest because it may have contributions from
the higher order many body eects in addition to the N two-body spin-dependent interaction.
It is therefore, important to develop reliable theoretical tools to investigate the spectroscopy of
hypernuclei. From the QCD point of view hypernuclei lie in the non-perturbative low momentum
regime. Therefore, lattice QCD calculations should be the ideal tool to investigate their structure.
Indeed, rst step in this direction has already been initiated where the scattering length and the
eective range for N scattering have been extracted in both the QCD and the partially-quenched
QCD calculations [17]. However, a description of the detailed structure of hypernuclei is still
2
beyond the reach of lattice QCD and one has to use methods where baryons and mesons are the
eective degrees of freedom.
Both relativistic and non-relativistic descriptions have been used to investigate the structure of
hypernuclei. The relativistic mean eld approach has been used in Refs. [1820] with empirically
adjusted meson-hyperon vertices. The SU(3) symmetric eld theories including chirality [21,
22], and the quark-meson coupling model [8, 23, 24] that invokes the quark degrees of freedom
have been developed to investigate the structure of hypernuclei. A density dependent relativistic
hadron (DDRH) eld theory was used in Ref. [5] to describe the hypernuclei. Among the non-
relativistic approaches are the shell model calculations (see, e.g., Ref. [25]), and the developments
of the semi-imperial mass formulas [2628] and the phenomenological single-particle elds [11,
29].
The Skyrme Hartree-Fock (SHF) model, which has been a powerful tool for investigating the
properties of normal nuclei, was extended to the studies of hypernuclei in Refs. [30, 31]. The
suitability of this approach for describing the hypernuclei depends heavily on the proper knowl-
edge of the N eective interaction, which has either been extracted from the microscopic meth-
ods like G-matrix calculations performed with J ulich and Nijmegen potentials [32, 33] or by tting
directly to the hypernuclear data (mainly the binding energies) [31, 34, 35]. The reliability of the
latter method is related directly to the amount of hypernuclear data used in the tting process. In
previous studies, the data used in the tting procedure were limited to some light nuclei. There-
fore, there is a need to perform SHF calculations with phenomenological Skyrme interactions
determined by tting a larger set of data that is now available.
In this paper, we perform a study of the hypernuclei within the framework of the Hartree-
Fock method where the parameters of the Skyrme type N eective interaction have been de-
termined by tting to the experimental single particle energies of 20 hypernuclei with baryon
numbers ranging from 8 to 208. We have also included a repulsive three-body NN term in the
interaction in our tting procedure as suggested in Ref. [36, 37]. The parameter set that has the
minimum
2
has been used to calculate the single particle energies of 95 hypernuclear states.
These are compared with the available experimental data. Furthermore, total binding energy per
baryon has been calculated for 73 nuclei. The root mean square (RMS) radii of a few nuclei have
also been determined.
The present paper is organized as following. In secion II, the Skyrme Hartree Fock method
as applied to the description of the single hypernuclei, is briey described. The parameters
3
involved in the Skyrme type N force are discussed and procedure to determine them is sketched.
In section III, we briey describe the
2
minimization method [based on the simulated annealing
method (SAM)] that is used by us to determine the best t parameters of the N interaction. In
section IV, we present the results and discussions of our calculations for the single hypernuclei.
Finally, in section V, we present the summary and conclusions of our work.
II. FORMALISM
The SHF model that is developed and discussed in great details in Ref. [38], is extended to the
description of the hypernuclei by adding a contribution due to the action of the hyperon-nucleon
force to the original energy density functional. Thus, the total energy density functional (EDF) in
the extended density dependent Skyrme Hartree-Fock formalism is written as,
E
H
1
= E
NN
(
n
,
p
,
n
,
p
, J
n
, J
p
) + E
Pair
(v
p
, v
n
) + E
N
(
n
,
p
,

) + E

R
(
n
,
p
,

) E
c.m.
.(1)
In Eq. (1), E
NN
is the energy density functional for neutron and proton [38] which is given by,
E
NN
=
_
d
3
rH
NN
(r), (2)
where H
NN
(r) is the original Skyrme Hartree-Fock nuclear Hamiltonian density based upon the
nucleon-nucleon interaction. This is written as [39, 40]
H
NN
(r) =

2
2m

N
+
1
4
t
0
[(2 + x
0
)
2
N
(2x
0
+ 1)(
2
p
+
2
n
)]
+
1
24
t
3

[(2 + x
3
)
2
N
(2x
3
+ 1)(
2
p
+
2
n
)]
+
1
8
[t
1
(2 + x
1
) + t
2
(2 + x
2
)]
N

N
+
1
8
[t
2
(2x
2
+ 1) t
1
(2x
1
+ 1)](
p

p
+
n

n
)
+
1
32
[3t
1
(2 + x
1
) t
2
(2 + x
2
)](
N
)
2

1
32
[3t
1
(2x
1
+ 1) + t
2
(2x
2
+ 1)][(
p
)
2
+ (
n
)
2
]
+
1
2
W
0
[J
N
.
N
+ J
p
.
p
+ J
n
.
n
]

1
16
(t
1
x
1
+ t
2
x
2
)J
2
N
+
1
16
(t
1
t
2
)[J
2
p
+ J
2
n
]
+
1
2
e
2

p
(r)
_

p
(r

)d
3
r

|r r

3
4
e
2

p
(r)
_
3
p
(r)

_
1/3
(3)
where the rst term on the right hand side represents the kinetic energy. The total density is dened
as
N
=
n
+
p
,
N
=
n
+
p
and J
N
= J
n
+J
p
. We employ the SLy4 Skyrme parameterization [39]
for the calculation of the energy density functional of hypernuclear core
A1

Z. This interaction has

4
been widely used in studies of nuclear structure of halo and normal nuclei [41], nuclear matter and
neutron star properties [42]. The one-body density
q
, kinetic density
q
and the spin orbit current
J
q
(q = n, p, and ) operators are expressed as sums over single particle orbits

(r, q) weighted
by the pairing occupation probabilities v

of the orbitals;

q
(r) =

(r, q) |
2
, (4)

q
(r) =

(r, q) |
2
, (5)
J
q
(r) =

(r, q)(i )

(r, q), (6)

where sums over occupied states and spin, isospin indices are implicit.
The occupation probabilities v

of neutrons and protons are calculated by including the pair-

ing energy density functional E
Pair
in Eq. 1 (see, Ref. [41]). The BCS equations for the pairing
probabilities are obtained by variational method with respect to v

as,
v
2

=
1
2
_

_
1

_
(

)
2
+ (

)
2
_

_
, (7)
where
q
is the single particle energy of the occupied state, and
q
is the chemical potential. The
pairing gap equation has the form
q
= G
q
_
q
_
v

(1 v

).
The contribution to the total energy density functional due to the presence of the hyperon is
written as,
E
N
=
_
d
3
rH
N
(r). (8)
The Hamiltonian density H
N
(r) of N interaction in the hypernucleus may be written as [30],
H
N
(r) =

2
2m

+ H
0
+ H
e f f
+ H
f in
+ H
den
+ H
s.o.
H
0
= u
0
(1 +
1
2
y
0
)
N

H
e f f
=
1
4
(u
1
+ u
2
)(

N
+
N

)
=
3
5
(3
2
)
2/3
1
4
(u
1
+ u
2
)

2/3

+
5/3
N
_
(9)
H
f in
=
1
4
(3u
1
u
2
)(
N

)
H
den
=
3
8
u
3
(1 +
1
2
y
3
)
+1
N

H
s.o.
=
1
2
W

(
N
J

J
N
)
5
We have used
2
/2m

= 17.44054 MeV fm
2
and =
1
3
or 1.0. u
0
, u
1
, u
2
, u
3
, W

, and are the

parameters that determine the energy density functional. These parameters are obtained by tting
to the experimental single particle energies of a set of hypernuclei across the periodic table. The
tting procedure uses a
2
minimization scheme which is discussed in the next section.
The contribution of the rearrangement energy functional coming from the three-body NN
potential has been calculated as;
E

R
=
u
3
4
_
d
3
r

(
2
N
+ 2
p

n
). (10)
The rearrangement energy is a measure of the contribution to the total energy coming from the
change of the binding of the nucleonic core caused by the presence of the hyperon.
The center of mass (c.m.) correction arising due to the breaking of the translational invariance
in the mean eld of the Hartree-Fock theory, is calculated as,
E
c.m.
=
< P
2
c.m.
>
2(A n)m
N
+ nm

, (11)
where m
N
and m

are the average masses of nucleon and hyperon, respectively, and A is the
total number of baryons in the hypernucleus. P
c.m.
(=
_
k
p
k
) is the total momentum operator in
the c.m. frame, which is the sum of the single particle momentum operators ( p
k
). Although the
BCS state is not an eigenstate of

P
c.m.
, and has vanishing total momentum <

P
c.m.
>= 0, it has
non-vanishing expectation value of < P
2
c.m.
> given by,
< P
2
c.m.
> =

v
2

< | p
2
| > (12)

,
v

(v

) < | p
1
.p
2
| >, (13)
where u

=
_
1 v
2

, and and represent the single particle states. This correction, however, is
computed after variation (i.e., posteriori). The square of the single particle momentum operator
appears only in the direct term of the c.m. correction. Second and third terms represent the
o diagonal single particle matrix elements of the momentum operators and they result from the
exchange terms in < P
2
c.m.
>. The c.m. energy correction due to hyperons is approximated by the
diagonal part of the c.m. kinetic energy only.
Now, the single-particle wave functions

(r, q) and corresponding single-particle energies

are obtained by solving the Hartree-Fock equation with position and density dependent mass term
_

2
2m

q
(r)
. + V
q
(r)

(r, q) iW
q
(r).( )
_

(r, q) =

(r, q), (14)

6
where m

q
is the eective baryon mass, and V
q
the central term of the mean eld potential that
for the case of the single hypernuclei, has contributions from the NN (V
NN
) and the N (V
N
)
interactions. The spin-orbit part of the N interaction has been ignored in our model which is
in line with the predictions of several microscopic calculations for this term [23, 43, 44]. The
expressions for the eective mass m

n/p
, and potential V
n/p
are given in Ref. [39]. The potential
V
N
can be obtained from the energy density functional by following the method discussed in
Ref. [33]. We have
V
N
(r) = u
0
(1 +
1
2
y
0
)
N
+
3
20
(3
2
)
2/3
(u
1
+ u
2
)
N
(
2/3

+
2/3
N
) +
3
8
u
3
(1 +
1
2
y
3
)
+1
N
. (15)
The eective mass of the hyperon is expressed as,

2
2m

2
2m

+
1
4
(u
1
+ u
2
)
N
. (16)
The potential in Eq. (15), eective mass in Eq. (16), and the orbitals in Eq. (14) are evaluated
alternatively until self-consistency is achieved. It should be mentioned that the binding energy
in the SHF formalism is dened as B

= E
0
N
E
H
, where E
H
and E
0
N
are the total binding energies
of the hypernucleus and the core nucleus, respectively.
The tting procedure to obtain the parameters of the N interaction is described in the next
section.
III. PARAMETERIZATIONFOR N SKYRME POTENTIAL
The parameters of the N eective interaction can be determined by minimizing the value of

2
, which is dened as

2
=
1
N
d
N
p
N
d

i=1
_
M
exp
i
M
th
i

i
_
2
, (17)
where N
d
and N
p
are the numbers of the experimental data points and the tted parameters, respec-
tively.
i
stands for the theoretical error and M
exp
i
and M
th
i
are the experimental and corresponding
theoretical values, respectively, of the given observable (which in this case is the single particle
energy). Our
2
minimization procedure is based on the simulated annealing method (SAM). The
experimental single particle energies of the hypernuclei used in our tting procedure are given in
Table I.
7
TABLE I: Experimental values of the single particle energies of various hypernuclei used in the
2
mini-
mization procedure.
Hypernuclei SPE of in orbitals Ref.
1s 1p 1d
8

He 7.16 0.70 [45]

9

Li 8.25 0.13 [45]

10

Be 9.11 0.22 [45]

10

B 8.89 0.12 [4547]

11

B 10.24 0.05 [45, 48]

12

B 11.37 0.06 [45, 49]

12

C 10.8 0.01 [50]

13

C 11.7 0.01 [9, 51]

16

N 13.76 0.16 [52]

16

O 12.42 0.05 [53, 54]

17

O 13.39 0.55 [7, 55]

28

Si 16.6 0.20 7.0 0.2 [7, 47]

32

S 17.5 0.5 8.1 0.6 [56]

40

Ca 18.7 1.1 11.0 0.6 [57, 58]

41

Ca 19.24 1.0 [7, 55]

51

V 19.97 1.0 11.0 1.0 [50, 55]

56

Fe 21.00 1.0 [7, 59]

89

Y 23.10 0.5 16.5 4.1 9.1 1.3 [7, 50]

139

La 24.5 1.2 20.4 0.6 14.3 0.6 [7]

208

Pb 26.3 0.86 21.9 0.6 16.8 0.7 [7]

The SAM is an elegant technique for optimization problems of large scale. It is particularly
useful in those situations where the desired global extremum is hidden among many local extrema.
This method has been found to be an extremely useful tool for a wide variety of minimization
problems of large non-linear systems in many dierent elds (e.g., see, Refs. [6062]). Recently,
the SAM was used to generate some initial trial parameter sets for the point coupling variant of
8
TABLE II: Parameters for the N Skyrme potential derived self-consistently by tting to experimental
single particle energies of table I for two dierent values of .
SET u
0
u
1
u
2
u
3
y
0
y
3

2
(MeV fm
3
) (MeV fm
5
) (MeV fm
5
) (MeV fm
3+3
)
HP060310 1 -329.1081 39.5589 19.9098 1429.8016 -0.1703 0.3160 1.4651
HP080310 1 -523.7681 63.2191 54.6234 1884.7219 -0.7703 -0.3495 1.3478
HP100310 1 -418.4806 49.3298 40.4601 2050.3923 -0.5138 -0.4580 1.3847
HP120310 1 -346.5556 98.8998 50.3842 1617.5662 -0.1352 -0.3892 1.3177
HP160310 1/3 -483.3032 96.3052 64.2609 1114.5066 -0.2446 -0.4741 1.4095
HP180310 1/3 -450.5685 148.0403 -20.7068 1491.2256 -0.0104 -0.5861 1.4719
HP230310 1/3 -506.6520 129.4331 19.0171 1368.7793 -0.2597 -0.5879 1.4369
HP270310 1/3 -504.2675 133.9351 -2.9475 1811.9971 -0.2584 -0.8989 1.4468
the relativistic mean eld model [63, 64].
In the present work, we have used the SAM to determine the Skyrme N interaction strength
parameters. In the SAM, one needs to specify the appropriate annealing schedule together with the
parameter space (i.e., the range of the values of the parameters) in which the best t parameters are
to be searched. As in Ref. [40], we have employed a moderately faster Cauchy annealing schedule
given by
T(k) = T
i
/k, (18)
where T
i
is the initial value of the control parameter and T(k) with k= 1,2,3,....., is the control
parameter at the kth step. The value of k is increased by unity after 100N
p
recongurations or 10N
p
successful recongurations, whichever occurs rst. The value of T
i
is taken to be 1.25, which is
the same as that used in Ref. [40]. We keep on reducing the value of the control parameter using
Eq. (18) in the subsequent steps until
2
becomes stationary with further reduction.
Following the tting procedure described above, ts to the data listed in Table I generated eight
dierent parameter sets for the Skyrme N eective interaction. The nucleon density dependent
term in Eq. (15) involves
+1
. The value of is taken to be either 1/3 or 1. These parameter sets
are given in the Table II. In this table, u
0
and y
0
, are the parameters of zero range term, u
1
and
u
2
represent the eective and nite range terms, and u
3
and y
3
are the parameters of the density
9
2 4 6 8 10
r (fm)
-30
-20
-10
0
V

(
M
e
V
)
HP120310
Pb La Y Ca O
FIG. 1: [color online] The coordinate space Skyrme Hartree-Fock mean eld potential V

(solid lines) in
hypernuclei
16

O,
40

Ca,
89

Y,
139

La, and
208

Pb. The corresponding elds generated in a empirical Woods-

Saxon parameterization are also shown for O, Ca and Pb cases (dotted lines). The latter are taken from
Ref. [29].
dependent term of H
N
(r). We see that the parameter set represented by HP120310 force lead to
the minium
2
value. Therefore, this set has been used in all the calculations of the properties of
hypernuclei discussed in the next section unless stated otherwise. The dierent sets of parameters
shown in Table II, lead to the depth of the N mean eld of about 28.000.58 MeV at the nuclear
matter density (
0
) of 0.160.01fm
3
.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The existence of the ground states of hypernuclei is related to the single particle eld (V

)
for the hyperon. In the SHF model the N force contributes to the eld V

in proportional to
N
and
2
N
. It would be instructive to compare this quantity calculated within the Hartree-Fock theory
(V
HF

) with those obtained with a phenomenological parameterization of (V

ph

) e.g. of Ref. [29]

10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
A
-2/3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30

(
M
e
V
)
1s
1p
1d
1f
1g
FIG. 2: [color online] The single particle energies of dierent hypernuclei (

) as a function of A
2/3
where
A is the baryon number of the hypernucleus.
for hypernuclei with masses varying in a broad range. In Fig. 1, we show V
HF

[calculated using
Eq. (15) with best t parameter set HP120310], for hypernuclei
16

O,
40

Ca,
89

Y,
139

La and
208

Pb.
We also show in this gure V
ph

obtained within the parameterization of Ref. [29] for O , Ca and

Pb systems. We notice that the central depths of potentials V
HF

are around 29 MeV irrespective

of the nuclear mass. In comparison, V
ph

are slightly less attractive. This result is in contrast to

that shown in Ref. [33] where the V
HF

was found to be shallower than V

ph

. Use of a dierent N
force could be one reason for this dierence. For the Pb nucleus, the V
HF

extends somewhat to
larger values r in comparison to V
ph

. The same trend was also seen in Ref. [33]. This result has
been attributed to the presence of the eective mass m

in the HF equation which mocks up for

some nite range eects in such approaches.
In Fig. 2, we show a comparison of the calculated and the experimental single particle ener-
gies (

) of 1s, 1p, 1d, 1 f and 1g shells of a number of hypernuclei with masses ranging from 8 to
208. In these calculations, we have used SLy4 and HP120310 parameter sets for the NN and the
N interactions, respectively. We note that there is an overall agreement between our calculations
and the experimental data both in the low mass and high mass regions. In a marked contrast to
11
the SHF results of Ref. [33], we observe the underbinding only for the 1s single particle orbital
of the
208
Pb nucleus. Moreover, even for this case the magnitude of the underbinding is much
smaller in our calculations as compared that of Ref. [33]. In the SHF calculations presented in
Ref. [65], underestimations of varying magnitudes were observed for the single particle energies
of both s and p orbitals of the heavier systems with most of the N interactions used. In the
density dependent hadron eld theory calculations of Ref. [5], the single particle energies were
underpredicted by factors of up to 2.5 for hypernuclei with masses below
28

Si. This was attributed

to the enhancement of surface eects in the light nuclei that is not accounted for properly in their
calculations.
The overall good description of the single particle spectra by our SHF calculations suggests
that the parameter set HP120310 for the N interaction is relatively more versatile as compared
to other parameterizations that have been used in previous Hatree-Fock studies of the spectra of
the single hypernuclei. Therefore, the predictions of our model can be used with relatively
more condence in calculations of hypernuclear production cross sections via e.g. (
+
, K
+
) [15],
or (, K
+
) [13, 14] reactions for those cases where experimental information may not be available
about the single particle energies of the states.
In table III, we show the eective hyperon masses and the r.m.s. radii of the ground state
orbits (r

) of various hypernuclei calculated at the nuclear saturation density (

0
) with various
N parameterizations obtained by us. This provides additional constraints on dierent parameter
sets. First of all we note that m

/m

obtained with interactions having value of (1/3) (last 4

rows of this table) are slightly less than those involving = 1. The eective mass is largest with
the parameter set leading to the minimum value of
2
(see table II) with this (set HP120310).
Furthermore, this set gives the largest r

for various hypernuclei. It is also of interest to note that

r

calculated with our parameters sets are systematically larger than those obtained with Skyrme
N interactions of Ref. [65]. It should however be mentioned that some uncertainty in the rms
radii originates from the choice of the NN potential which was also dierent in Ref. [65].
A systematic study of the total binding energies per baryon (BE/A) of hypernuclei is useful be-
cause it sheds light on the pattern of the stability of hypernuclei across the periodic table. Looking
at the experimental data one notices that the BE/A of the medium mass hypernuclei is larger than
those of the lighter and the heavier ones. This indicates that hypernuclei in this region may be
more stable. In the SHF framework, the total binding energy of a hypernucleus of baryon number
A is written as E(
A

Z) =

(g.s.) + E(
A1

Z) + E

R
, where

(g.s.) is the single-particle energy of

12
TABLE III: The eective mass (calculated at saturation density
0
) and rms radii of ground state
orbitals of various hypernuclei.
SET m

/m

(
9

Li) r

(
12

C) r

(
16

O) r

(
28

Si) r

(
40

Ca) r

(
51

V) r

(
139

La) r

(
208

Pb)
(fm) (fm) (fm) (fm) (fm) (fm) (fm) (fm)
HP060310 0.89 3.14 2.95 2.97 3.10 3.29 3.44 4.12 4.77
HP080310 0.82 3.15 3.00 3.02 3.16 3.36 3.52 4.24 4.89
HP100310 0.85 3.15 2.98 3.00 3.13 3.33 3.48 4.18 4.83
HP120310 0.79 3.18 3.02 3.04 3.18 3.38 3.53 4.28 4.91
HP160310 0.78 3.19 3.03 3.06 3.20 3.39 3.55 4.29 4.92
HP180310 0.81 3.17 3.02 3.05 3.19 3.38 3.53 4.26 4.89
HP230310 0.79 3.18 3.03 3.06 3.20 3.40 3.55 4.29 4.92
HP270310 0.81 3.18 3.02 3.05 3.18 3.38 3.53 4.26 4.89
in the ground state orbital of the hypernucleus and E

R
is the rearrangement energy dened by the
functional given by Eq. (17).
In Tables (IV) and (V) we present the results of our SHF calculations (done with the HP120310
N force) for BE/A for 73 hypernuclei with masses in range of 9 to 211. For comparison pur-
pose the results of a relativistic mean eld (RMF) model taken from Ref. [66] are also presented
wherever available. We note that for the lighter systems (A < 28), the stability of a hypernucleus
depends on that of the nucleus where a neutron is replaced by the hyperon. For example,
9

Be is
more stable than
9

B,
14

C is more stable than

14

N. For hypernuclei with baryon number in the range

of 30-95 the BE/A is around 8.7 MeV and it decreases gradually with further increase in the mass
number. We also note that while for hypernuclei with mass number < 50, the SHF BE/A almost
agree with those of the RMF model, the later is larger than the former for nuclei with A in the
range of 51-87. Beyond this the RMF results are always smaller than the SHF ones. Therefore,
the RMF model underbinds the hypernuclei with masses in excess of 87 as compared to the SHF
model. Furthermore, while RMF calculations predict the hypernuclei with Kr core to be more
tightly bound than those with the Rb, we observe no such eect.
13
TABLE IV: Binding energy per baryon number (BE/A) of various known single lambda hypernuclei and
corresponding values calculated by RMF method [66] are also listed for comparison.
Hypernuclei BE/A BE/A (RMF) Hypernuclei BE/A BE/A (RMF)
(MeV) (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)
9

Be 7.298 -
62

Ni 8.786 8.839
9

B 6.079 -
63

Ni 8.785 8.844
14

C 8.740 -
64

Ni 8.781 8.853
14

N 7.195 -
65

Ni 8.775 8.865
15

N 8.623 -
86

Kr 8.735 8.778
20

Ne 7.445 7.635
87

Kr 8.702 8.796
21

Ne 7.635 7.714
87

Rb 8.753 7.680
24

Mg 7.671 7.723
88

Rb 8.727 7.587
27

Al 8.225 -
88

Sr 8.762 7.657
33

S 8.706 -
89

Sr 8.742 7.564
36

S 8.613 8.637
90

Y 8.746 7.510
37

S 8.612 8.704
90

Zr 8.747 7.545
38

Ar 8.615 8.597
91

Zr 8.738 7.455
39

Ar 8.663 8.728
92

Mo 8.683 7.378
48

Ca 8.882 8.855
93

Mo 8.685 7.291
49

Ca 8.767 8.880
112

Sn 8.477 6.925
50

Ti 8.842 8.843
113

Sn 8.485 6.961
51

Ti 8.766 8.904
114

Sn 8.493 6.996
52

V 8.769 8.909
115

Sn 8.500 7.032
54

Fe 8.742 8.774
116

Sn 8.508 7.030
55

Fe 8.731 8.897
117

Sn 8.515 7.028
58

Ni 8.680 8.856
118

Sn 8.521 7.027
59

Ni 8.718 8.847
119

Sn 8.528 7.026
60

Ni 8.751 8.841
120

Sn 8.535 7.026
61

Ni 8.776 8.838
121

Sn 8.543 7.026
14
TABLE V: Same as table IV.
Hypernuclei BE/A BE/A (RMF) Hypernuclei BE/A BE/A (RMF)
(MeV) (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)
122

Sn 8.551 7.026
141

Ce 8.356 6.874
123

Sn 8.557 7.027
141

Pr 8.342 6.823
124

Sn 8.559 7.028
142

Pr 8.344 6.855
125

Sn 8.558 7.030
142

Nd 8.325 6.800
132

Sn 8.419 7.066
143

Nd 8.330 6.834
133

Sn 8.396 7.074
144

Sm 8.285 6.753
136

Xe 8.397 6.949
145

Sm 8.294 6.790
137

Xe 8.385 6.968
209

Pb 7.888 6.726
138

Ba 8.380 6.886
210

Bi 7.857 6.711
139

Ba 8.375 6.911
210

Po 7.829 6.689
140

La 8.366 6.893
211

Po 7.835 6.696
140

Ce 8.357 6.845
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we have used an extended Skyrme Hartree-Fock model to describe the properties
of hypernuclei. New parameterizations for the Skyrme type N force have been obtained by
tting to the experimental single particle energies of orbitals of twenty nuclei with masses
ranging from 8 to 208. The tting procedure uses an elegant
2
minimization method based on
simulated annealing method. The best t parameter set was used to calculate the single particle
energies of 1s, 1p, 1d, 1 f and 1g shells of a number of hypernuclei. We nd that our calculated
values are in good agreement with the experimental data. Except for one case of 1s orbital of
208
Pb
nucleus, our calculations do not underbind the heavier systems. This is a major departure from
some previous Hartree-Fock studies of hypernuclei where binding energies of orbitals of several
heavier nuclei were underpredicted. Furthermore, the root mean square radii of heavier systems
are predicted to be larger than those obtained in the previous SHF calculations done with dierent
N forces.
We made a systematic study of the mass dependence of binding energy per baryon of 73
15
hypernuclei spanning the entire range of the periodic table. It is observed that hypernuclei with
masses in the range of 30-95 are more stable than those lying in other regions. For lighter systems
some of the hypernuclei are more stable than their immediate neighbors on both sides. Comparison
with the results of a relativistic mean eld model shows that the later systematically underbind
the heavier systems as compared to our model. Of course RMF results depend heavily on the
parameters of the model.
Our SHF model can be extended to describe the properties of the double- hypernuclei along
the lines of the methods discussed in Refs. [67, 68]. This work is in progress.
One of the authors (NG) would like to thank the theory division of the Saha Institute of Nu-
clear Physics, Kolkata for nancial support and hospitality during a visit. She is also grateful to
Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla for providing her a Ph.D. scholarship. Useful discussions
with Prof. A. W. Thomas are gratefully acknowledged. This work has been partly supported by
the University of Adelaide and the Australian Research Council through grant FL0992247(AWT).
[1] R. H. Dalitz and A. Gal, Ann. Phys. 116, 167 (1978).
[2] B. Povh, Progr. part. Nucl. Phys., 18, 183 (1984).
[3] Y. Yamamoto, T. Matoba, H. Himento, K. Ikeda, and S. Nakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 117, 361
(1994).
[4] B. F. Gibson and E. V. Hungerford III, Phys. Rep. 257, 349 (1995).
[5] C. M. Keil, F. Homann, and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. C 61, 064309 (2000).
[6] A. Gal, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 156, 1 (2004).
[7] O. Hashimoto and H. Tamura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 564 (2006).
[8] K. Saito, K. Tsushima, and A. Thomas, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 1 (2007).
[9] S. Ajimura et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4255 (2001).
[10] C. B. Dover, L. Ludeking, G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. C 22, 2073 (1980).
[11] R. Hausmann and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 491, 598 (1989)
[12] H. Bando, T. Motoba and J. Zofka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 5, 4021 (1990).
[13] R. Shyam, H. Lenske and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 77, 052201 (2008).
[14] R. Shyam, K. Tsushima and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 676, 51 (2009).
[15] S. Bender, R. Shyam and H. Lenske, Nucl. Phys. A 839, 51 (2010).
16
[16] F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 54, 193 (2005); J. Schaner-Bielich, J. Phys. G 31, S651 (2005).
[17] S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, A. Parreno, and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A 747, 55 (2005).
[18] M. Rufa, J. Schaner, J. Maruhn, H. Stocker, W. Greiner, P. G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C 42, 2469
(1990).
[19] N. K. Glendenning, D. Von-Ei, M. Haft, H. Lenske, and M. K. Weigel, Phys. Rev. C, 48, 889 (1993).
[20] D. Vretenar, W. Poschl, and G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C, 57, 1060 (1998).
[21] H. M uller, Phys. Rev. C 59, 1405 (1999).
[22] P. Papazoglou, S. Schramm, J. Schaner-Bielich, H. St ocker, W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 57, 2576
(1998).
[23] K. Tsushima, K. Saito, J. Heidenbauer, A. W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A630, 691 (1998).
[24] P. M. Guichon, A. W. Thomas, and K. Tsushima, Nucl. Phys. A814, 66 (2008).
[25] D. J. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A 835, 11c (2010) and references therein.
[26] S. Iwao, Prog. Theo. Phys., 46, 1407 (1971).
[27] M. Grypeos, G. Lalazissis and S. Massen, Nucl. Phys. A 450, 283c (1986).
[28] C. Samanta, P. Roy Chowdhury and D. N. Basu, J. Phys. G:Nucl. Part. Phys. 32, 363 (2006).
[29] D. .J. Millener, C. B. Dover, and A. Gal, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2700 (1988).
[30] M. Rayet, Ann. of Phys. 102, 226 (1976).
[31] M. Rayet, Nucl. Phys. A 367, 381 (1981).
[32] Y. Yamamoto and H. Bando, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. 81, 42 (1985); Y. Yamamoto, T. Motoba, H.
Himeno, K. Ikeda and S. Nagata, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. 117, 361 (1994).
[33] J. Cugnon, A. Lejeune, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 62, 064308 (2000).
[34] Y. Yamamoto, H. Bando and J. Zofka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 80, 757 (1988).
[35] F. Fernandez, T. Lopez-Arias and C.Prieto, Z. Phys. A 334, 349 (1989).
[36] A. R. Bodmer and Q. N. Usmani, Nucl. Phys. A 450, 257c (1986)
[37] S. Takeuchi, K. Shimizu, Phys. Lett. B179, 197 (1986).
[38] D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972); D. Vautherin, Phys. Rev. C 7, 296 (1973);
M. Beiner, H. Flocard, Nguyen Van Giai, and P. Quentin, Nucl. Phys. A 238, 29 (1975).
[39] E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeer, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 231 (1998).
[40] B. K. Agrawal, S. K. Dhiman, and R. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C 73, 034319 (2006).
[41] S. S. Chandel, S. K. Dhiman, and R. Shyam, Phys. Rev. C 68, 054320 (2003).
[42] J. R. Stone and P. G. Reinhard, Prog. Nucl. Part. Phys. 58, 587 (2007).
17
[43] R. Brockmann and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 355, 365 (1981).
[44] H. J. Pirner, B. Povh, Phys. Lett. B 114, 308 (1982).
[45] D. H. Davis, Nucl. Phys. A 754, 3c (2005).
[46] T. Hasegawa and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 224 (1995).
[47] T. Hasegawa and et al., Phys. Rev. C 53, 1210 (1996).
[48] Y. Miyura et al., Acta Phys. Polon., B35, 1019 (2004).
[49] M. Ahmed et al., Phys. Rev. C 68, 064004 (2003).
[50] H. Hotchi and et al., Phys. Rev. C 64, 044302 (2001).
[51] H. Kohri et al., Phys. REv. C 65, 034607 (2002).
[52] F. Cusanno and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 202501 (2009).
[53] M. Ukai and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 232501 (2004).
[54] O. Hashimoto et al., Nucl. Phys. A 639, 93c (1998).
[55] P. H. Pile and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2585 (1991).
[56] R. Bertini and et al., Phys. Lett. B, 83B, 306 (1979).
[57] H. Tamura et al., Prog. Theo. Phys. 117, 1 (1994).
[58] R. E. Chrien and et al., Nucl. Phys. A 478, 705 (1988)
[59] M. Akei and et al., Nucl. Phys. A 534, 478 (1991).
[60] S. Kirkpatrik, J. Stat. Phys. 34, 975 (1984).
[61] L. Ingber, Math. Comput. Modeling 12, 967 (1989).
[62] B. Cohen, Masters Thesis, Tel-Aviv University (1994) (unpublished).
[63] T. Burvenich, D. G.Madland, J. A. Maruhn and P. -G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. C 65, 044308 (2002).
[64] T. Burvenich , D. G. Madland, and P. G. Reinhard, Nucl. Phys. A 744, 92 (2004).
[65] D. E. Lanskoy and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2330 (1997).
[66] Lan Mi-Xiang, Li Lei, Ning Ping-Zhi, Chinn, Phys. Lett. 26, 072101 (2009).
[67] B. F. Gibson, A. Goldberg, and M. S. Weiss, Phys. Rev. 181, 1486 (1969).
[68] D. E. Lanskoy, Phys. Rev. C 58, 3351 (1998).
18