Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Role of $K^*_0(700)$ exchange in the $p \bar{p} \to \Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ reaction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that t-channel exchange of the scalar meson K*_0(700), not K or K*(892), is what lets a single effective-Lagrangian model describe the p pbar → Lambda Lambdabar total and differential cross sections across the full measured

desk verdict A reasonable fit that claims kappa exchange is essential, but the claim rests on an untested choice for the s-channel resonance's spin-parity, and the abstract promises a polarization analysis that never appears. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16912 v2 pith:KOHXMC73 submitted 2025-08-23 hep-ph

Hao-Nan Wang , Cheng Chen , Xing-Yi Ji , De-Min Li , Yue Ma , En Wang , Ju-Jun Xie This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords ppbar->LambdaLambdabarK*_0(700)(kappa)exchangeeffectiveLagrangianstrangemesonhyperonproductions-channelvectorresonancecross-sectionfitLEARPS185
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

The paper tries to establish that the strange scalar meson K*_0(700), also called kappa, is the decisive t-channel exchange in p pbar → Lambda Lambdabar, rather than the traditionally used kaon K or vector K*(892). The authors build an effective-Lagrangian amplitude that includes kappa, K, or K* exchange plus one s-channel vector resonance, fit it to existing total and differential cross-section data, and compare the three scenarios. Only the kappa-based fit succeeds: its chi-squared per degree of freedom is 1.3, versus 4.8 for K and 19.3 for K*. If this is right, hadron-level models of hyperon production must include kappa exchange, and the data point to an excited vector state near 2258 MeV that future threshold experiments could look for.

What carries the argument

The central object is the K*_0(700) meson, a light scalar strange meson also called kappa, introduced as a t-channel exchanged particle with a scalar coupling g_kappa p Lambda, a simple propagator, and a dipole form factor F = (lambda^2/(lambda^2 - q^2))^2. The comparison mechanism is the three-scenario fit: the same data and the same s-channel Breit-Wigner resonance R are used, while the t-channel meson is kappa, K, or K*; the relative success or failure of each scenario isolates the role of the scalar exchange.

What would settle it

Measure the p pbar → Lambda Lambdabar total and differential cross sections at excess energies between roughly 10 and 100 MeV, where the model predicts a smooth rise shaped by kappa exchange interfering with the 2258 MeV resonance; a distinct bump, kink, or strong angular anisotropy there would disfavor the model. In parallel, a partial-wave analysis that distinguishes a J^PC = 1^-- from a 0^-+ intermediate state would settle whether the fitted R is a genuine vector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a model with t-channel scalar K*_0(700) exchange plus an s-channel vector resonance R reproduces the measured p pbar → Lambda Lambdabar total cross section from threshold into the higher-energy region, as well as the near-threshold differential cross sections. Three fitted scenarios are compared: Set I (kappa + R) gives chi2/d.o.f = 1.3 with fitted coupling g_kappa p Lambda = 4.7 ± 0.2; Set II (K + R) gives 4.8; Set III (K* + R) gives 19.3. The paper concludes that kappa exchange is essential for simultaneously capturing the observed features, and that the fitted R—mass 2258.0 ± 6.5 MeV, width 54.7 ± 11.0 MeV, coupling 0.3—can be identified with an exc

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on parametrizing the unknown s-channel contribution as a single vector Breit-Wigner resonance R with a dipole form factor and fitting its mass, width, and couplings to the very same cross-section data being explained; if that parametrization is wrong, the fitted kappa contribution and the claimed dominance of kappa exchange would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • K*_0(700) becomes an indispensable ingredient in hadron-level descriptions of p pbar → Lambda Lambdabar, since K or K* exchange alone cannot cover the full energy range.
  • The data require a vector resonance near 2258 MeV, plausibly an excited omega state, whose imprint future threshold-region measurements could look for.
  • The model keeps the total cross section smooth near the threshold, consistent with the measured absence of a near-threshold resonance, and predicts no kink until higher excess energies.
  • New data at excess energies between about 10 and 100 MeV would directly test the kappa-exchange line shape and the interference with the resonance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The kappa coupling and cutoff are fitted to the same data they explain, so the value g_kappa p Lambda ≈ 4.7 is likely entangled with the resonance parametrization; an independent constraint on the kappa N Lambda coupling from other reactions could test whether the scalar exchange truly dominates.
  • Because the p pbar system at orbital angular momentum l = 0 can also have quantum numbers J^PC = 0^-+, the single vector R is one modeling choice; a partial-wave analysis that allows an excited pseudoscalar intermediate state would reveal whether R is genuinely a vector or a stand-in for other amplitude structure.
  • The same t-channel kappa mechanism could be tested in related strangeness-exchange reactions such as p pbar → Sigma Lambdabar or p pbar → Xi Xibar; if kappa is truly essential, analogous fits should improve there as well.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the reaction p bar p -> Lambda bar Lambda in the effective-Lagrangian approach. It constructs t-channel amplitudes for scalar K*_0(700) (kappa), pseudoscalar K, and vector K*(892) exchange, together with an s-channel Breit-Wigner vector resonance R, and fits the model to total and differential cross-section data over a wide energy range. Three scenarios are compared in Table I: Set I (kappa + R) gives chi^2/d.o.f = 1.3, Set II (K + R) gives 4.8, and Set III (K* + R) gives 19.3. The paper concludes that kappa exchange is essential and that the data hint at an excited vector state around 2258 MeV. The amplitude formalism (Eqs. 1-15) is standard and internally consistent, but the supporting evidence for the central claim has important gaps.

Significance. If the result is robust, it would be a useful phenomenological step: a single effective-Lagrangian model, with a small number of parameters, describes p bar p -> Lambda bar Lambda total and differential cross sections from threshold to high excess energies and identifies the scalar strange meson as the dominant t-channel exchange. The comparison of three exchange scenarios under a common framework is a creditable feature, as is the explicit presentation of the amplitudes. However, the central claim is not yet established because the comparison is asymmetric in free parameters and because all scenarios rely on an assumed, untested quantum-number assignment for the s-channel resonance R. A falsifiable prediction is also missing: the abstract promises polarization observables, but no polarization results are shown. These issues make the significance conditional rather than definitive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (8), Eq. (15), Table I, and footnote 2] The s-channel resonance R is assumed to have J^PC = 1^--, but footnote 2 notes that the initial p bar p system in l=0 can also have J^PC = 0^-+, so an excited pseudoscalar is equally allowed. Since R is included in all three fitted scenarios, the ranking Set I vs. Set II/III can be controlled by the spin-parity of R rather than by the intrinsic quality of kappa, K, or K* exchange. The very large fitted uncertainty on lambda_R (964 +/- 610 MeV) reinforces that the R contribution is poorly constrained. Please repeat the fits with a pseudoscalar (or scalar) s-channel state and report whether the preference for Set I survives; if not, the statement that kappa is indispensable is not robust.
  2. [Section II/III, Table I, after Eq. (3)] The model comparison is not on equal footing: g_kappa_pLambda and lambda_kappa are free parameters in Set I, while g_K_pLambda = 13.98 and g_K*_pLambda = 5.63, f = 18.34 are fixed from Ref. [14]. Thus Set I has one more free parameter than Sets II and III, which can account for part of the chi^2/d.o.f improvement. Please either refit Sets II and III with the corresponding couplings treated as free, or fix g_kappa_pLambda from an independent source, and quote an information criterion (AIC/BIC) that penalizes the extra parameter. Also, Set II and III parameter uncertainties are omitted from Table I, so the comparison is incomplete.
  3. [Section IV and Table I] The Summary states that 'the total cross-section experimental data provide hints of the presence of an excited vector state,' but the mass, width, coupling, and form-factor cutoff of R are all fitted to those same cross-section data. Reading the fit back as evidence for the existence of R is circular. At minimum the paper should present the R contribution as a phenomenological parametrization and should show a quantitative model-selection test, e.g., the change in chi^2 when R is removed or when its line shape is changed, before claiming that the data 'provide hints' of a new state.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 2, Refs. [2-10]] The fit procedure is not reproducible from the manuscript. There is no definition of chi^2, no enumeration of the data points included from Refs. [2-10], no treatment of the normalization uncertainties of the five legacy high-energy experiments, and no statement about which data sets were used in the differential cross-section fits. The quality of a global fit with chi^2/d.o.f = 1.3 cannot be assessed without this information. Please provide the data table or a supplementary file, together with the covariance matrix or at least the parameter uncertainties for all three sets.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section II/III] The abstract promises analysis of 'the polarization of the produced Lambda hyperon,' but the manuscript only shows total and differential cross sections. Either add the polarization results or amend the abstract.
  2. [Footnote 3 and Section II] Please correct typographical errors, e.g., 'exceess energy' should be 'excess energy' and 't-chanel' should be 't-channel'. Also label the variables in Eqs. (12)-(15) more clearly.
  3. [Table I and Fig. 2] Table I gives no uncertainties for Set II and Set III parameters. Figure 2's caption and axis labels contain garbled font artifacts in the provided version; please ensure the final figure text is clean. Figure 3 similarly has corrupted tick labels.
  4. [Section III, Set II/III discussion] The text states that K and K* 'failed to reproduce' the data, but no Set II or Set III curves are shown. A figure comparing the three fits, even in a small panel, would make the failure modes concrete and would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Secondary resonance 'hint' is an in-sample fit restated as evidence; the central kappa-dominance claim is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Summary), final paragraph; cf. Section II Eqs. (8),(10) and Table I]
    "In addition, the total cross-section experimental data provide hints of the presence of an excited vector state, which provides significance in the overall fit to the experimental results."

    The vector state R is introduced as an s-channel Breit-Wigner with mass m_R, width Γ_R, cutoff λ_R, and coupling g_RpΛ all fitted to the same total and differential cross-section data (Table I). Equations (8) and (10) define R's propagator and dipole form factor using these fitted constants. Therefore, the statement that the total cross-section data 'provide hints' of R is not an independent prediction but a restatement of the fact that a model containing a fitted R achieved a good χ². The data used for the 'hint' are the same data that fixed R. No out-of-sample observable—such as the polarization promised in the abstract—is shown to validate R, so the resonance claim is in-sample by construction.

full rationale

The central comparison (Set I vs Set II vs Set III) is a data-driven model-selection exercise: each scenario is fitted to the same cross-section data with the same R parametrization, so the χ² ranking is not circular. The conclusion that κ exchange is favored is supported by the fit, not by construction; the κ amplitude with fitted gκpΛ and λκ has a different analytic form from the K and K* amplitudes and yields a much better χ² (1.3 vs 4.8 and 19.3). The identical R Breit-Wigner is re-fitted in each set, so the comparison gives each t-channel meson its best chance. The only genuinely circular element is the secondary claim that the data 'provide hints' of the excited vector state: the R parameters were extracted from those same data, so the hint is an in-sample fit restated as evidence. Footnote 2 admits that the p̄p l=0 system could also have J^PC = 0^-+, so a pseudoscalar R was not tested; this is an untested-assumption/robustness concern rather than a circular step. The abstract's assertion that the vector resonance improves spin observables is unsupported by any displayed polarization data, which is a missing-evidence issue. The dipole form factor is justified by citing previous works, some with overlapping authors, but it is a standard modeling choice and not load-bearing for the central claim. Overall, the central kappa-dominance conclusion retains independent content, so the score is 5 rather than 6+.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim absorbs most of its dynamics from fitted numbers: six free parameters in Set I (g_kappa_pL, lambda_kappa, m_R, Gamma_R, g_RpLambda, lambda_R), an ad hoc dipole form-factor scheme with open cutoffs, imported K and K* couplings from Ref. [14], and the assumption that one fitted vector resonance suffices. The kappa-dominance conclusion is a model-selection outcome conditional on these choices, and the claimed resonance 'hint' is a restatement of fitted parameters. This is an honest-fitting paper, but the reader pays for the mechanism after the fact.

free parameters (7)
  • g_kappa_pLambda (kappa coupling) = 4.7 +/- 0.2 (Set I)
    Fitted to the p pbar -> Lambda Lambdabar data (Table I); enters every t-channel amplitude as g^2_kappa_pLambda (Eq. 12), so the kappa-dominance conclusion depends directly on this number.
  • lambda_kappa (t-channel cutoff) = 341 +/- 18 MeV
    Dipole form-factor cutoff for kappa exchange (Eq. 9), fitted; controls the size of the kappa contribution relative to R.
  • m_R (resonance mass) = 2258.0 +/- 6.5 MeV
    Fitted to reproduce the total cross section; later presented as a hint for an excited vector state (Eq. 8, Table I).
  • Gamma_R (resonance width) = 54.7 +/- 11.0 MeV
    Fitted Breit-Wigner width of R (Eq. 8, Table I).
  • g_RpLambda = sqrt(g_R p pbar * g_R Lambda Lambdabar) = 0.3 +/- 0.03 (Set I)
    Product coupling fitted to the data (page 4); no independent constraint is used.
  • lambda_R (s-channel cutoff) = 964 +/- 610 MeV
    Fitted cutoff in the s-channel form factor (Eq. 10, Table I); its 63% uncertainty is not propagated into the conclusions.
  • Set II and Set III parameters (lambda_K = 281.3 MeV; lambda_K* = 242.0 MeV; and their fitted m_R, Gamma_R, lambda_R, g_R = see Table I
    Fitted in the comparison scenarios that support the claim that kappa is more favorable; these fits are shown without uncertainties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Effective Lagrangian interaction densities (Eqs. 1-5) with the given Dirac structure, plus couplings g_KpLambda = 13.98, g_K*pLambda = 5.63, f = 18.34 imported from Ref. [14].
    The vertex structure and the numerical K and K* couplings are taken from the earlier NK meson-exchange analysis of Ref. [14]; the present paper does not derive or test them.
  • ad hoc to paper Form factors: dipole form F = (lambda^2/(lambda^2 - q^2))^2 for the t-channel (Eq. 9) and F_R = lambda_R^4/(lambda_R^4 + (s - m_R^2)^2) for the s-channel (Eq. 10), with cutoffs treated as free fit parameters.
    Section II states 'There is no unique theoretical way to introduce the form factors.' The chosen functional forms and fitted cutoffs shape the balance between kappa and R contributions, so the kappa-dominance result is conditional on this ad hoc choice.
  • domain assumption A single vector resonance R with J^PC = 1^-- and a Breit-Wigner propagator (Eq. 8) is sufficient to describe the s-channel content.
    Footnote 2 notes the l = 0 p pbar system could also be J^PC = 0^-+; the pseudoscalar option and multi-resonance options are not tested. The adequacy of one vector state is assumed.
  • domain assumption No s-channel resonance is needed in the near-threshold region because PS185 sees a smooth total cross section up to about 6 MeV excess energy (Ref. [12]).
    Invoked in the Introduction to exclude near-threshold resonances and to attribute the threshold rise to kappa exchange; this is an experimental input, not derived.
invented entities (1)
  • s-channel vector resonance R (J^PC = 1^--, m_R = 2258.0 +/- 6.5 MeV, Gamma_R = 54.7 +/- 11.0 MeV)
    purpose: Reproduce the high-energy total cross-section peak and improve the differential cross sections; identified speculatively as omega(3D) or omega(4S) in Section III.
    R's mass, width, and coupling are fitted to the data the model explains (Table I, Eqs. 8, 10), and the identification with omega(3D)/omega(4S) leans on theoretical mass spectra in Refs. [49-52]. The paper offers no falsifiable handle that exists before the fit: no predicted decay pattern, no independent width constraint, and no spin-observable prediction checked against data (the promised polarization analysis is absent from the body).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Role of $K^*_0(700)$ exchange in the $p \bar{p} \to \Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOHXMC73

@misc{pith2026250816912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Role of $K^*_0(700)$ exchange in the $p \barp \to \Lambda \bar\Lambda$ reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOHXMC73}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16912}
}
abstract

Based on the effective Lagrangian approach, we investigate the $p \bar{p} \to \Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ reaction. Within this framework, we provide a dynamical explanation by analyzing its total and differential cross sections, as well as the polarization of the produced $\Lambda$ hyperon. Incorporating the $t$-channel exchange of the scalar $K^*_0(700)$ and pseudoscalar $K$ mesons, complemented by an $s$-channel contribution from the vector excited state, we can reproduce the current experimental data fairly well in a wide energy region. Compared to the conventional $K$ and $K^*(892)$ mesons exchange, the $K^*_0(700)$ meson exchange plays a more essential role in simultaneously capturing the observed features of the total and differential cross sections. The introduction of the vector $s$-channel resonance improves the description of the spin observables. This work gives a perspective to inspect the role of $K^*_0(700)$ and serves as a test to search for the resonances in the reaction $p \bar{p} \to \Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ at threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The obtained total cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The obtained differential cross sections of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Mueller-Groeling, K

    A. Mueller-Groeling, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A 513, 557 (1990)

    work page 1990

  2. [1]

    X. Zhou, L. Yan, R. B. Ferroli, and G. Huang, Symmetry 14, 144 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    Badier, A

    J. Badier, A. Bonnet, P. Briandet, and B. Sadoulet, Phys. Lett. 7 B 25, 152 (1967)

    work page 1967

  4. [3]

    B. Y . Oh, P. S. Eastman, M. Z. Ming, D. L. Parker, G. A. Smith, and R. J. Sprafka, Nucl. Phys. B 51, 57 (1973)

    work page 1973

  5. [4]

    Jayet, M

    B. Jayet, M. Gailloud, P. Rosselet, V . Vuillemin, S. Vallet, M. Bogdanski, E. Jeannet, C. J. Campbell, J. Dawber, and D. N. Edwards, Nuovo Cim. A 45, 371 (1978)

    work page 1978

  6. [5]

    Musgrave and G

    B. Musgrave and G. Petmezas, Nuovo Cim. 35, 735 (1965)

    work page 1965

  7. [6]

    S. M. Jacobs et al., Phys. Rev. D 17, 1187 (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [7]

    P. D. Barnes et al., Phys. Lett. B 189, 249 (1987)

    work page 1987

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    P. D. Barnes et al., Phys. Lett. B 229, 432 (1989)

    1989

  2. [9]

    P. D. Barnes et al., Nucl. Phys. A 526, 575 (1991)

    1991

  3. [10]

    P. D. Barnes et al., Phys. Lett. B 331, 203 (1994)

    1994

  4. [11]

    P. D. Barnes et al., Phys. Rev. C 54, 1877 (1996)

    1996

  5. [12]

    P. D. Barnes et al., Phys. Rev. C 62, 055203 (2000)

    2000

  6. [13]

    Kohno and W

    M. Kohno and W. Weise, Phys. Lett. B 206, 584 (1988)

    1988

  7. [15]

    Haidenbauer, T

    J. Haidenbauer, T. Hippchen, K. Holinde, B. Holzenkamp, V . Mull, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C45, 931 (1992)

    1992

  8. [16]

    Haidenbauer, K

    J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, V . Mull, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C 46, 2158 (1992)

    1992

  9. [17]

    Haidenbauer, K

    J. Haidenbauer, K. Holinde, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. C 46, 2516 (1992)

    1992

  10. [18]

    Carbonell, K

    J. Carbonell, K. V . Protasov, and O. D. Dalkarov, Phys. Lett. B 306, 407 (1993)

    1993

  11. [19]

    Shyam and H

    R. Shyam and H. Lenske, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014017 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    D. V . Bugg, Eur. Phys. J. C36, 161 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Burkardt and M

    M. Burkardt and M. Dillig, Phys. Rev. C 37, 1362 (1988)

    1988

  14. [22]

    P. G. Ortega, D. R. Entem, and F. Fernandez, Phys. Lett. B696, 352 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    T. A. Rijken, V . G. J. Stoks, and Y . Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C 59, 21 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    T. A. Rijken, M. M. Nagels, and Y . Yamamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 185, 14 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 97, 032013 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Li, A.-X

    Z.-Y . Li, A.-X. Dai, and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. Lett. 39, 011201 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Baldini, S

    R. Baldini, S. Pacetti, A. Zallo, and A. Zichichi, Eur. Phys. J. A 39, 315 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Haidenbauer and U

    J. Haidenbauer and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Lett. B 761, 456 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Wang, S.-Q

    L.-M. Wang, S.-Q. Luo, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034011 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Bai, Q.-S

    Z.-Y . Bai, Q.-S. Zhou, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 094036 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Kim, S.-i

    S.-H. Kim, S.-i. Nam, Y . Oh, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 84, 114023 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Xie, H.-X

    J.-J. Xie, H.-X. Chen, and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. C 84, 034004 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Xie and J

    J.-J. Xie and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 82, 045205 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Xie, B.-C

    J.-J. Xie, B.-C. Liu, and C.-S. An, Phys. Rev. C 88, 015203 (2013), arXiv:1307.3707 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wang, Q.-F

    Y .-Y . Wang, Q.-F. L¨u, E. Wang, and D.-M. li, Phys. Rev. D 94, 014025 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Wang, L.-J

    Y .-Y . Wang, L.-J. Liu, E. Wang, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 95, 096015 (2017), arXiv:1701.06007 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J.-J. Xie, E. Wang, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 89, 015203 (2014), arXiv:1309.7135 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J.-J. Xie, E. Wang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 90, 025207 (2014), arXiv:1405.5586 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    L. C. Liu, Q. Haider, and J. T. Londergan, Phys. Rev. C 51, 3427 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    Xie, B.-S

    J.-J. Xie, B.-S. Zou, and H.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. C77, 015206 (2008), arXiv:0705.3950 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Xie, Y .-B

    J.-J. Xie, Y .-B. Dong, and X. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 92, 034029 (2015), arXiv:1506.01133 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhao, G.-Y

    C.-G. Zhao, G.-Y . Wang, G.-N. Li, E. Wang, and D.-M. Li, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114014 (2019), arXiv:1904.08569 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Xie, J.-J

    J.-J. Xie, J.-J. Wu, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055204 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Xie, B.-S

    J.-J. Xie, B.-S. Zou, and B.-C. Liu, Chin. Phys. Lett. 22, 2215 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Xie and B.-S

    J.-J. Xie and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Lett. B 649, 405 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0701021

    2007 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wang, J.-J

    E. Wang, J.-J. Xie, and J. Nieves, Phys. Rev. C 90, 065203 (2014), arXiv:1405.3142 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dai, S.-W

    M.-Y . Dai, S.-W. Liu, C. Chen, D.-M. Li, E. Wang, and J.-J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C 49, 063102 (2025), arXiv:2501.15153 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Wang, L.-M

    J.-Z. Wang, L.-M. Wang, X. Liu, and T. Matsuki, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054045 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Zhou, J.-Z

    Q.-S. Zhou, J.-Z. Wang, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034010 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Pang, Phys

    C.-Q. Pang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 074015 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Pang, Y .-R

    C.-Q. Pang, Y .-R. Wang, J.-F. Hu, T.-J. Zhang, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074022 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    J. C. Yang et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 317, 263 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    ZHAO et al

    H. ZHAO et al. , Sci. Sin. Phys. Mech. Astro. 50, 112006 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    J. Li, J. Yang, G. Xia, J. Liu, W. Zhan, and R. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2506.14132 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.