Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 64 references

Exploring $K\Xi^*$ and $K^*\Xi$ molecular states and the triangle singularity in the $K^- p \to K \Xi(1530)$ reaction

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A proposed K* Ξ molecular state at 2150 MeV generates a triangle singularity that produces distinct spin effects in Ξ(1530) production.

desk verdict The paper gives concrete spin-observable predictions to separate a triangle singularity from a resonance in this reaction, but the distinction rests on assumed molecular states with a mass tuned to the data peak. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.29413 v1 pith:QZVN7SPG submitted 2026-06-28 hep-ph

Ke Wang , Fei Huang , Bing-Song Zou This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords trianglesingularitymolecularstatesK-preactionXi(1530)spindensitymatrixelementshyperonresonanceseffectiveLagrangian
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 models the K- p → K Ξ(1530) reaction using effective Lagrangians while treating the Λ(2050) as a K Ξ* molecule and introducing a K* Ξ molecule called Λ(2150). This molecular state produces a triangle singularity through K* Ξ π loop diagrams that contributes to the observed cross-section peak near 2.25 GeV alongside resonance production. The triangle singularity creates specific variations in the spin density matrix elements of the final-state Ξ* that do not appear in a pure resonance picture. These spin observables can be extracted from the three-body final state by applying a kinematic cut on the Ξπ invariant mass. The predictions offer a way to test both the triangle singularity and the existence of the K* Ξ molecule in future data.

What carries the argument

The triangle singularity generated by the K*, Ξ, π loop diagrams attached to the K* Ξ molecular state.

What would settle it

A measurement of the Ξ(1530) spin density matrix elements that either shows or fails to show the predicted strong variations specifically in the √s = 2.2–2.3 GeV interval.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Λ(2150) interpreted as a K* Ξ molecule with I(J^P)=0(3/2-) generates a triangle singularity via intermediate K*, Ξ, and π states that contributes to the reaction cross section and induces pronounced, energy-dependent spin effects in Ξ* that serve as a signature distinguishable from resonance production alone.

Load-bearing premise

That the Λ(2050) is a K Ξ* molecule and that a K* Ξ molecule exists near 2150 MeV and produces the triangle singularity in this reaction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin observables of Ξ* vary significantly with energy in the 2.2–2.3 GeV region when the triangle singularity is active.
  • These variations are absent when only resonance production is considered.
  • The spin observables can be reliably obtained from the pion angular distribution in the Ξπ rest frame after a suitable kinematic cut on the Ξπ mass.
  • The same spin signatures provide a test for the existence of the K* Ξ molecular state in data from J-PARC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of the predicted spin patterns would strengthen the case for using triangle singularities as probes of molecular assignments in other hyperon reactions.
  • The kinematic-cut technique for extracting spin observables from three-body final states could be adapted to related processes involving Ξ* or other resonances.
  • If the molecular state is present, similar loop effects may appear in photoproduction or other initial-state channels at comparable energies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the K^- p → K Ξ(1530) reaction in an effective Lagrangian approach. It interprets the Λ(2050)3/2^- as a K Ξ* molecular state and introduces a K* Ξ molecular state with I(J^P)=0(3/2^-) and mass ~2150 MeV (denoted Λ(2150)) that generates a triangle singularity via K* Ξ π loops. The peak near √s=2.25 GeV is analyzed as arising from either Σ(2250) resonance production or this TS mechanism. The central prediction is that the TS produces pronounced variations in the Ξ* spin density matrix elements (distinct from a pure resonance scenario) in the √s=2.2–2.3 GeV region, testable at J-PARC; a method is also given to extract these observables from the three-body K^- p → K^+ π^- Ξ^0 channel via kinematic cuts on the Ξπ invariant mass.

Significance. If the effective Lagrangian amplitudes, loop integrals, and molecular assignments are correct, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable signature (variations in spin observables) for distinguishing triangle singularities from resonant contributions in baryon reactions. This is a useful addition to the literature on TS mechanisms and possible molecular states, with the explicit comparison of TS versus resonance scenarios and the proposed experimental extraction procedure being particular strengths. The results remain exploratory due to the input assumptions but could guide future polarization measurements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and model setup] The mass of the proposed Λ(2150) is fixed at ~2150 MeV specifically to position the TS at the observed cross-section peak near √s=2.25 GeV. This choice makes the explanatory power of the TS mechanism dependent on an input parameter selected to match the data feature under study, reducing the independence of the prediction (see abstract and the discussion of the Λ(2150) state).
  2. [Results on spin observables] The central claim that TS induces distinct spin effects absent in a pure resonance scenario rests on the separation of the TS amplitude (from the K* Ξ π loop) from the resonance contribution; without explicit verification of the loop integrals and on-shell conditions in the results section, it is unclear whether interference or kinematic factors could alter the claimed distinction in the spin density matrix elements.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notation and definitions for the spin density matrix elements of Ξ* should include explicit formulas or references to standard conventions to improve clarity for readers.
  2. Figure captions describing the kinematic cuts for the three-body channel would benefit from additional detail on the precise invariant-mass window used to suppress backgrounds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The mass of the proposed Λ(2150) is fixed at ~2150 MeV specifically to position the TS at the observed cross-section peak near √s=2.25 GeV. This choice makes the explanatory power of the TS mechanism dependent on an input parameter selected to match the data feature under study, reducing the independence of the prediction (see abstract and the discussion of the Λ(2150) state).

    Authors: We acknowledge that the mass of the proposed Λ(2150) is chosen to align the triangle singularity with the observed peak near √s=2.25 GeV. This is a deliberate modeling choice to explore the TS as a possible explanation for the structure. The key independent prediction remains the distinct energy dependence of the Ξ* spin density matrix elements, which differs from a resonance-only scenario and can be tested at J-PARC irrespective of the precise mass value. We will revise the introduction and model section to explicitly state the rationale for the mass choice and to emphasize that the spin observables constitute the falsifiable signature. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The central claim that TS induces distinct spin effects absent in a pure resonance scenario rests on the separation of the TS amplitude (from the K* Ξ π loop) from the resonance contribution; without explicit verification of the loop integrals and on-shell conditions in the results section, it is unclear whether interference or kinematic factors could alter the claimed distinction in the spin density matrix elements.

    Authors: We agree that additional explicit verification would strengthen the manuscript. In the revised version we will add to the results section the explicit form of the K* Ξ π loop integrals, the on-shell conditions that generate the singularity, and a brief discussion showing that the separation of the TS contribution produces the reported variations in the spin density matrix elements. We will also note that interference with the Σ(2250) resonance does not erase the distinctive TS signature in the √s=2.2–2.3 GeV window. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper constructs an effective Lagrangian model assuming the existence of a K* Ξ molecular state with mass ~2150 MeV chosen to align the triangle singularity with the observed cross-section peak near 2.25 GeV, then computes the resulting amplitudes, K* Ξ π loop integrals, and Ξ* spin density matrix elements as explicit functions of √s. These spin observables are shown to exhibit distinct variations in the 2.2–2.3 GeV window compared to a pure Σ(2250) resonance contribution, with the distinction arising from the structure of the TS amplitude rather than reducing to the input mass choice by construction. The molecular assignments function as exploratory inputs whose consequences (including testable spin signatures) are derived independently; no self-definitional equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Ledger constructed from abstract only; full paper likely contains additional fitted couplings and diagram normalizations not visible here.

free parameters (1)
  • mass of proposed Λ(2150) = about 2150 MeV
    Chosen near 2150 MeV to locate the triangle singularity at the observed peak
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Effective Lagrangian approach is valid for describing the reaction and the molecular states
    Framework invoked for the entire analysis
invented entities (2)
  • K Ξ* molecular state for Λ(2050)3/2-
    purpose: Interpret the resonance as a hadronic molecule
    Stated as an interpretation
  • K* Ξ molecular state for Λ(2150) with I(J^P)=0(3/2-)
    purpose: Generate the triangle singularity
    Proposed with specific quantum numbers and mass

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring $K\Xi^*$ and $K^*\Xi$ molecular states and the triangle singularity in the $K^- p \to K \Xi(1530)$ reaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZVN7SPG

@misc{pith2026260629413,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring $K\Xi^*$ and $K^*\Xi$ molecular states and the triangle singularity in the $K^- p \to K \Xi(1530)$ reaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZVN7SPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.29413}
}
abstract

We investigate the $K^- p \to K \Xi(1530)$ reaction within an effective Lagrangian approach, exploring possible $K \Xi^*$ and $K^* \Xi$ hadronic molecular states and the role of the triangle singularity (TS). The $\Lambda(2050)3/2^-$ is interpreted as a $K \Xi^*$ molecule, whereas a $K^* \Xi$ molecule with $I(J^P)=0(3/2^-)$ and mass about 2150~MeV denoted as $\Lambda(2150)$ can generate a TS through triangle-loop diagrams with intermediate $K^*$, $\Xi$, and $\pi$. The peak structure observed in the cross section near $\sqrt{s}=2.25$ GeV is analyzed in terms of both the $\Sigma(2250)$ resonance production and the TS mechanism associated with $\Lambda(2150)$. We find that the TS induces pronounced spin effects in the final state $\Xi^*$, which can be probed through measurements of its spin density matrix elements. In particular, significant variations of the spin observables in the $\sqrt{s}=2.2$--$2.3$ GeV region serve as a distinct TS signature absent in a pure resonance scenario. Furthermore, for the three-body reaction $K^- p \to K^+ \pi^- \Xi^0$, we demonstrate that $\Xi^*$ spin observables can be reliably extracted from the $\pi$ angular distribution in the $\Xi \pi$ rest frame by applying an appropriate kinematic cut on the $\Xi\pi$ invariant mass to suppress background contributions. These predictions can be tested in future high-precision measurements at J-PARC, providing crucial insights into the nature of the TS and the possible existence of the $K^* \Xi$ molecular state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29413 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tree-level Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Triangle-loop Feynman diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Triangle-loop and (b) tree-level Feynman dia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total cross sections for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spin observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Angular distribution of the pion in the Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Angular distributions of the pion in the Ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Therefore, all angular distributions are normalized to unity at cosθ π =−1/ √ 3, as shown in Fig. 7. The three black dashed lines indi- cate the expectations forP Ξ∗ = +1, 0, and−1 (from top to bottom at cosθ π = 1). The blue dashed and green dash-dotted curves represent the triangle-loop and K ∗-mediated background amplitudes, respectively. The −1.00 −0....

  2. [2]

    Gell-Mann, Phys

    M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett.8, 214 (1964)

    1964

  3. [3]

    Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetr y and its breaking

    G. Zweig, (1964), 10.17181/CERN-TH-401

    work page doi:10.17181/cern-th-401 1964

  4. [4]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.639, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.02092 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015004 (2018), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 94, 029901 (2022)], arXiv:1705.00141 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A survey of heavy-antiheavy hadronic molecules

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Progr. Phys.41, 65 (2021), arXiv:2101.01021 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rept.1019, 1 (2023), arXiv:2204.08716 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 232001 (2010), arXiv:1007.0573 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    J.-J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C84, 015202 (2011), arXiv:1011.2399 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    W. L. Wang, F. Huang, Z. Y. Zhang, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C84, 015203 (2011), arXiv:1101.0453 [nucl- th]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J.-J. Wu, T. S. H. Lee, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C85, 044002 (2012), arXiv:1202.1036 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. L. Olsen, T. Skwarnicki, and D. Zieminska, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015003 (2018), arXiv:1708.04012 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 97, 123 (2017), arXiv:1706.00610 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Garcilazo and A

    H. Garcilazo and A. Valcarce, Symmetry17, 1324 (2025), arXiv:2508.11483 [hep-ph]

    2025

  7. [15]

    H¨ usken, E

    N. H¨ usken, E. S. Norella, and I. Polyakov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A40, 2530002 (2025), arXiv:2410.06923 [hep-ph]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 072001 (2015), arXiv:1507.03414 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys

    R. Aaijet al.(LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 222001 (2019), arXiv:1904.03947 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chen, Z.-F

    R. Chen, Z.-F. Sun, X. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D100, 011502 (2019), arXiv:1903.11013 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 393 (2019), arXiv:1903.11872 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    He and D.-Y

    J. He and D.-Y. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 887 (2019), arXiv:1909.05681 [hep-ph]. 10

    2019

  13. [21]

    Dong, F.-K

    X.-K. Dong, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Commun. Theor. Phys.73, 125201 (2021), arXiv:2108.02673 [hep-ph]

    2021

  14. [22]

    Wang, C.-W

    Y.-F. Wang, C.-W. Shen, D. R¨ onchen, U.-G. Meißner, B.-S. Zou, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D112, 074010 (2025), arXiv:2506.21858 [hep-ph]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Huang, J

    H. Huang, J. He, and J. Ping, (2019), arXiv:1904.00221 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Liu, Y.-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y.-W. Pan, F.-Z. Peng, M. S´ anchez S´ anchez, L.-S. Geng, A. Hosaka, and M. Pavon Valderrama, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 242001 (2019), arXiv:1903.11560 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wang, W.-L

    D. Wang, W.-L. Wang, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 045204 (2024), arXiv:2403.17756 [hep-ph]

    2024

  18. [26]

    He, Phys

    J. He, Phys. Rev. D95, 074031 (2017), arXiv:1701.03738 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zou and J

    B. Zou and J. Dai, Nucl. Phys. Rev.35, 369 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Lin, C.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, C.-W. Shen, and B.-S. Zou, Nucl. Phys. A 980, 21 (2018), arXiv:1805.06843 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S.-M. Wu, F. Wang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C108, 045201 (2023), arXiv:2306.15385 [hep-ph]

    2023

  22. [30]

    Ben, A.-C

    D. Ben, A.-C. Wang, F. Huang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C108, 065201 (2023), arXiv:2302.14308 [nucl-th]

    2023

  23. [31]

    J.-C. Suo, D. Ben, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C112, 065208 (2025), arXiv:2504.05811 [nucl-th]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Tian, N.-C

    W.-Y. Tian, N.-C. Wei, Y.-F. Wang, F. Huang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. C112, 055203 (2025), arXiv:2510.03673 [hep-ph]

    2025

  25. [33]

    L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.37, 62 (1960)

    1960

  26. [34]

    Wu, X.-H

    J.-J. Wu, X.-H. Liu, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 081803 (2012), arXiv:1108.3772 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Aceti, W

    F. Aceti, W. H. Liang, E. Oset, J. J. Wu, and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D86, 114007 (2012), arXiv:1209.6507 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wu, J.-J

    X.-G. Wu, J.-J. Wu, Q. Zhao, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D87, 014023 (2013), arXiv:1211.2148 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    N. N. Achasov, A. A. Kozhevnikov, and G. N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. D92, 036003 (2015), arXiv:1504.02844 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Du and Q

    M.-C. Du and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D100, 036005 (2019), arXiv:1905.04207 [hep-ph]

    2019

  31. [39]

    H.-J. Jing, S. Sakai, F.-K. Guo, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D100, 114010 (2019), arXiv:1907.12719 [hep-ph]

    2019

  32. [40]

    Guo, Phys

    F.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 202002 (2019), arXiv:1902.11221 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sakai, E

    S. Sakai, E. Oset, and F.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D101, 054030 (2020), arXiv:2002.03160 [hep-ph]

    2020

  34. [42]

    Molina and E

    R. Molina and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 451 (2020), arXiv:2002.12821 [hep-ph]

    2020

  35. [43]

    Sakai, H.-J

    S. Sakai, H.-J. Jing, and F.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D102, 114041 (2020), arXiv:2008.10829 [hep-ph]

    2020

  36. [44]

    Yan, Y.-H

    M.-J. Yan, Y.-H. Ge, and X.-H. Liu, Phys. Rev. D106, 114002 (2022), arXiv:2208.03943 [hep-ph]

    2022

  37. [45]

    Wang, S.-F

    K. Wang, S.-F. Chen, and B.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. D106, 094032 (2022), arXiv:2206.09308 [hep-ph]

    2022

  38. [46]

    K. Wang, R. Li, and B.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. D108, 094027 (2023), arXiv:2307.03372 [hep-ph]

    2023

  39. [47]

    Wang, Y.-F

    K. Wang, Y.-F. Wang, B.-C. Liu, and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D110, 094017 (2024), arXiv:2408.12965 [hep-ph]

    2024

  40. [48]

    Coleman and R

    S. Coleman and R. E. Norton, Nuovo Cim.38, 438 (1965)

    1965

  41. [49]

    Q.-Y. Guo, J. Liu, P. Wu, and D.-Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. C112, 065201 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  43. [51]

    D. A. Sharov, V. L. Korotkikh, and D. E. Lanskoy, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 109 (2011), arXiv:1105.0764 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kim, S.-i

    S.-H. Kim, S.-i. Nam, D. Jido, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D96, 014003 (2017), arXiv:1702.08645 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Xie, B.-C

    J.-J. Xie, B.-C. Liu, and C.-S. An, Phys. Rev. C88, 015203 (2013), arXiv:1307.3707 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Jacob and G

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, Annals Phys.7, 404 (1959)

    1959

  47. [55]

    Schilling, P

    K. Schilling, P. Seyboth, and G. E. Wolf, Nucl. Phys. B 15, 397 (1970), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 18, 332 (1970)]

    1970

  48. [56]

    D. W. Thomas, A. Engler, H. E. Fisk, and R. W. Krae- mer, Nucl. Phys. B56, 15 (1973)

    1973

  49. [57]

    S.-H. Kim, Y. Oh, and A. I. Titov, Phys. Rev. C95, 055206 (2017), arXiv:1702.05929 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Schmid, Phys

    C. Schmid, Phys. Rev.154, 1363 (1967)

    1967

  51. [59]

    V. R. Debastiani, S. Sakai, and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 69 (2019), arXiv:1809.06890 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Wang and B.-C

    K. Wang and B.-C. Liu, Phys. Lett. B813, 136019 (2021), arXiv:2012.11379 [nucl-th]

    2021

  53. [61]

    Wang and B.-C

    K. Wang and B.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. C107, 025203 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    J. P. Berge, P. Eberhard, J. R. Hubbard, D. W. Merrill, J. Button-Shafer, F. T. Solmitz, and M. L. Stevenson, Phys. Rev.147, 945 (1966)

    1966

  55. [63]

    P. M. Dauber, J. P. Berge, J. R. Hubbard, D. W. Merrill, and R. A. Muller, Phys. Rev.179, 1262 (1969)

    1969

  56. [64]

    Briefelet al., Phys

    E. Briefelet al., Phys. Rev. D16, 2706 (1977)

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.