Pentaquarks and Maxim V. Polyakov

Hyun-Chul Kim

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Pentaquarks and Maxim V. Polyakov

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chiral-soliton fit with only the disputed Theta+ mass as input reproduces the measured N*(1685) mass and predicts a sub-MeV width for the Theta+.

desk verdict A memorial review with a small reanalysis that overclaims LEPS-over-DIANA discrimination; the framework is coherent and the review is honest, but the key numerical claim does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13292 v1 pith:GGXLAJZY submitted 2024-11-20 hep-ph hep-ex

Hyun-Chul Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords Theta+pentaquarkN*(1685)resonancechiralquark-solitonmodelbaryonantidecupletcollectivequantizationexoticdecaywidthSU(3)flavorsymmetry

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 brief review argues that a parameter-free fit of the collective chiral-soliton quantization to octet masses, with only the disputed Theta+ mass as an extra input, puts the nucleon-like resonance N*(1685) at its measured mass. The paper takes that agreement as support for the LEPS measurement of the Theta+ mass and for the reality of the light pentaquark. It also shows that the Theta+ decay width comes out naturally tiny, about 0.5 ± 0.1 MeV for the LEPS mass, close to the DIANA value. If the argument is right, the baryon antidecuplet picture first proposed in 1997 survives two decades of null searches and makes the narrow N*(1685) a pentaquark partner rather than an ordinary excited nucleon.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective collective Hamiltonian $H = M_{\mathrm{cl}} + H_{\mathrm{rot}} + H_{\mathrm{sb}}$ obtained by zero-mode quantization of the chiral soliton with hedgehog symmetry in flavor SU(3). Because hedgehog symmetry fixes the operator structure, the Hamiltonian is model-independent; only inertial parameters enter, and those are fixed by experimental octet masses plus the $\Omega$ and Theta+ masses, with isospin breaking included. The mass splitting within the antidecuplet is governed by the parameter $\delta$ through the formulas $M_{\Theta^+} = M_{\overline{10}} - 2m_s\delta$ and $M_{N^*} = M_{\overline{10}} - m_s\delta$, so one exotic mass input determines the nucleonlike partner. For the width, the axial-vector transition operator built from SU(3) Wigner $D$ functions yields the coupling $G_{\Theta NK}$, which vanishes in the small-soliton limit, making the width naturally small.

What would settle it

A high-statistics kaon-beam search (as proposed for $K_L p \to K_S p$ and $K_L p \to K^+ n$) that finds no narrow peak between 1524 and 1538 MeV with width below about 1 MeV would falsify the claim that the Theta+ exists and anchors the antidecuplet mass pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the Theta+ mass $M_{\Theta^+} = (1524 \pm 5)$ MeV from LEPS as input, the collective Hamiltonian of the chiral soliton — with parameters fixed from the octet masses plus the $\Omega$ and Theta+ masses — predicts the nucleon-like antidecuplet member at $(1690 \pm 11)$ MeV, consistent with the measured N*(1685) mass of $(1686 \pm 12)$ MeV. Feeding the DIANA mass $(1538 \pm 2)$ MeV instead gives $(1701 \pm 5)$ MeV, still within range. The paper states that this agreement supports the LEPS Theta+ mass measurement. For the width, the same framework gives $\Gamma_{\Theta^+} = (0.5 \pm 0.1)$ MeV for the LEPS mass, close to the DIANA result of $(0.34 \pm 0.10)$ MeV, and about 1 MeV for the DIANA mass; both are far below the original 1997 estimate of roughly 15 MeV and explain why the state is so hard to see.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on treating the disputed Theta+ mass as a real measured input; if the Theta+ does not exist, the agreement with N*(1685) says nothing about pentaquarks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If N*(1685) is the antidecuplet partner of the Theta+, then measuring one exotic pentaquark mass fixes the whole antidecuplet mass pattern, including cascade members near 2.0 GeV.
The predicted sub-MeV width means the Theta+ is intrinsically hard to produce and detect; high-statistics, high-resolution kaon-beam searches are the decisive test.
The 11 MeV difference between using the LEPS and DIANA masses shows that experimental precision on the Theta+ mass directly controls the predicted N* mass.
Neutron-target photoproduction channels are the favoured discovery channels for the nucleonlike state because its transition magnetic moment is much larger for the neutron than for the proton.
If correct, the original 1997 antidecuplet prediction is not ruled out by the CLAS null results; the model identifies which channels should show the state and which should not.

Reading between the lines

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

A decisive extension would be measuring the cascade member of the antidecuplet: the paper notes that the only existing signal (NA49) lacks independent confirmation, so a second measurement would test the mass relations without relying on the disputed Theta+ input.
Because the collective Hamiltonian is model-independent, the same mass relations should hold in any chiral-soliton model; checking whether Skyrme-type variants reproduce the same N* mass would separate the universality claim from the specific dynamical model.
The paper's Occam's-razor argument for N*(1685) could be sharpened into a quantitative comparison: conventional coupled-channel explanations predict different photon-beam asymmetries in $\gamma n \to \eta n$, which existing or planned data could discriminate.
If a future kaon-beam search sees no narrow peak, the antidecuplet interpretation fails even though the mass formula is internally consistent; the paper itself lists such proposals as the way to settle the question.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The honest one-liner: this is a memorial review with a small reanalysis stitched in, and the reanalysis is oversold. The new element is a side-by-side comparison: put the LEPS Θ+ mass (1524±5 MeV) or the DIANA mass (1538±2 MeV) into the collective Hamiltonian, and read off the N*(1685) mass. The paper claims the result supports LEPS over DIANA, but the numbers don't show that. With the LEPS input you get 1690±11; with DIANA, 1701±5; the reference N* mass is 1686±12. The DIANA-based prediction is 15 MeV higher but still within ~1.1σ when the errors are combined. No Δχ² or likelihood ratio is given, so "supports" is too strong.

What the paper does well: it is a clear, affectionate review of Polyakov's contributions, and the physics writing is honest in important places. The author explicitly lists the CLAS null results, notes the alternative non-pentaquark interpretations of N*(1685), and flags that the NA49 Ξ(1862) lacks independent confirmation. The collective quantization framework is laid out cleanly, and the decuplet masses in Table 1 are a legitimate internal check. The width discussion acknowledges Jaffe's numerical criticism and the subsequent refutation, which is the right way to handle that episode.

Soft spots, in proportion. The main problem is the LEPS-preference claim, which is not supported by the quoted numbers. Relatedly, the N*(1685) "experimental" value comes from Kuznetsov–Polyakov, not from an independent partial-wave analysis; it shares the pentaquark interpretation the paper is trying to validate. So the consistency check is weaker than it appears. The width result for Θ+ is stated without deriving the operator-to-width step; the reader has to take the χQSM result on faith. And of course the whole exercise assumes the Θ+ exists, which is the open question. That is fine for a review, but it means the paper cannot settle anything.

Bottom line: as a memorial review, it is worth publishing with a softened claim. I would not cite it as evidence for the Θ+, but the historical and framework review is useful for someone entering the pentaquark literature. It deserves a serious referee, mainly to catch the overstatement in Sec. 3 and ask for either a statistical measure or a downgrade to "compatible with both."

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a brief memorial review of Maxim V. Polyakov's contributions to pentaquark physics, centered on the 1997 Diakonov–Petrov–Polyakov prediction of the Θ+ baryon in the chiral soliton approach. After a historical account of the subsequent experimental searches, including the CLAS null results and continued positive signals from DIANA and LEPS, the paper presents an updated collective-quantization analysis of the baryon antidecuplet. Using M_Ω and either the LEPS or DIANA value of M_Θ+ as inputs, it computes the mass of the nonstrange antidecuplet member and identifies it with N*(1685). It also estimates the Θ+ → KN decay width and argues that a small width is natural. The central quantitative claim is that the calculated N*(1685) mass supports the LEPS Θ+ mass measurement over the DIANA one, and that the resulting width Γ_Θ+ ≈ (0.5 ± 0.1) MeV is close to the DIANA result.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful model-based consistency update on a long-standing controversy, connecting the predicted antidecuplet mass pattern to N*(1685) and reinforcing the old prediction of a narrow Θ+ width. The manuscript is commendably explicit about the controversial experimental status, lists alternative non-pentaquark interpretations of N*(1685), and presents the collective Hamiltonian in a self-contained way. However, the added value over earlier literature is limited: the main point is a two-input consistency check using disputed experimental values, and the paper does not supply a quantitative measure for the claimed LEPS preference. The framework itself is coherent, but the headline conclusion is stronger than the evidence shown.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Tables 3 and 4] The numerical basis for preferring the LEPS Θ+ mass over the DIANA one is not established. The two calculated N* masses are (1690 ± 11) MeV and (1701 ± 5) MeV, which differ by 11 MeV, i.e. about 0.9σ when the uncertainties are added in quadrature. The quoted experimental value, 1686 ± 12 MeV, agrees with both predictions within errors (about 0.3σ for the LEPS-based value and about 1.2σ for the DIANA-based value). The sentence 'These findings suggest that the experimentally observed N*(1685) mass [48] supports the Θ+ mass measurement from the LEPS collaboration' is therefore not supported by the quoted numbers; a Δχ², likelihood ratio, or equivalent statistical comparison is needed before such a preference can be claimed. In addition, the experimental anchor in the tables is ref. [94], not the LEPS reference [48] cited in the text, and ref. [94] is itself an extraction based on the narrow-pentaquark interpretation, so it is not an independent test of the framework.
[Section 4, Eq. (10) and Fig. 2] The central quantitative result that Γ_Θ+ = (0.5 ± 0.1) MeV for M_Θ+ = (1524 ± 5) MeV is not reproducible from the manuscript. The collective axial-vector operator in Eq. (10) is displayed, but no formula is given for Γ_Θ+ in terms of the coefficients a_i, no numerical values for a_i are listed, and the uncertainty propagation producing ±0.1 MeV is not described. As a result, the reader cannot verify the shape of the width curve in Fig. 2 or the statement that both the present approach and the χQSM produce small widths. A derivation or at least an explicit expression for Γ_Θ+ must be included before this claim can be checked.
[Section 3, input logic and Sec. 2 alternatives] The analysis adopts the existence and mass of the Θ+ as input and uses it to fix the antidecuplet splitting, so the resulting N* mass is a consistency check conditional on that input, not an independent confirmation of the Θ+. The null results from CLAS and other experiments are acknowledged in Sec. 2 but play no quantitative role in the assessment, and Sec. 2 explicitly concedes that N*(1685) has alternative non-pentaquark interpretations. The abstract and Section 3 should therefore be rephrased: under the pentaquark interpretation and assuming a Θ+ mass near 1524 MeV, the framework reproduces the N*(1685) mass. The present wording claims more than the conditional consistency check establishes.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3, around Eq. (8)] The text refers to 'the coefficients in Eq. (9)' for the representation-mixing amplitudes, but Eq. (9) in the manuscript is later used for the mass relations; the cross-reference should point to Eq. (8). The later reference to 'c^B_10 in Eq. (9)' should likewise be to Eq. (8).
[Section 4, figure numbering] The text says 'Figure 3 depicts the mass dependence of the decay width', but the width plot is Fig. 2, while Fig. 3 is the photograph collage. The figure numbering in the text should be corrected.
[Section 3, references] The experimental N*(1685) mass is cited as ref. [48] in the main text but as ref. [94] in Tables 2–4; these citations should be made consistent.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'desginate' after Eq. (3), 'Prasza lowicz' with an unintended space, and a duplicated '[67]' in the reference list. These should be cleaned up in a final pass.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The core N*(1685) mass calculation is not by-construction circular—N* is never an input—but the advertised 'supports the LEPS Theta+ mass' conclusion leans on a pentaquark-interpretation-dependent N* anchor and is an overstatement rather than a derivation.

other [Section 3, Table 2 and concluding paragraph; Section 2 identification of N*(1685)]
"the current approach yields N ∗(1685) masses that are in good agreement with experimental observations [94]. ... These findings suggest that the experimentally observed N ∗(1685) mass [48] supports the Θ+ mass measurement from the LEPS collaboration."

The N*(1685)=1686±12 MeV used as the experimental anchor is taken from Ref. [94], a Kuznetsov–Polyakov analysis that already interprets the 1.68 GeV structure as the narrow antidecuplet pentaquark partner of Θ+. The review's own Section 2 states the same identification ('This narrow resonance could naturally be identified as a neutronlike pentaquark belonging to the baryon antidecuplet within the χQSM'). Thus the 'supports LEPS' conclusion is not a fully external confirmation: the benchmark mass is extracted under the pentaquark interpretation being validated. This is a consistency check with shared assumptions, not a by-construction reduction of the Hamiltonian calculation, so it raises the score only moderately.

full rationale

The quantitative derivation in Section 3 is self-contained in the sense relevant to the strongest circularity patterns: the N*(1685) mass is genuinely computed from the collective Hamiltonian after fitting to the baryon octet, the Omega mass, and the Theta+ mass, with the N* mass itself never used as an input. The decuplet prediction is checked against PDG values, providing an external benchmark for the framework. Varying the Theta+ mass between the LEPS and DIANA values changes the predicted N* mass from 1690±11 MeV to 1701±5 MeV, and the quoted experimental anchor 1686±12 MeV is compatible with both, so the paper's claim that the N* result 'supports the LEPS collaboration' is statistically under-substantiated; no Δχ² or likelihood ratio is provided. That is an overreach, but it is not a by-construction circularity because the model output is not equal to any fitted input. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the use of Ref. [94] (Kuznetsov and Polyakov) as the 'experimental' N* mass: it is an interpretation-dependent extraction made under the pentaquark assumption the paper is advocating, and the paper itself acknowledges in Section 2 that alternative non-pentaquark interpretations exist and that 'additional experimental evidence is needed to definitively identify the nature of the narrow resonance N*(1685)'. Weighing those limitations, the central calculation retains independent content, but the supporting comparison is not as external as presented, giving a modest circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central consistency argument rests on a collective model whose dynamical parameters are fitted to standard baryon masses plus the disputed Theta+ mass. The existence and mass of Theta+ is a load-bearing ad hoc assumption. No new particles or mediators are introduced; the Theta+ and N*(1685) are taken from prior literature.

free parameters (6)

SU(3) soliton inverse moment of inertia I1^{-1} = 160.43 ± 0.26 MeV
Determined from experimental baryon octet and decuplet mass inputs in the collective Hamiltonian fit (Tables 3 and 4).
SU(3) soliton inverse moment of inertia I2^{-1} = 469.83 ± 6.71 MeV (LEPS input) / 475.49 ± 3.44 MeV (DIANA input)
Fixed by the mass splitting between the baryon octet and the input Theta+/Omega masses in the collective Hamiltonian.
Symmetry-breaking parameter ms*alpha = -262.9 ± 5.9 MeV (I) / -281.5 ± 6.3 MeV (II)
Fitted to octet and antidecuplet mass inputs, Eq. (3).
Symmetry-breaking parameter ms*beta = -144.3 ± 3.2 MeV (I) / -138.1 ± 3.1 MeV (II)
Fitted to hypercharge splitting in the octet masses.
Symmetry-breaking parameter ms*gamma = -104.2 ± 2.4 MeV (I) / -91.8 ± 2.1 MeV (II)
Fitted to spin-flavor splitting of the octet and antidecuplet.
Theta+ mass input = 1524 ± 5 MeV (LEPS) or 1538 ± 2 MeV (DIANA)
Chosen as the experimental mass of the disputed Theta+ resonance; serves as input to fix I2 and the antidecuplet center mass.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption In the large Nc limit, baryons are chiral solitons (Witten's picture), with valence quarks bound by a self-consistent pion mean field.
Foundation of the chiQSM used throughout; invoked in Section 3 via Ref. [79].
domain assumption Zero-mode quantization in SU(3) flavor with the constraint J8 = -sqrt(3)/2 yields the collective Hamiltonian (1) and restricts states to zero-triality representations.
Central to the mass formulas (9) and the wave functions (7).
ad hoc to paper The Theta+ resonance exists and its mass is given by the LEPS or DIANA measurement.
Used as input in Section 3; the existence is the very point in dispute, and null results (CLAS 2006) are not incorporated.
ad hoc to paper The narrow N*(1685) peak is a genuine resonance and is identified as the nonstrange antidecuplet member; alternative explanations (coupled channels, interference) are downplayed.
The identification is the paper's interpretive claim; the fit assumes it when comparing the predicted mass.
domain assumption The mixing coefficients in Eq. (9) and the form of Hsb are taken from Ref. [77] without re-derivation.
The numerical analysis relies on these prior results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pentaquarks and Maxim V. Polyakov." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGXLAJZY

@misc{pith2026241113292,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pentaquarks and Maxim V. Polyakov},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGXLAJZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13292}
}

abstract

This brief review is dedicated to the memory of Maxim V. Polyakov and his pioneering contributions to pentaquark physics. We focus on his seminal 1997 work with Diakonov and Petrov that predicted the $\Theta^+$ pentaquark, a breakthrough that initiated an intense period of research in hadron physics. The field faced a significant setback when the CLAS Collaboration at Jefferson Lab reported null results in 2006, leading to a dramatic decline in light pentaquark research. Nevertheless, Maxim maintained his scientific conviction, supported by continued positive signals from DIANA and LEPS collaborations. Through recent experimental findings on the $\Theta^+$ and the nucleon-like resonance $N^*(1685)$, we examine how Polyakov's theoretical insights, particularly the prediction of a narrow width ($\Gamma \approx 0.5$-$1.0$ MeV), remain relevant to our understanding of the $\Theta^+$ light pentaquark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13292 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The dependence of the decay width ΓNΘ+ for the Θ+ → KN decay on MΘ+ . The vertical shaded bars bounded with the solid and dashed lines denote the measured values of the Θ+ mass with uncertainties by the LEPS and DIANA collaborations, respectively. The horizontal shaded region draws the values of the N∗ mass with uncertainty taken from Ref. [94]. The sloping shaded region represents the present results of the MΘ+ de… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Upper-left panel: H.-Ch. Kim (left) and Dmitri Diakonov (right) in Gyeong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

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

Gravitational form factors of the deuteron
nucl-th 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

First chiral EFT extraction of the deuteron gravitational form factors; D2 and D3 disagree with model calculations, notably D3 is finite at q=0.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[48]

Nakano [LEPS], Nucl

T. Nakano [LEPS], Nucl. Phys. A 835 (2010) 254,

2010
[94]

New Narrow Nucleon N*(1685)

V. Kuznetsov and M. V. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 88 (2008), 347-350 doi:10.1134/S002136400818001X [arXiv:0807.3217 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[1]

H.-Ch. Kim, M. V. Polyakov and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4715, [arXiv:hep-ph/9509283 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1996
[2]

Diakonov, V

D. Diakonov, V. Petrov and M. V. Polyakov, Z. Phys. A 359 (1997) 305, [arXiv:hep-ph/9703373 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1997
[3]

M. V. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 555 (1999) 231, [arXiv:hep-ph/9809483 [hep- ph]]

arXiv 1999
[4]

V. Y. Petrov, P. V. Pobylitsa, M. V. Polyakov, I. Bornig, K. Goeke and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 4325, [arXiv:hep-ph/9710270 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1998
[5]

Goeke, M

K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47 (2001) 401, [arXiv:hep-ph/0106012 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2001
[6]

M. V. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114017, [arXiv:hep- ph/9902451 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1999

Show all 99 references

[7]

M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555 (2003) 57, [arXiv:hep-ph/0210165 [hep- ph]]. MaximPentaquark˙20241120˙Submitted printed on November 21, 2024 15

2003 arXiv
[8]

M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) 1830025, [arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[9]

Accardi, J

A. Accardi, J. L. Albacete, M. Anselmino, N. Armesto, E. C. Aschenauer, A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, W. K. Brooks, T. Burton and N. B. Chang, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 268, [arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Abdul Khalek, A

R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alexeev, F. Ameli and P. Antonioli, et al. Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022) 122447, [arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]]

2022 arXiv
[11]

V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, A. Afanasev, J. Arrington, M. Contalbrigo, W. Cosyn, A. Deshpande, D. I. Glazier, X. Ji and S. Liuti, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131 (2023) 104032, [arXiv:2211.15746 [nucl-ex]]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Amaryan, Eur

M. Amaryan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) 684, [arXiv:2201.04885 [hep-ex]]

2022 arXiv
[13]

Prasza lowicz, PoS CORFU2023 (2024), 063 [arXiv:2405.09926 [hep-ph]]

M. Prasza lowicz, PoS CORFU2023 (2024), 063 [arXiv:2405.09926 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Strakovsky, [arXiv:2405.13749 [hep-ph]]

I. Strakovsky, [arXiv:2405.13749 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[15]

Nakano et al

T. Nakano et al. [LEPS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 012002, [arXiv:hep- ex/0301020 [hep-ex]]

2003
[16]

V. V. Barmin et al. [DIANA], Phys. Atom. Nucl. 66 (2003) 1715, [arXiv:hep- ex/0304040 [hep-ex]]

2003
[17]

Barth et al

J. Barth et al. [SAPHIR], Phys. Lett. B 572 (2003) 127, [arXiv:hep- ex/0307083 [hep-ex]]

2003
[18]

Stepanyan et al

S. Stepanyan et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 252001, [arXiv:hep- ex/0307018 [hep-ex]]

2003
[19]

Kubarovsky et al

V. Kubarovsky et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004), 032001 [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004), 049902], [arXiv:hep-ex/0311046 [hep-ex]]

2004 arXiv
[20]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES], Phys. Lett. B 585 (2004) 213, [arXiv:hep- ex/0312044 [hep-ex]]

2004
[21]

A. N. Aleev et al. [SVD], Phys. Atom. Nucl. 68 (2005) 974, [arXiv:hep- ex/0401024 [hep-ex]]

2005
[22]

Chekanov et al

S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS], Phys. Lett. B 591 (2004) 7, [arXiv:hep-ex/0403051 [hep-ex]]

2004 arXiv
[23]

A. E. Asratyan, A. G. Dolgolenko and M. A. Kubantsev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67 (2004) 682, [arXiv:hep-ex/0309042 [hep-ex]]

2004 arXiv
[24]

R. L. Cool, G. Giacomelli, T. F. Kycia, B. A. Leontic, K. K. Li, A. Lundby and J. Teiger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (1966) 102

1966
[25]

R. J. Abrams, R. L. Cool, G. Giacomelli, T. F. Kycia, B. A. Leontic, K. K. Li and D. N. Michael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 259

1967
[26]

D. V. Bugg, R. S. Gilmore, K. M. Knight, D. C. Salter, G. H. Stafford, E. J. N. Wilson, J. D. Davies, J. D. Dowell, P. M. Hattersley and R. J. Homer, et al. Phys. Rev. 168 (1968) 1466

1968
[27]

R. J. Abrams, R. L. Cool, G. Giacomelli, T. F. Kycia, K. K. Li and D. N. Michael, Phys. Lett. B 30 (1969), 564-567 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(69)90458-4 16 MaximPentaquark˙20241120˙Submitted printed on November 21, 2024

1969 doi
[28]

Tyson, J

J. Tyson, J. S. Greenberg, V. W. Hughes, D. C. Lu, R. C. Minehart, S. Mori and J. E. Rothberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 255

1967
[29]

Golowich, Phys

E. Golowich, Phys. Rev. D 4, 262 (1971)

1971
[30]

L. C. Biedenharn, Y. Dothan and A. Stern, Phys. Lett. B 146 (1984) 289,

1984
[31]

SU(3) skyrmion,

M. Prasza lowicz, “SU(3) skyrmion,” in Skyrmions And Anomalies, eds. M. Jezabek and M. Praszalowicz, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987) 112

1987
[32]

J. Z. Bai et al. [BES], Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 012004 [arXiv:hep-ex/0402012 [hep-ex]]

2004 arXiv
[33]

Pinkenburg [PHENIX], J

C. Pinkenburg [PHENIX], J. Phys. G 30 (2004) S1201, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0404001 [nucl-ex]]

2004 arXiv
[34]

K. T. Knoepfle et al. [HERA-B], J. Phys. G 30 (2004) S1363, [arXiv:hep- ex/0403020 [hep-ex]]

2004
[35]

Y. M. Antipov et al. [SPHINX], Eur. Phys. J. A21 (2004), 455-468 [arXiv:hep- ex/0407026 [hep-ex]]

2004
[36]

M. Z. Wang et al. [Belle], Phys. Lett. B 617 (2005) 141, [arXiv:hep-ex/0503047 [hep-ex]]

2005 arXiv
[37]

D. O. Litvintsev [CDF], Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 142 (2005), 374-377 [arXiv:hep-ex/0410024 [hep-ex]]

2005 arXiv
[38]

Aubert et al

B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], [arXiv:hep-ex/0408064 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[39]

McKinnon et al

B. McKinnon et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 212001, [arXiv:hep- ex/0603028 [hep-ex]]

2006
[40]

Battaglieri et al

M. Battaglieri et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 042001, [arXiv:hep- ex/0510061 [hep-ex]]

2006
[41]

De Vita et al

R. De Vita et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 032001, [arXiv:hep- ex/0606062 [hep-ex]]

2006
[42]

Miwa et al

K. Miwa et al. [KEK-PS E522], Phys. Lett. B 635 (2006) 72, [arXiv:nucl- ex/0601032 [nucl-ex]]

2006
[43]

K. Miwa, S. Dairaku, D. Nakajima, S. Ajimura, J. Arvieux, H. Fujimura, H. Fujioka, T. Fukuda, H. Funahashi and M. Hayata, et al. Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 045203, [arXiv:0712.3839 [nucl-ex]]

2008 arXiv
[44]

Aaij et al

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

2015 arXiv
[45]

Aaij et al

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

2019 arXiv
[46]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 062001, [arXiv:2108.04720 [hep-ex]]

2022
[47]

Nakano et al

T. Nakano et al. [LEPS], Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 025210, [arXiv:0812.1035 [nucl-ex]]

2009 arXiv
[49]

V. V. Barmin et al. [DIANA], Phys. Atom. Nucl. 70 (2007) 35, [arXiv:hep- ex/0603017 [hep-ex]]. MaximPentaquark˙20241120˙Submitted printed on November 21, 2024 17

2007
[50]

V. V. Barmin et al. [DIANA], Phys. Atom. Nucl. 73 (2010) 1168, [arXiv:0909.4183 [hep-ex]]

2010 arXiv
[51]

V. V. Barmin et al. [DIANA], Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) no.4, 045204 [arXiv:1307.1653 [nucl-ex]]

2014 arXiv
[52]

Sibirtsev, J

A. Sibirtsev, J. Haidenbauer, S. Krewald and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B 599 (2004), 230-235 [arXiv:hep-ph/0405099 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[53]

Sekihara, H.-Ch

T. Sekihara, H.-Ch. Kim and A. Hosaka, PTEP 2020 (2020) 063D03, [arXiv:1910.09252 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[54]

M. J. Amaryan, G. Gavalian, C. Nepali, M. V. Polyakov, Y. Azimov, W. J. Briscoe, G. E. Dodge, C. E. Hyde, F. Klein and V. Kuznetsov, et al. Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012), 035209 [arXiv:1110.3325 [hep-ex]]

2012 arXiv
[55]

J. K. Ahn and S. H. Kim, Jour. Kor. Phys. Soc. 82 (2023) 579

2023
[56]

Amaryan et al

M. Amaryan et al. [KLF], [arXiv:2008.08215 [nucl-ex]]

2008 arXiv
[57]

M. J. Amaryan et al. [KLF], Mod. Phys. Lett. A 39 (2024) no.14, 2450063 [arXiv:2401.05887 [hep-ex]]

2024 arXiv
[58]

M. V. Polyakov and A. Rathke, Eur. Phys. J. A 18 (2003) 691, [arXiv:hep- ph/0303138 [hep-ph]]

2003
[59]

Kuznetsov et al

V. Kuznetsov et al. [GRAAL], [arXiv:hep-ex/0409032 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[60]

Kuznetsov et al

V. Kuznetsov et al. [GRAAL], Phys. Lett. B 647 (2007) 23, [arXiv:hep- ex/0606065 [hep-ex]]

2007
[61]

Elsner et al

D. Elsner et al. [CBELSA and TAPS], Eur. Phys. J. A 33 (2007) 147, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0702032 [nucl-ex]]

2007 arXiv
[62]

Jaegle et al

I. Jaegle et al. [CBELSA and TAPS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 252002, [arXiv:0804.4841 [nucl-ex]]

2008 arXiv
[63]

Jaegle, B

I. Jaegle, B. Krusche, A. V. Anisovich, J. C. S. Bacelar, B. Bantes, O. Bartholomy, D. E. Bayadilov, R. Beck, Y. A. Beloglazov and R. Castelijns, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 47 (2011) 89, [arXiv:1107.2046 [nucl-ex]]

2011 arXiv
[64]

Werthm¨ ulleret al

D. Werthm¨ ulleret al. [A2], Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 015205, [arXiv:1407.6974 [nucl-ex]]

2014 arXiv
[65]

Witthauer et al

L. Witthauer et al. [A2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 132502, [arXiv:1702.01408 [nucl-ex]]

2016 arXiv
[66]

Miyahara, J

F. Miyahara, J. Kasagi, T. Nakabayashi, H. Fukasawa, R. Hashimoto, T. Ishikawa, T. Kinoshita, K. Nawa, H. Shimizu and K. Suzuki, et al. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 168 (2007) 90. [67]

2007
[67]

H.-Ch. Kim, M. Polyakov, M. Praszalowicz, G. S. Yang and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 094023, [arXiv:hep-ph/0503237 [hep-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[68]

K. S. Choi, S. i. Nam, A. Hosaka and H.-Ch. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 636 (2006) 253, [arXiv:hep-ph/0512136 [hep-ph]]

2006 arXiv
[69]

K. S. Choi, S. i. Nam, A. Hosaka and H.-Ch. Kim, J. Phys. G 36 (2009) 015008, [arXiv:0707.3854 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[70]

J. M. Suh, S. H. Kim and H.-Ch. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 074010, [arXiv:1810.05056 [hep-ph]]. 18 MaximPentaquark˙20241120˙Submitted printed on November 21, 2024

2019 arXiv
[71]

S. H. Kim and H.-Ch. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 156, [arXiv:1806.01992 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[72]

Shklyar, H

V. Shklyar, H. Lenske and U. Mosel, Phys. Lett. B650 (2007) 172, [arXiv:nucl- th/0611036 [nucl-th]]

2007
[73]

Shyam and O

R. Shyam and O. Scholten, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 065201, [arXiv:0808.0632 [nucl-th]]

2008 arXiv
[74]

Doring and K

M. Doring and K. Nakayama, Phys. Lett. B 683 (2010), 145-149 [arXiv:0909.3538 [nucl-th]]

2010 arXiv
[75]

A. V. Anisovich, E. Klempt, B. Krusche, V. A. Nikonov, A. V. Sarant- sev, U. Thoma and D. Werthm¨ uller, Eur. Phys. J. A 51 (2015) 72, [arXiv:1501.02093 [nucl-ex]]

2015 arXiv
[76]

Boika, V

T. Boika, V. Kuznetsov and M. V. Polyakov, [arXiv:1411.4375 [nucl-th]]

arXiv
[77]

G. S. Yang and H.-Ch. Kim, Prog. Theor. Phys. 128 (2012) 397, [arXiv:1010.3792 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[78]

G. S. Yang and H.-Ch. Kim, PTEP 2013 (2013) 013D01,

2013
[79]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979) 57

1979
[80]

Pauli and S

W. Pauli and S. M. Dancoff, Phys. Rev. 62 (1942) 85

1942
[81]

T. H. R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys. 31 (1962) 556

1962
[82]

Diakonov, V

D. Diakonov, V. Y. Petrov and P. V. Pobylitsa, Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 809

1988
[83]

C. V. Christov, A. Blotz, H.-Ch. Kim, P. Pobylitsa, T. Watabe, T. Meiss- ner, E. Ruiz Arriola and K. Goeke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37 (1996) 91, [arXiv:hep-ph/9604441 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[84]

Diakonov, [arXiv:hep-ph/9802298 [hep-ph]]

D. Diakonov, [arXiv:hep-ph/9802298 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[85]

G. S. Yang, H.-Ch. Kim, M. V. Polyakov and M. Prasza lowicz, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 071502, [arXiv:1607.07089 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[86]

Blotz, D

A. Blotz, D. Diakonov, K. Goeke, N. W. Park, V. Petrov and P. V. Pobylitsa, Nucl. Phys. A 555 (1993) 765

1993
[87]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983) 433

1983
[88]

Guadagnini, Nucl

E. Guadagnini, Nucl. Phys . B 236 (1984) 35

1984
[89]

Jain and S

S. Jain and S. R. Wadia, Nucl. Phys. B 258 (1985) 713

1985
[90]

G. S. Yang, H.-Ch. Kim and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011) 214, [arXiv:1009.5250 [hep-ph]]

2011 arXiv
[91]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

2024
[92]

J. R. Ellis, M. Karliner and M. Prasza lowicz, JHEP05 (2004) 002, [arXiv:hep- ph/0401127 [hep-ph]]

2004
[93]

Ledwig, H.-Ch

T. Ledwig, H.-Ch. Kim and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 054005, [arXiv:0805.4063 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[95]

Alt et al

C. Alt et al. [NA49], Phys. Rev. Lett.92 (2004) 042003, [arXiv:hep-ex/0310014 [hep-ex]]. MaximPentaquark˙20241120˙Submitted printed on November 21, 2024 19

2004 arXiv
[96]

R. L. Jaffe, Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004) 221, [arXiv:hep-ph/0401187 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[97]

Diakonov, V

D. Diakonov, V. Petrov and M. Polyakov, [arXiv:hep-ph/0404212 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[98]

G. S. Yang and H.-Ch. Kim, Phys. Rev. C92 (2015), 035206 [arXiv:1504.04453 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[99]

G. S. Yang, H.-Ch. Kim and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 094004, [arXiv:hep-ph/0701168 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [48]

Nakano [LEPS], Nucl

T. Nakano [LEPS], Nucl. Phys. A 835 (2010) 254,

2010

[2] [94]

New Narrow Nucleon N*(1685)

V. Kuznetsov and M. V. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 88 (2008), 347-350 doi:10.1134/S002136400818001X [arXiv:0807.3217 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[3] [1]

H.-Ch. Kim, M. V. Polyakov and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4715, [arXiv:hep-ph/9509283 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1996

[4] [2]

Diakonov, V

D. Diakonov, V. Petrov and M. V. Polyakov, Z. Phys. A 359 (1997) 305, [arXiv:hep-ph/9703373 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1997

[5] [3]

M. V. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 555 (1999) 231, [arXiv:hep-ph/9809483 [hep- ph]]

arXiv 1999

[6] [4]

V. Y. Petrov, P. V. Pobylitsa, M. V. Polyakov, I. Bornig, K. Goeke and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 4325, [arXiv:hep-ph/9710270 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1998

[7] [5]

Goeke, M

K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47 (2001) 401, [arXiv:hep-ph/0106012 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2001

[8] [6]

M. V. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114017, [arXiv:hep- ph/9902451 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1999